This Week in Review - 2/24/2017

I decided to start posting interesting links, or things I've found to be edifying, in a sort of hodgepodge post. I hope to make this a weekly thing. It was inspired by some other people who I have seen done this. It was also inspired by the very real problem of finding nuggets on social media, faving or liking them, and then forgetting all about them later, or thinking about them later only to realize it's hard to get back to them.

So without further ado, here are the highlights of this week.

Live Action, Snopes and Planned Parenthood's "Prenatal Care" from Truthbomb Apologetics - A review of the claim from Snopes that the words of Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, were taken out of context. It proves that any dignity Snopes used to have are now gone, and they're basically another piece of leftist propaganda.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Salary Has Gone Up a Whopping 265% to Almost $1 Million from LifeNews - In addition to the last link, just a little reminder of how rich you can get running a supposedly non-profit, for-the-good-of-the-people organization.

The “Telephone Game” Myth: Has the New Testament Been Changed Over Time? from God from the Machine - A neat little response to the "telephone game" charge lodged by some internet atheists. Basically a summary of manuscript evidence and textual transmission, especially compared to other works of antiquity.

Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures? from Answers in Genesis - A good read on the idea behind the evolution of man, and the so-called evidence used today in an attempt to prove the missing link. (There's a good reason it's still missing.)

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? from Christian Research Institute - As this article shows, there is a cult-like culture within the scientific community where, just as if you question global warming, you will be mocked and ostracized for holding contrary views to what is accepted as the norm.

Radio Free Geneva: A Nearly Three Hour Examination of “Traditional” Anthropology from Alpha and Omega Ministries - James White reviews a response from Leighton Flowers regarding Calvinism. As the title suggests, it's a long listen, but it goes in depth on common charges against Calvinism, as well as philosophical arguments against it.

Hall of Contemporary Reformers from Monergism - A collection of modern Reformed apologists and scholars.

Red Letter Jesus from Sheologians - An article written by Summer White (daughter of James White) on how feminist and leftist heretics who argue "Jesus didn't say that specifically!" are basically committing the Red Letterism error.

Predest1 from weecalvin1509 - The first part in a four part series on whether or not John Calvin taught double predestination, and for what purpose Calvin believed people were sent to hell.

Skeptic Challenge: God Condones Rape from A Clear Lens - A response to the (surprisingly commonly made) charge that God condones rape in Deuteronