The Sermon Joel Osteen Would Never Preach... by J.I. Packer

Dear Joel:

 I watch your television broadcast regularly. I like that you give people hope. In fact, sometimes I even feel a bit uplifted after hearing you speak. Life can be so overwhelming at times. There is so much pain and suffering. That you inspire people to keep going on despite hardship challenges me likewise to have that sort of impact on people. For that influence, I'm grateful.  


I came across this section from J.I. Packer's book, Knowing God (pages 93-97). I thought of you as I read it. I read this particular section almost fifteen years ago, and I've never forgotten it. I'd simply like to know how you would square your consistent preached messages of positive thinking and hope with the positive thinking and hope that J.I. Packer  presents. I don't mean that sarcastically at all. I really do think that what's expressed below is a different message of hope than you are expressing weekly.  

`Ecclesiastes' (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title, Qoheleth) means simply `the preacher'; and the book is a sermon, with a text ('vanity of vanities ...' 1:2; 12:8), an exposition of its theme (chaps. 1—10), and an application (chaps. 11-12:7). Much of the exposition is autobiographical. Qoheleth identifies himself as `the son of David, king in - Jerusalem' (1:1). Whether this means that Solomon himself was the preacher, or that the preacher put his sermon into Solomon's mouth as a didactic device, as scholars so conservative as Hengstenberg and E. J. Young have argued, need not concern us. The sermon is certainly Solomonic in the sense that it teaches lessons which Solomon had unique opportunities to learn.

`Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.' In what spirit, and for what purpose, does the preacher announce this text? Is it the confession of an embittered cynic, `a selfish and callous old man of the world who found at the end nothing but a dire disillusionment' (W. H. Elliot), now seeking to share with us his sense of the cheapness and nastiness of life? Or is he speaking as an evangelist, trying to bring home to the unbeliever the impossibility of finding happiness `under the sun' apart from God? The answer is neither, though the second suggestion is not so wide of the mark as the first.

The author speaks as a mature teacher giving a young disciple the fruits of his own long experience and reflection (11:9; 12:1,12). He wants to lead this young believer into true wisdom, and to keep him from falling into the `York-signal-box' mistake. Apparently the young man (like many since) was inclined to equate wisdom with wide knowledge, and to suppose that one gains wisdom simply by assiduous bookwork (12:12). Clearly, he took it for granted that wisdom, when he gained it, would tell him the reasons for God's various doings in the ordinary course of providence. What the preacher wants to show him is that the real basis of wisdom is a frank acknowledgment that this world's course is enigmatic, that much of what happens is quite inexplicable to us, and that most occurrences `under the sun' bear no outward sign of a rational, moral God ordering them at all. As the sermon itself shows, the text is intended as a warning against the misconceived quest for understanding: for it states the despairing conclusion to which this quest, if honestly and realistically pursued, must at length lead. We may formulate the message of the sermon as follows:

Look (says the preacher) at the sort of world we live in. Take off your rose-coloured spectacles, rub your eyes, and look at it long and hard. What- do you see? You see life's background set by aimlessly recurring cycles in nature (1:4 ff.). You see its shape fixed by times and circumstances over which we have no control (3: 1 ff.; 9:11 f.). You see death coming to everyone sooner or later, but coming haphazard; its coming bears no relation to good or ill desert (7:15; 8:8). Men die like beasts (3: 19 f.), good men like bad, wise men like fools (2:14, 17; 9:2 f.). You see evil running rampant (3:16; 4:1; 5:8; 8:11; 9:3); rotters get on, good men don't (8:14). Seeing all this, you realise that God's ordering of events is inscrutable; much as you want to make it out, you cannot do so (3:11; 7:13£ ; 8:17 RV; 11:5). The harder you try to understand the divine purpose in the ordinary providential course of events, the more obsessed and oppressed you grow with the apparent aimlessness of everything, and the more you are tempted to conclude that life really is as pointless as it looks.

But once you conclude that there really is no rhyme or reason in things, what `profit' —value, gain, point, purpose — can you find henceforth in any sort of constructive endeavour? (1:3; 2:11, 22; 3:9; 5:16). If life is senseless, then it is valueless; and in that case, what use is it working to create things, to build a business, to make money, even to seek wisdom —for none of this can do you any obvious good (2:15 f., 22 f.; 5:11); it will only make you an object of envy (4:4); you can't take any of it with you (2: 18 ff.; 4:8; 5:15 f.); and what you leave behind will probably be mismanaged after you have gone (2:19). What point is there, then, in sweating and toiling at anything? Must not all man's work be judged `vanity (emptiness, frustration) and a striving after wind' (1:14 RV)?-activity that we cannot justify as being either significant in itself or worth while to us ? It is to this pessimistic conclusion, says the preacher, that optimistic expectations of finding the divine purpose of everything will ultimately lead you (cf. 1:17 f.). And of course he is right. For the world we live in is in fact the sort of place that he has described. The God who rules it hides Himself. Rarely does this world look as if a beneficent Providence were running it. Rarely does it appear that there is a rational power behind it at all. Often and often what is worthless survives, while what is valuable perishes. Be realistic, says the preacher; face these facts; see life as it is. You will have no true wisdom till you do.

Many of us need this admonition. For not only are we caught up with the `York-signal-box' conception, or misconception, of what wisdom is; we feel that, for the honour of God (and also, though we do not say this, for the sake of our own reputation as spiritual Christians), it is necessary for us to claim that we are, so to speak, already in the signal-box, here and now enjoying inside information as to the why and wherefore of God's doings. This comforting pretence becomes part of us: we feel sure that God has enabled us to understand all His ways with us and our circle thus far, and we take it for granted that we shall be able to see at once the reason for anything that may happen to us in the future. And then something very painful and quite inexplicable comes along, and our cheerful illusion of being in God's secret councils is shattered. Our pride is wounded; we feel that God has slighted us; and unless at this point we repent, and humble ourselves very thoroughly for our former presumption, our whole subsequent spiritual life may be blighted.

Among the seven deadly sins of medieval lore was sloth (accidie)—a state of hard-bitten, joyless apathy of spirit. There is a lot of it around today in Christian circles; the symptoms are personal spiritual inertia combined with critical cynicism about the churches and supercilious resentment of other Christians' initiative and enterprise. Behind this morbid and deadening condition often lies the wounded pride of one who thought he knew all about the ways of God in providence and then was made to learn by bitter and bewildering experience that he didn't. This is what happens when we do not heed the message of Ecclesiastes. For the truth is that God in His wisdom, to make and keep us humble and to teach us to walk by faith, has hidden from us almost everything that we should like to know about the providential purposes which He is working out in the churches and in our own lives. `As thou knowest not what is the way of the wind, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not the work of God who doeth all' (11:5 RV).

But what, in that case, is wisdom? The preacher has helped us to see what it is not; does he give us any guidance as to what it is? Indeed he does, in outline at any rate. `Fear God, and keep his commandments' (12:13); trust and obey Him, reverence Him, worship Him, be humble before Him, and never say more than you mean and will stand to when you pray to Him (5: 1-7); do good (3:12); remember that God will some day take account of you (ii :9; 12:14), so eschew, even in secret, things of which you will be ashamed when they come to light at God's assizes (12:14). Live in the present, and enjoy it thoroughly (7:14; 9:7 if; 11:9 f.);present pleasures are God's good gifts. Though Ecclesiastes condemns flippancy (cf. 7:4-6), he clearly has no time for the super-spirituality which is too proud, or `pi', ever to laugh and have fun. Seek grace to work hard at whatever life calls you to do (9:10), and enjoy your work as you do it (2:24; 3:12 f.; 5:18 f£; 8:15). Leave to God its issues; let Him measure its ultimate worth; your part is to use all the good sense and enterprise at your command in exploiting the opportunities that lie before you (11:1-6).

This is the way of wisdom. Clearly, it is just one facet of the life of faith. For what underlies and sustains it? Why, the conviction that the inscrutable God of providence is the wise and gracious God of creation and redemption. We can be sure that the God who made this marvellously complex world-order, and who compassed the great redemption from Egypt, and who later compassed the even greater redemption from sin and Satan, knows what He is doing, and `doeth all things well', even if for the moment He hides His hand. We can trust Him and rejoice in Him, even when we cannot discern His path. Thus the preacher's way of wisdom boils down to what was expressed by Richard Baxter:

Ye saints, who toil below,
Adore your heavenly King,
And onward as ye go
Some joyful anthem sing.
Take what He gives,
And praise Him still Through good and ill Who ever lives.

God’s Sovereignty in Election motivates Evangelism and Missions

2 Peter 3:9 is a call to evangelism and missions without contradicting God's sovereignty in Election

The recent discussions and blogs about Rob Bell's new book , Love Wins and his heretical views gives us good opportunity to address these related issues on the gospel, heaven, hell, judgment, universalism, God's sovereignty, evangelism, and missions.

Context of 2 Peter chapter 3: The Second Coming of Christ (“Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4), judgment, fire (destruction of the present earth and atmosphere (2 Peter 3:7) and hell or the Lake of fire ( see also Mark 9:48, Matthew 5:22-30; Revelation 20:10-15; and Revelation 14:10 - unbelievers are tortured forever and ever in the presence of the lamb (!) ) the New Heavens and the New Earth (2 Peter 3:10, 13).

2 Peter chapter 3 is telling us the main reason why time continues to go on now.

Because God is not finished saving His elect people from all nations – Revelation 5:9 [notice that they are already, past tense, redeemed or purchased for God with the blood of the lamb!] (some out from every nation, people, tribe, and tongue”; Rev. 7:9 ; Rev. 21:3 (they are His “peoples” – a people from all peoples; some ancient manuscripts have the plural (Greek - laoi - λαοὶ )– which fits with Rev. 5:9 and 7:9) ; John 10:16 ("I have other sheep, I must bring them also; and they will hear My voice").

‘The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. “ 2 Peter 3:9

The Lord’s patience toward “you” (believers) includes the believers and their diligence in “making their calling and election sure” – 2 Peter 1:10, but also for them to be involved in evangelism and missions.

Dr. White showed the context and contrast between the mockers/skeptics/unbelievers (they) in verses 3-5 and that they are a different group from the “you” of verse 9. On the recent Dividing Line Program, at the end where he has a good discussion with a man named Lars, who is on his way, and growing in the doctrines of grace, it seems, but says he struggles with Irresistible Grace (or better, "effectual grace") the most out of the 5 points of Calvinism.

The Lord is patient toward believers (the elect in Christ, who already know they are justified and saved) to get on with being diligent in evangelism and missions, for the elect can only be saved if they hear the message and repent and believe.

“. . . regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation” (v. 15) – salvation for who? For those who have yet to repent (v. 9) , who will repent in the future at the preaching of the gospel.

The Delay of the Second Coming of Christ should motivate
1. Holiness and godliness ( 2 Peter 3:11-12, 14)
And
2. Evangelism and missions (2 Peter 3:9 and 15)

The elect among all nations who have not repented yet are not saved yet.
They must hear the message (Romans 10:13-15) in order to then repent and believe. (Romans 10:9-10)

"How shall they believe in Him in whom they have not heard?" And how shall they hear unless there is a preacher?" And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"
(see Romans 10:13-15)

2 Timothy 2:10 – “For this reason, I endure all things for the sake of the elect, in order that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it, eternal glory.” Notice the purpose of Paul’s suffering and endurance (see verses 8-9) is “in order that the elect be saved. They are not saved yet. We don’t know who the elect are. We must preach and teach and suffer and serve and endure and some of us should go and learn languages and be with people in an unreached people group that needs to hear the gospel in their own language. This is one of the clearest verses that show that God’s sovereignty in election motivate evangelism, and should motivate us to be willing to suffer and endure hardship in evangelism, discipleship, church-planting, and counseling and shepherding the flock.

The doctrine of Election does not save people, but election guarantees the results of our preaching and evangelism and missions – some people will be saved!

John 10:16 “other sheep I have, I must bring them also”

Acts 18:9-10 - “keep on preaching, do not be afraid, for I have many people in that city” (but they have yet to repent and believe in Christ)

Acts 13:48 - “they heard the message, and as many as were appointed to eternal life, believed.”

Acts 16:14 – Lydia was listening . . . “. . . And the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” This, in my opinion, is perhaps the clearest verse on effectual grace, otherwise known as “Irresistible Grace”.

“Evangelism and missions are not imperiled by the biblical truth of election, but empowered by it, and their triumph is secured by it. “ (John Piper, The Pleasures of God, Multnomah, 1991, p. 149)

On that same Dividing Line program, Lars was bringing up the issue of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem ( Luke 19:41-44) He (and many others) seems to confuse that with Matthew 23:37, which it actually does not say Jesus wept. Dr. White has a good discussion of that in The Potter's Freedom.

To help him think through the issue, Dr. White asked Lars, “Will God be weeping in eternity?”

“The tears of Christ are not tears of frustration of not being able to save them . . .”

In the John 11 passage, where “Jesus wept”, “they are the tears over the consequences of sin and His entering into our experience of death and separation.”

John Piper’s book, The Pleasures of God is one of the best books I have read on the issue of God’s delight and pleasure in His own glory and "being God"; and it is the deepest book on God's sovereignty that I have read. ( I am still on page 30 of Jonathan Edwards book, The Freedom of the Will, after starting it over 10 years ago! The syntax and sentences are just too cumbersome for me.) Piper explains how God can both delight in His own will in saving people from all nations, and delight in judging other wicked sinners. He shows how God does not delight in the death of the wicked. (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11) But Piper also shows that God also delights in His exercise of righteous justice and judgment in the death of the wicked. (Deuteronomy 28:63)

John Piper's book, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God's Delight in Being God


Piper discusses Psalm 135:6, Ezekiel 18:32, and Deuteronomy 28:63. The Biblical writers use the same Hebrew word in these passages for “delight” or “take pleasure in” or “please”.

The Lord does whatever He pleases. Psalm 115:3, 135:6

“The does not delight or take pleasure in the death of the wicked” Ezekiel 18:32
So this shows that God is not a sadist or a sinner, when He punishes the wicked by eternal death in hell. It is justice.

When God judges sin - “The Lord does delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you” (Deuteronomy 28:63)

“So we are brought back to the inescapable fact that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (that is the message of Ezekiel 18), and in some sense he does (that is the message implicitly of Psalm 135:6-11 and explicitly of Deuteronomy 28:63”. (Piper, ibid, p. 65, my emphasis)

“Election is the guarantee that God not only invites people to be delivered, but also actually delivers them. 'You shall call His name Jesus, because He shall save His people from their sins.' (Matthew 1:21) God undertakes with omnipotence to save His people. He plans it in election, and he achieves it through the work of His Son, and He applies it infallibly by His Holy Spirit through faith. The predestined are called, the called are justified, the justified are glorified.” (Romans 8:30) The destiny of God’s people, rooted in election, is unshakable sure.” (Piper, ibid, p. 143-144)

Peter goes on 2 Peter 3:15-16 to indicate that God's patience with the people of God in them getting out and serving and witnessing and evangelizing the lost, and God's work in saving people; and desiring their repentance, but also that He is sovereign in election and predestination, is what the apostle Paul has already written about. Peter affirms all of Paul's letters as Scripture. That would seem to point to passages that deal with the mystery of God's sovereignty, and His patience and goodness that leads people to repentance. We are reminded of such passages as I Timothy 2:4; Romans 2:4; 9:15-18; 9:22-24; and 11:22-26 that Peter may have in mind. (possibly also relating to 2 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians chapter 1; Colossians 1:24-27)

Peter exhorts the elect people of God scattered throughout areas of Asia Minor, Bythinia, Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia (1 Peter 1:1-2) [all areas in modern day Turkey] and 2 Peter 3:1 says it is the second letter he is writing to them.

Obviously God is omniscient, and has the events of the future fixed by His own authority (Acts 1:6-8), but it seems from a human perspective, Peter is exhorting the church that holiness, godliness, evangelism, and missions, make it seem like we are "hastening" (NASB, ESV) or "speeding" (NIV) the coming day of God. 2 Peter 3:11-12 Whatever that might mean, it certainly shows us in context one of the reasons why time continues until the second coming of Christ. God uses the means of holiness and godliness and service and love and suffering and evangelism and missions in accomplishing His purposes in the world.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat." (2 Peter 3:11-12 NIV)

Answering the charge of “rape” against the doctrine of God’s effectual grace (Part 2)

See Part 1,here..

Colin Smith wrote three articles on Islam and the doctrine of Qadr. (قدر Predestination; Sovereign Power; “measure”, “muchness”; and we get the Farsi words for “power” (قدرت) and authority اقتدار and “so much”, “much-ness”, “measure” قدر , almighty/absolute powerful one قادر مطلق , and “able”/powerful one” قادر , from this Arabic word.) Smith points out that in Islam; there is no real basis for Allah to predestine or elect or chose someone for salvation in Islam. Since there is no incarnation or atonement, and all humans are basically good, Islam has no foundation for its Predestination, except the capricious will of Allah. Because Allah just decides to forgive, without justice done against the sin, Islam also denigrates the Holiness and justice of God. In a practical way, it seems that since theoretically, a Muslim receives Allah's acceptance by faith plus good works, then it is based on the faith plus good works of the human; so one could also say it is based on the innate goodness of the person who does Allah’s will; that that is the basis. Yet, in the end, Allah decides, even the person keeps all the rituals, and obeys the Sharia law can be sent to hell. Serious Muslims who take their sin seriously have tortured souls; because there is no assurance; and they can never cleanse their hearts by external rituals.

See:
Part 1:  Predestination in Islam – The Doctrine Stated

Part 2: Predestination in Islam – "Analysis of Norman Geisler's approach"


Part 3 of “Predestination in Islam” – "A Reformed Critique"


Smith writes, “It is not the fact that God is able to decree a man's path and predetermine his final destiny that is the major theological problem with the Islamic view; rather it is the fact that God appears to do this without any reason or motive for so doing.” Predestination in Islam: "A Reformed Critique", www.aomin.org blog, 03/25/2007 - Colin Smith

God’s love demonstrated in the incarnation, and His substitutionary atonement provide the reason and motive for God’s Predestination in Christianity. Islam, by rejecting the incarnation and the atonement on the cross, have gutted the most amazing truths of God! They have no God of real love; and they have denigrated God’s holiness, because in Islam, “Allah just forgives when He wants to”, without any justice/punishment/blood sacrifice for sin. That is capricious and arbitrary because justice is denied and the holiness of God is trampled under foot. Islam does not have a high view of God’s holiness. That is why many men don’t see anything wrong with lusting in their hearts and they blame their lusts on women. Over the years, I have heard many a Muslim man say to me, confessing that they had sex with loose American college girls, “Allah knows I am weak; and I need the woman; Allah is forgiving.” And “Western woman, with her nakedness and showing too much flesh; it is like putting a juicy steak in front of me and saying, “You cannot eat!”

In Islam, Allah is merciful and compassionate, based on His will, not His nature. Allah does loving actions to those who love him first, but Allah is not love by nature. Allah loves those who love him and obey him, but the God of the Bible loves sinners; enemies, ungodly, and the helpless ones. (Romans 5:5-10) Allah in Islam, is not love by nature. Islam does not have a verse like I John 4:8 or John 3:16 or Romans 8:39 or Romans 5:5-10, that God loves sinners and that Christ voluntarily gave his life for them.

John 10:18 is one of the most important verses to know in witnessing to Muslims, because Muslims charge that “it is unjust for you Christians to say that God forced Jesus to pay for the sins of others.” John 10:18 demolishes that argument: “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down on My own initiative, I have authority to lay it down and take it up again.” The Father did not “force” Jesus; rather God the Son voluntarily out of love chose to come and be incarnated and freely gave His life for us on the cross. Beautiful!

Even when a Muslim seeks to obey all of Allah’s laws and will, the fact that there is no guarantee of Allah’s acceptance, produces a guilt and psychological pressure in the serious Muslim’s mind and soul. Allah chooses whoever He wants, but one can never be sure if He is chosen; and in fact, it feeds into pride and Pharisee-ism, because they can boast of their good works and inherent goodness to earn rewards of eternal life.

Because Islam teaches that all people are innocent and sinless at birth, and have no doctrine of inherited sin or total depravity, based on Surah 30:30; Islam gives serious Muslims the idea that they can earn their way to God by faith and good deeds and obedience and that they have the innate power to discipline themselves, leading to paradise; but still with one caveat, . . . Ensh’allah. (“If God wills.”) Many Muslims have said to me over the years, “Even if I keep all of the laws of Allah; He can still send me to the hell-fire if He wants to!”

This “pure and upright nature” is called “fitrah” فطره or فطرت , from Surah 30:30.

Smith points out, “In Islam, since all men are born with a pure fitrah, there appears to be no reason why God couldn't tell the jinn and the devils to leave His creation alone and allow all men to follow the way of truth leading to Heaven. Perhaps this is really why Muslims are not encouraged to think too long and hard over the doctrine of Qadar: the picture it paints of God is not at all flattering. Rather than a loving God who sacrifices His Son to allow some of those justly condemned to go free, the God of Islam is a capricious God who takes a group of innocent people and sends some to rot in Hell, and others to follow Him to Paradise.” (see here)

In Islam, humans are innocent in a sense, because they have innate power within themselves to reform themselves; and yet they are not innocent in another sense. To be fair, Islam does teach that humans sin; and they don’t believe those that go to hell are innocent. Muslims don’t believe that polytheists and “kuffar” - infidels, blasphemers, Christians who say that Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate, atheists, agnostics, adulterers, murderers, thieves, are innocent. At times, Islam seems to affirm an inherent nature of sin in the human race. Muslims do admit that man sins, is unjust (Surah 14:34; 33:72); and is ungrateful (14:34; 100:6), quarrelsome (16:4), and rebellious (96:6). Surah 16:61 even says, “If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature . . . “ But in the end, Islam seems to teach that man can clean himself up by discipline and reform himself by faith in Allah and the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and by doing the rituals and obeying Allah’s laws.

However, Islam does not teach that human hearts are by nature sinful and from the root evil and that we need a savior, someone to pay the just penalty (justice/wrath) for our sins. On the issue of the sin nature of man, and his need for a savior, this is where there is a disconnection with reality and a contradiction. Muslims do not see the need for the atonement, because they do not believe in the sinful heart and nature of man.

In Islamic teaching, humans are not “dead in trespasses and sins” and are not “by nature children of wrath”. (Ephesians 2:1-3) Muslims need to read the gospels and the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5, 6, and 7 and Mark 7:14-23 and Genesis 6:5, that says, “every intention of the thoughts of the imaginations of his heart is only evil continually.” Islam says you can clean up your life by discipline and following the Islamic rituals.

In Islam, the basis for Allah’s predestination is His capricious choice, but in Christianity, the basis of God’s election is His love that He demonstrated in actually saving sinners. (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2:4-9) “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) The basis for God’s judgment or reprobation of others is His justice. (Romans 9:14-24) God’s love is not a sentimental, mushy feeling. It certainly includes emotions, but is much more; it is action oriented and flowed from God’s nature and He expressed it supremely and ultimately in the incarnation and the atonement. The incarnation of Christ (Hebrews 2:14-17), and the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross actually objectively saves people from all nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9; see this bottom line of the drama of redemption - Genesis 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; 49:10; Psalm 2, 67; 96; Isaiah 49:6; Romans 15:20-21; Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:44-49)

Islam has no objective basis for election because it has nothing that objectively demonstrates God’s justice and love at the same time. The cross was where God objectively showed His holy love and His holy justice at the same time, by God Himself, the Son of God, willing to come and voluntarily become flesh and lay down His life for His elect people.

As Charles Wesley wrote in his famous hymn, “Amazing love, how can it be, that Thou my God shouldst die for me!??” It is very interesting that he and his brother John were Arminians theologically, yet the truth of how Biblically sound that Reformed theology is, could not help but be expressed in this song.

The fourth verse of this great song expresses the truth of God’s effectual grace in awakening and regenerating the dead sinner:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

All true Christians (Reformed and non-Reformed)are grateful for this effectual grace that changed our wicked and lustful and prideful and selfish hearts, so that we no longer hate God, but now we love God, because He first loved us. (I John 4:10, 19) “Rape”? No way.

Answering the charge of “rape” against the doctrine of God’s effectual grace -Part 1

The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, criticizes R. C. Sproul and the Bible’s teaching on “God’s Effectual Grace” and calls it “rape”. and "forced love" and says things like "cruel Calvinist Deity".

The very Biblical and Reformed teaching of God’s effectual grace, where He internally calls, draws, and changes the sinner, is anything but rape. God’s effectual calling is sweet love, grace, and joy. Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, “rape” or “spiritual rape”. Every truly born-again person who loves Jesus only loves Jesus because He first loved them, and all true regenerate believers are happy that God saved them and changed their stubborn heart and blind mind and rebellious wills. A rape victim is filled with disgust and shame and bitterness, and many times anger and hatred; but a Christian has a sweet love and gratefulness that God chose to change their hearts and fill them with His love. So the analogy breaks down immediately upon thinking about it a little.

The Grandverbalizer19 does not seem willing to acknowledge that calling God's loving, effectual grace as "rape" is totally wrong and offensive. In Islam, there is also a strong doctrine of Allah’s Sovereignty.
Our Muslim friend should see this, because he writes and prays at the end of many of his posts, "May Allah open the hearts . . . " etc.
Although Muslims deny that Allah does any injustice, it does seem like that Allah in Islam can sin and lie and is at least able to do wrong if he wanted to. There is a tradition where Allah says he has commanded that oppression or injustice is unlawful for himself!

“Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: My servants, I have made oppression unlawful for Me and unlawful for you, so do not commit oppression against one another.” Sahih Al Muslim Book 032, Number 6246

This Sovereignty of Allah, who seems to be able to sin and does deceive, is a much darker kind of Sovereignty than Calvinism. Calvinism is not really dark at all, but it seems that way to people who don’t understand it and refuse to take the time to understand what it actually teaches. Predestination is darker in Islam, because Allah actually does the evil and sins; Allah is deceptive (Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:22) and proud (Al Motakabir – “the proud one” - Surah 59:23) and Al Jabbar (59:23) (“the one who forces”; “a tyrant”, “a dictator”; usually translated “Almighty” or “the irresistible”.)

Muslims have also debated among themselves over Allah’s Sovereignty and human responsibility and the freedom of the will. Islam does not teach that human will is in bondage to sin (as the Bible does – John 8:34; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 8:7, John 8:43); but rather that humans have the moral ability and power to choose good over evil, given the right information and guidance. The different Islamic views of Allah’s sovereignty are seen in the different theologies of the Jabbarites, the Ash’arites, the Qadarites, and the Mu’tazilites, which is too much for this article. Do a google search and see if you can understand the details of these different Islamic views.

In Christianity, God does not have to command Himself to be good or loving or just or forbid Himself from being unjust. He is just and good and loving because it is His nature.

The God of the Bible, the Triune God; His effective grace in drawing and changing the sinner is similar in that sense that just as the Muslim prays for Allah to open hearts; we also pray that the God of the Bible, would open sinful hearts. (Acts 16:14; John 6:44; 65) The human heart is evil and hard until God opens it and changes it and replaces it with a soft, willing, and humble, moldable heart. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) In the Islamic view, the human heart is basically good and can choose to be good (Surah 30:30); in Christianity, the human heart is not able to choose good, until God opens it by changing it. (Acts 16:14; John 6:44, 65; see also Luke 24:45) I am glad God effectually and lovingly changed my stubborn, rebellious will! “to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:24) The atonement at the cross of Christ is foolishness and a stumbling block to the unregenerate. (v. 23)

What is the difference between Allah’s Sovereignty in Islam and God’s Sovereignty in the Bible?

God's grace and love shown in the incarnation and atonement and the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart are the differences in the Christian system so that all the glory goes to Him; whereas in the Islamic system the difference seems to be the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way, so practically, man can boast in the Islamic system. But in the Christian system, man cannot boast. Ephesians 2:1-10; I Corinthians 1:26-31 Another difference is the capricious nature of Allah, “Ensh’allah”, “if Allah wills, even if I do all of the law perfectly, he can still send me to the hellfire.”

But we have the promise of eternal life in the Bible, if we are truly born again, by repentance and faith in Christ. (I John 5:13; John 5:24; Mark 1:15; John 20:30-31; John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31)

However, Muslims are never assured of their salvation (or going to paradise) - it is all "Inshallah", even if one is perfect in following the straight path, only dying in Jihad is the only guarantee of paradise.

Do you see how this belief can cause the Jihadists Muslims to do the things they do, when there are all these commands to obey the law, and yet, there is no assurance of God's love and acceptance? The guilt within them, because deep down they know they are sinners, causes some to go on suicide missions like the 9-11-01 terrorists and other Jihad movements all over the world.

The main point is that you cannot accuse Calvinism of something it does not believe in.

God cannot sin or do anything against His nature; whereas in Islam, the will of Allah is above His nature. In fact, one cannot really speak of Allah as a “He”. Calling Allah, “he”, in a Muslim’s point of view, implies that Allah is male, and that is blasphemy in Islam. In 1994, on a street in Istanbul, I even had a Turkish neighbor tell me one time, “Allah is not “He”, Allah do not have penis; Allah is “it”! (I realize that is street level theology and quite crude, but the guy really said that. It is amazing the concrete and literalistic thinking in the mind of many Muslims.) Many Muslim theologians say that one cannot think about Allah’s nature; just obey His rules. The goal in Islam is not to know God (see John 17:3) or be conformed to holy character on the inside (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Cor. 3:16-18; Romans 12:1-2), but the goal in Islam is just to obey the rules, the law, the Sharia. Islam is “Pelagianism on steroids”; with no internal power or relationship with the Holy Spirit to obey God and be pure. It cannot create a just and holy society because it cannot change hearts.

The Westminister Confession of Faith states:

God's sovereign decrees

1. Do NOT make God the author of sin (because God is holy and pure and without sin always; see Titus 1:2, Romans 9:14; I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; Genesis 18:25; Isaiah 6; I Peter 1:15-16; Heb. 6:18; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; Psalm 85:10; 89:14; 92:15)

2. Do NOT do violence to the will of the creature - that is, there is no force or rape; rather God lovingly changes the will and heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; And God is continuing to change us in progressive sanctification and holiness, conforming us to His image (Romans 8:28-29) and He uses commands and exhortations as means of growing in this grace. Colossians 3:1-17; Romans chapters 6, 7, 8; Galatians 5:13-26) so that a person loves God and embraces Him - a true believer receives Jesus as Lord, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, The doctrine of the Trinitas Unitas, and the doctrines of the cross, the resurrection, etc. "My Sheep hear My voice" John 10:27-30

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]" (my emphasis)

See:

The Westminster Confession of Faith on God's Decree

See also, The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)


Continued.  Part 2 is here.

Three excellent sermons on God’s Sovereign Grace by John Piper in John chapter 6

1. Skeptical Grumbling and Sovereign Grace – John 6:41-51


http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/86/4404_Skeptical_Grumbling_and_Sovereign_Grace/


Excerpt:

“First, what does Jesus mean by “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”? If we just stay in the Gospel of John, and work our way out from the near context to the farther, what becomes clear is that Jesus means not that he draws everyone and then some of them provide the decisive impulse and come, but that everyone whom he draws actually comes. The drawing is the decisive impulse. We will see it again and again in this Gospel that this drawing is not at all in conflict with our choosing to come and our freely coming because we want to come. But his drawing is decisive. And without it no one would come.

5 Clarifications and Confirmations

Consider 5 passages which say essentially the same thing and confirm and clarify this understanding.

1.1) John 6:37. We saw this verse last week. “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37). In the flow of thought here between verses 37and 44, I don’t think there is any reason to view the Father’s giving people to Jesus (verse 37), and the Father’s drawing people to Jesus (verse 44) as different experiences. I think they are the same. And Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me”—not some of them will come to me, but all of them. So there is good reason to think that verse 44 means, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” because all that he draws, all that he gives, will come to me. The drawing is the deciding cause. Inside our seeing Christ as compellingly desirable is God’s drawing, God’s opening our eyes.

1.2) John 6:63-65. Here Jesus explicitly refers back to verse 44 and applies the truth of verse 44 to those who do not come, especially Judas.
He says, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Then John inserts, “(For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)”—a reference to Judas in particular. Then Jesus continues in verse 65 by referring back to verse 44. “And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’”
Notice the logical connection between what Jesus says in verse 64 (“There are some of you who do not believe”—like Judas) and what he says in verse 65 (“This is why—or on account of this, what I said back in verse 44—no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”). Because there are unbelievers—like Judas—that’s why I said no one can come without being drawn (verse 44) or being granted (verse 65) to come. If the Father’s drawing, or the Father’s granting (as Jesus means it in these verses), were something he did for all people, this would seem to make no sense. He would be saying, “I know that there is a Judas among my disciples, and that is why I told you that it takes a universal drawing of everyone for anyone to be able to come.” But a universal drawing of everyone doesn’t explain Judas. What verse 65 is saying is this: There is a Judas among my disciples, and that’s why I made the point that no one can come unless God draws him. God has not drawn Judas in this way. God has not “granted” him to come. He has left him in the rebellion of his greed and stealing and unbelief.”

2. They will all be taught of God – John 6:41-51
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/86/4430_They_Will_All_Be_Taught_of_God/

Excerpts:

From Every Tribe, Tongue, People, and Nation
These last words describe the scope of Jesus’ death as John presents it in this Gospel. Jesus died not just for one ethnic group, but “to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” This is a reference to Gentiles whom God will effectively draw to himself when they hear the gospel. They are called “children of God” because God has chosen them to be adopted, as Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5. So if this is a good parallel, then the all in John 12:32 is not all human beings, but “all the children of God.” “When I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all the children of God to myself.” From every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 5:9).
. . .
“How did he draw you? Here our focus is on John 6:45-47. After saying in verse 44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day,” Jesus says,
It is written in the Prophets, “And they will all be taught by God.” Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

Drawn by Being Taught

The answer John gives to how the Father draws people to the Son is by teaching them. “No one can come unless the Father draws him . . . . It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’” So the connection between drawing and teaching is clear. The drawn are the taught. They are drawn by being taught.
And the connection between being taught and coming to Christ is unbreakable. No one is taught and then decides not to come. The teaching produces the coming. You see that most clearly in the second half of verse 45.
Verse 45 says, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” (This is why I said this verse confirms our understanding of John 12:32.) Not some of them come. All of them come. So Jesus uses at least three phrases to describe how the Father draws people to Jesus. He calls it “being taught,” and he calls it “hearing from” God, and he calls it “learning from” God. “‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”

3. It is the Spirit that Gives Life – John 6:52-71

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/86/4438_It_Is_the_Spirit_That_Gives_Life/
Excerpt:

“But what does eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking the blood of Jesus mean? This was incredibly offensive language. It sounded like cannibalism. And it was especially offensive for Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries because the Mosaic law prohibited eating any flesh with the blood in it, let alone drinking blood itself (Leviticus 19:26).
The answer is the same thing we saw in John 6:35. There Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Coming to Jesus as the bread of life to still the hunger of your soul is the same as believing in him. That’s what believing is. It is being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus.

Now see the same thing with the more graphic language of flesh and blood. Notice the very close parallel between verse 40 and verse 54.

Verse 54: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Verse 40: “Everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

This parallel (just like the parallel in the first and second half of John 6:35) shows that, in Jesus’ mind, eating his flesh and drinking his blood are a figurative way of saying: Believe in me, trust me, receive me, get your nourishment from me. Get life from me. St. Augustine said, “Believe and you have eaten” (In Johan. Tract. xxvi. 1).

So the pervasive offer of this chapter from beginning to end is: Anyone may have eternal life if they will receive Jesus and trust in Jesus and treasure Jesus and be satisfied with all that God is for them in Jesus. Whoever feeds on my flesh—that is, whoever believes in me—has eternal life. I abide in you and my life becomes your life—forever.

Pointing Forward to the Cross

And we can be more specific about how Jesus gives us eternal life. When he says in verse 51, “the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh,” he is referring to giving his flesh as a sacrifice for the world. He is talking about his flesh and blood being given as a substitution for the world. In other words, he is pointing forward to the cross.

Remember he already referred to the cross in John 3:14-15 where he said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” So when he talks in chapter 6 about eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus, he means trust him as one who dies for you. Receive him as one who gives his life for you. Treasure him as one who bears God’s wrath for you (John 3:26). Feed on all that God is for you in him because of his suffering flesh and shed blood."

God's Sovereignty, History, and the Reformation

Darlene (Eastern Orthodox) wrote:

"Could not one use the same kind of reasoning as to why Islam emerged and flourished for why cults have become so popular in the U.S. or for that matter, why there are so many different Protestant denominations?

Your argument is: The Orthodox were a poor witness of the gospel by their actions and false teachings. Therefore, this led the way for Islam to emerge, becoming a driving force in the regions of the EO churches.

Now, apply it to the Protestant Reformation. The reason there are so many disputes/disagreements within Protestantism is because of the Reformation, when conscience and Sola Scriptura were put before the authority of the Church."


The short answer is that God in His sovereignty has allowed all the problems in history; both the rise of Islam and the Protestant Reformation and the dis-unity in Protestantism. But much of the dis-unity within Protestantism is a lack of applying Sola Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura itself. Local church authority with qualified elders and proper application of church discipline is certainly part of the need of the modern church today. The later flourishing of many different Protestant groups is more related to the breakup of the Medieval Synthesis and the breakup of the marriage between church and state and the freedoms of the modern world. The more unbiblical expressions of Protestantism put subjective experience and “conscience” before Sola Scriptura.

But ultimately, just as God allowed Islam to over run areas that were Christian, God, in His sovereignty has seen fit to allow all the disunity and false doctrines and violations of Sola Scriptura. (see I Corinthians 11:19) I will flesh this out more in future posts.

Also, if you back up and realize the disunity in Protestantism is not the fault of Sola Scriptura per say; but the false claims of Sola Scriptura with subjective experience and bad exegesis of Scripture.

But you need to back up a little in history on the Protestant Dis-unity. Peter Kreeft rightly lays the blame for the Protestant Reformation on the Roman Catholic Church itself, for failing to preach the gospel: “This is the root issue because the essence of the gospel is at stake here. How do I get right with God? This was the issue of the first century church at Galatia, a church Protestants see as making the same essential mistake as the Catholics — preaching the gospel of good works. Protestants dare not compromise on this issue or they would be turning to what Paul calls “another gospel”. Thus his harsh words to the Galatians, the only church for which he has not one word of praise:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel — not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. “ [from Galatians 1:6-9]

How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. “ Peter Kreeft, “Toward Re-Uniting the Church” (my emphasis) http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0028.html  (no longer there)
Update:  Unfortunately, Peter Kreeft has re-written his article, and for what I remember, Scott Hahn really criticized his statement here, and he then re-wrote this, which was in early editions of one of his books.  

Hank on Jeremiah 1:5...Well, Not Really

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

I listened to the Bible Answer Man Show for 2/12/07. Hank took a call from a guy asking about Jeremiah 1:5. Hank's answer, if you can call it that, did quite a dance around Jeremiah 1:5. In fact, I don't think Hank ever commented on the verse. Do you like philosophical speculation rather than Biblical exegesis? Then, you'll enjoy Hank's answer.The call i'm talking about can be found here:

The Bible Answer Man Comments on Jeremiah 1:5

The question was in essence, "If God knew people before He creates them, why would he create someone He knew was going to Hell?" The caller sees the verse directly says God knew Jeremiah before he was born, and further, that he was set apart by God before his birth to be a prophet. The caller makes the implication that if God knows and chooses someone before birth, that would mean that God knows and chooses everyone before birth to live a particular life, and some of those particular lives end up eternally apart from God.

After you listen to Hank's answer, you'll note one thing in particular: his answer was devoid of Scripture. Here would be a perfect place for Hank to use the analogy of faith- to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and also to show how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Is there a place in the New Testament that speaks to this issue? There certainly is:

Romans 9 (NAS)
9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Now, I like Hank and his work. But if his show claims to provide Bible answers, then by all means, he should provide Bible answers rather than philsophic answers.

Martin Luther: "Those who ascribe something to man’s freedom of will regard those things differently from those who know only God’s free grace"

March 1, 1517.

From our cloister in Wittenberg. Martin Luther, of the Augustinian Order. To John Lange

About Erasmus.

I am at present reading our Erasmus, but my heart recoils more and more from him. But one thing I admire is, that he constantly and learnedly accuses not only the monks, but the priests, of a lazy, deep-rooted ignorance.

Only, I fear he does not spread Christ and God’s grace sufficiently abroad, of which he knows very little. The human is to him of more importance than the divine.

Although unwilling to judge him, I warn you not to read blindly what he writes. For we live in perilous times, and every one who is a good Hebrew and Greek scholar is not a true Christian; even Dr. Hieronymus, with his five languages, cannot approach Augustine with his one tongue, although Erasmus views all this from a different standpoint. Those who ascribe something to man’s freedom of will regard those things differently from those who know only God’s free grace.

Source: Luther's Letters

I found this letter interesting for a few reasons. First, the date of its composition was March 1, 1517, months before the posting of the 95 Theses. Much debate surrounds when exactly Luther had his "evangelical breakthrough". Many scholars find Luther's understanding of Justification growing, and coming to fruition sometime after the posting of the 95 Theses. In this letter, it's obvious Luther was well on his to his understanding of justification, for "Those who ascribe something to man’s freedom of will regard those things differently from those who know only God’s free grace."

Second, the letter itself is understood best by a comment that Packer and Johnston make in their introduction to Luther's Bondage of the Will:

"Writing to Spalatin in October 1516, Luther had remarked that he considered Augustine the greatest exegetical writer and Jerome a poor second. Erasmus would have reversed the order. Erasmus followed Jerome in interpreting the justification by works against which Paul writes as merely justification by outward ceremonial observance. Luther, believing that any kind of effort or contribution man may attempt to make towards his own salvation is works-righteousness, and therefore under condemnation, preferred the thorough-going exegesis of Augustine, who magnifies the grace of God. If the person is changed, then- and only then- will the good works follow. Such was Luther's position."

Source: Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will [(Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R.Johnston),Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957, p.25].

One can see from this letter and background the two usual interpretations of Paul's letter to the Romans at work in the theology of Luther and Erasmus: Luther and the Protestants, affirming man's total helplessness and need of grace; Erasmus and Rome, interpreting Paul only to mean "ceremonial law", and assuming mankind's ablity to contribute to one's own eventual (or possible) salvation.

In December 1525, Luther makes this point in The Bondage of The Will, even questioning the salvation of Jerome when discussing what Paul means by "law":

"Paul's meaning is commonly escaped and avoided by saying that what he calls 'works of the law' are ceremonial works, which since the death of Christ are death-dealing. I reply: This is the error of ignorant Jerome, which, for all Augustine's strenuous resistance, spread throughout the world when God withdrew, and Satan prevailed, and has continued to this day; with the result that it has been impossible to understand Paul, and the knowledge of Christ has been inevitably obscured. Had there been no other error in the church, this one was sufficiently potent and destructive to wreck the gospel. Unless extraordinary grace has interposed, Jerome deserved hell rather than heaven for it—so far am I from having the audacity to canonise him and call him a saint! It is not true that Paul is here speaking only of ceremonial works; else, how will his argument to prove that all are unrighteous and need grace, stand good? For one could then say: Granted, we are not justified by ceremonial works; but a man can be justified by the moral works of the Decalogue. So your syllogism [Erasmus] has not proved that grace is necessary to all men. And how profitable, in that case, grace would be, delivering us merely from ceremonial
works, which are the easiest works of all, and can be screwed out of us by plain fear or self-love!Moreover, it is erroneous to say that ceremonial works are deadly and unlawful since the death of Christ. Paul never said that. What he says is that they do not justify, or in any way help man to free himself from ungodliness in God's sight. It is fully compatible with this that one can do them without doing anything unlawful. Eating and drinking are works which do not justify or commend us to God, yet he who eats and drinks does not therefore do something unlawful."

Source: Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will [(Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R.Johnston),Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957, p.284].

MARTIN LUTHER . TO A STRANGER Consolation to one doubting his election to eternal life.

July 20, 1528.

Dear sir and friend — I wish you above all the grace and mercy of God through his Son Jesus, our sole Savior. Some days ago, my brother, Caspar Cruciger, doctor of the Holy Scriptures, informed me that you were afflicted with strange thoughts as to God’s omniscience, and had become quite perplexed, so that it was feared you might take your own life (which may God Almighty prevent).

You find difficulty in believing that the Almighty knew from all eternity who should be saved, whether they were already dead, alive, or as yet unborn. Now, all must admit this, for He knows all things, and nothing is hidden from Him who counts the stars in the heavens, the leaves of the trees, nay, even the hairs of men’s heads, from all which you seem to fancy you may do what you will, good or evil, for if God has ordained whether you shall be saved or not (which is true)your thoughts are more taken up with damnation than salvation, and you sink into despair and become a prey to despondency. So I, as my Lord Christ’s servant, send this letter of consolation to let you know God’s thoughts towards you, whether you be destined to blessedness or perdition.

Although the Almighty knows everything, and no one can go against the decrees of His will, still it is His earnest desire, nay command, decreed from all eternity, that all men should be partakers of everlasting joy, as is clearly seen from Ezekiel 28:23 — “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord; and not that he should return from his ways, and live?”

Seeing He desires the salvation of sinners, who swarm beneath heaven’s lofty vault, why will you with your foolish thoughts prompted by Satan separate yourself from them, thereby cutting yourself off from the grace of God? “For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is His mercy toward them that fear Him,” and cry for help. For He is rich toward all who call upon Him. But it is only strong filth which can drive away such despairing thoughts as in Romans 3:22, “Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe.” Mark these words: unto all , and upon all . If not among that number, at least you can reckon yourself among the sinners, which is a greater reason that you should pray and be certain of the answer should God delay coming speedily to your help; for He will never forsake those who call upon Him, nor fail to drive away your despairing doubts which are the fiery darts of the devil and his emissaries. Why wander in false ways when so good and straight a path is before you, and the Father cries, “This is my beloved Son!” Listen to His counsel! And even although in your despair you were so hardened as not to hear God’s voice, you cannot overlook that of the Son, who stands across the path which all must tread, crying in trumpet-like tones, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” He not only uses the word “come,” but “all.” No one is excluded, no matter how wicked he be. So, seeing all may come, do you run with them, leap and spring, and do not remain among those lost crowds.

Further, He says “to me !” who knows every foot of the way, and will not let thy foot slide. Why wander aimlessly about? But who are to come? The weary and heavy laden! And what kind of company would that be? I do not know Messrs. Weary and Heavy Laden. They ought to have high-sounding names, such as burgher-master, and such like — these master minds, who love to grovel in God’s Word with their human reason, like the sow in a turnip field ! Not at all. It is he who is weary and heavy laden, borne down with sad thoughts direct from the Evil One, who is called, — the man who does not know to what hand to turn, and is ready to sink into despair. So that is why He says “heavy laden,” as if He had known our burdens, and wished to help us to bear them, nay, even relieve us of them entirely.

And consider that God Almighty created and elected us, not to damnation, but to everlasting life, even as the angels in the first sermon proclaimed to the shepherds on the field: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!” And it was inner, not bodily peace they meant. It was not from those who injured them, but from the world, the flesh, and the devil, they were to be delivered. Hence one can see from the Scriptures how great is God’s mercy, and these and such like thoughts can enable him to form an opinion as to God’s foreseeing, and then there is no occasion for a man to torture himself, nor would it avail even were he to worry his flesh from his bones.

What business is it of yours that God causes the dear sun to shine over good and bad, over arid and green? God has ordained that the sun should endue the moisture of the ground with its vital powers, thus causing the roots and branches of the trees to fructify and yield fruit. And if a dried-up tree should nevertheless remain impervious to the rays of the sun, still the tree is not so much at fault as the soil which is marshy. For “good ground, good corn,” as the proverb says. Thus, where the preaching is good and full of consolation, there are sure to be tender consciences and joyful hearts. Therefore as you cannot hinder the natural sun, which is a tiny spark compared to the starry firmament, — the smallest star being larger than the whole world, — from spreading her rays abroad, still less can you limit God’s grace, being fathomless, having neither beginning nor end.

Dear one, do not reckon so close with God. Fancy if the Son of God had asked the high priests and Levites at the crucifixion if He should receive the malefactor into Heaven, what would they have said? Doubtless the answer would have been: “If thieves and murderers desire to enter Heaven we do not object,” and might have added, “If he belong to Paradise we should not have hung him upon a gallows, and it is as likely he will enter Heaven as that you are God.”

Thus speaks a scornful world and man’s reason.

How well Christ answered His disciples who asked, as John lay asleep on His bosom, “What shall this man do ?” “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” as if to warn him not to fall. “Let every one sweep before his own door, and then we shall be saved!” This would prevent much heart-burning as to what God in the eternal counsel of His will has decreed concerning those who should be saved or lost. He who will not accept a certainty for an uncertainty will at length come away emptyhanded, besides being the object of ridicule. He who will not be counselled in time and despises God’s Word will fall a prey to a raging devil as sure as God is God. If things went with us according to our thoughts, prompted by the flesh and the devil, we should all be given over to death, therefore we have the word of promise: “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”

If we persevere to the end we may console ourselves that devilish thoughts shall be expelled, and we may raise our hearts in faith to God, and be certain that we have received forgiveness of sins, and shall be, nay, are justified, according to Christ’s promise, by faith of Jesus Christ, as St. Paul testifies in Galatians 3:22.

That is when we are cast down, and every path seems shut up to us, we shall once more stand erect in faith, resting on God’s promises of Christ, or in Christ. Amen.

Prayer, Predestination, and Evil, the Basics.

Question:
“Ok, I really don't want to start a debate or anything, just an answer and I'll return to my supposedly “evil” catholic ways. If everything is completely predestined then after one is "saved" what is the purpose of asking God for something in prayer? If everything is predestined should God not already know our need and whims? Another question...why the creation of evil, or the need for a final battle?”

Now I love questions like these, whether they come via cyberspace, from a coworker, or a relative. These are opportunities not only to answer with kindness, but also to point to answers found in the Bible rather than in the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. With Roman Catholics, the emphasis in the discussion should gravitate on the ultimate authority of Scripture. A Roman Catholic believes that God has spoken in the Bible, so the answers should provoke them to read the Bible.

Church history is replete with debate over predestination and God's sovereignty. Think of it this way: great struggles with particular aspects of the Christian faith are well worth the effort. Sometimes we need to wrestle with God.

You ask, “If everything is completely predestined then after one is "saved" what is the purpose of asking God for something in prayer?” The first and foremost reason a Christian must pray is the Bible commands us to do so. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 tells Christians to pray continually. Ephesians 6:18 states, "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions". There is deep mystery in prayer- how could there not be? The finite human is speaking to the infinite God of the universe. Whether or not we can understand the relationship between how our prayers and an infinite God who knows everything “works” does not alleviate a Christian from the Biblical exhortation to pray.

You ask, “If everything is predestined should God not already know our need and whims?” Indeed, God does know everything; even Roman Catholic theology admits this. God, because He is omniscient, must know everything. If He didn't, He wouldn't be God. Remember what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 6:8: "Your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Here we come face to face with a deep mystery of God. The Bible tells us That God knows our needs beforehand. This is a great comfort to a Christian. The God of the Bible is not caught off-guard by anything that occurs in this world.

You ask, “why the creation of evil, or the need for a final battle?” Again, there is deep mystery in the existence of evil. There is no totally satisfactory answer this side of heaven that explains completely how a sovereign all-good God and evil both exist. But we do have some knowledge revealed to us from the pages of the Bible that explain the existence of evil. We know, that ultimately all of reality and the universe culminate in God's glory as Revelation 22 describes. Romans 8:28 states "We know that in all things God works for the good..." in describing the life of a Christian. After going through a myriad of "evil" circumstances Joseph declares to his brothers in Genesis 50, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." So, in all circumstances, the evil that occurs happens for a reason: God uses it for a good purpose. Even the worst event in all human history was predetermined by God: Christ was handed over to wicked men by God's set purpose (Acts 2:23). What was the most evil act committed in human history is used by God for the most glorious act in human history: the redemption of the world.

Well, how did this Catholic respond? She stated, “Thank you for the responses, they cleared some things up, I am very surprised at the kindness, I am very curious about Calvinism but I usually am met with anger and rudeness, this was a nice change.”

It is possible to tell people the truth in love. My prayer for this woman is that the answers provoke her to search the pages of Scripture rather than the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These answers only scratch the surface, highlighting my own “wrestling” with the Bible. I am Calvinist because of the Biblical text: It says what it says. I may not understand all of the Biblical mysteries totally, but to be obedient to God I believe what is revealed. I respect anyone who grapples with these types of questions. I have had many friends who have hated the type of answers I gave, only to hear them tell me years later that what they once hated became the sweetest of all comfort.

Luther, Basil, Michuta, and 1st Century Indians

I’m going to be away from the blog for a few days, so I’m going to leave a few snippets of what I’ve been thinking about. I just wanted to first thank everyone for stopping by. You've all been a blessing to me, whether you wanted to or not.


Item #1 Michuta on Luther
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has started a new website. I saw Gary a few years ago when he debated James White on the apocrypha. He’s taken up the theme of the validity of the apocrypha on his new site.

When you click on the link for his material on the apocrypha, one of the first things you’ll find is a big picture of Martin Luther and this Luther quote: “ "...[Maccabees] has weight with the faithful, but it avails nothing with the obstinate." Now, what is Gary trying to prove? Does he really think Luther held a lifelong commitment to the canonicity of Maccabees? It’s fairly sad when one of the first items on webpage purporting to provide "truth" is a misuse of a Luther quote.

Gary Michuta gives the reference for this quote as "Martin Luther, Second Liepzig Disputation, July 8, 1519." Now, i'm not the best speller, but it's "Leipzig", not "Liepzig". Also, I don't think you will find this quote in the English edition of Luther's Works. I did a quick check, and couldn't find anything.

The topic of debate on July 8, 1519 was purgatory. Catholic apologetic references point out that Luther challenged the canonicty of Maccabees during this debate. The Luther quote Michuta uses implies Luther accepted the canonicity of the book during the Disputation. I would challenge Gary to produce a context, produce a reference, correct his spelling, or delete the Luther quote entirely from his website. If Gary wants Protestants to take his work seriously, he should at least quote Luther correctly. If he's simply putting out "shock" apologetics and using Luther as a pawn, then I will treat his work accordingly. Perhaps one of my Catholic readers can mention this to Gary. I think it's embarrassing.

Item #2 St Basil on Tradition

I came across this quote in a book I’ve been reading:

“Gratian cites an important text from St. Basil’s On The Holy Spirit that claims a mystical and secret tradition coming down from the fathers. Toward the end of the thirteenth century, St. Thomas recognized the existence of such a tradition but did not define its nature. He asserted that the apostles had believed certain things that must be preserved which were not left in scriptures but in the care of the Church through the succession of the faithful.” (John Headley, Luther’s View of Church History, 76).

Sounds Gnostic doesn't it? Secret tradition? Mystical? Yeah, that sounds like the Bible (I mean that with heavy sarcasm). For those of you with the King/Webster Holy Scripture 3 volume set, refer to pages 143-146 in volume 2 for some excellent research on this subject. Webster shows the misuse of Basil by Catholic apologetics, provides context, and clarifies the text. Also check out Colossians 2:8. When I get back, i'm going to write something up on this.

Item #3 Apolonio on the Fairness of God.
It’s been nice having Apolonio Latar around the last few days. He mentioned this:

“…[A] certain religious man in the Americas in the first century who does not know Christ but follows truth the best he can. Does this mean that his ignorance saves him? No. It just means that he is not held accountable for his ignorance. The judgment of this man is God's. *Can* he be saved? Of course, that is certainly a possibility. He may very well have implicit faith (Aquinas).”

Question: Is this part of the plan of salvation put forth in Holy Scripture? It sounds really good doesn't it? It's part of the theology of glory, not the cross. The cross is foolishness. "Glory"theology always tries to work stuff like this out. I mean, it's foolish to think that God would only allow the preached Gospel to reach certain ears throughout history. Certainly, God must offer salvation without the preached Gospel. God is fair guy! Well, i'm Reformed, so I don't have to work out solutions like that put forth by Mr. Latar.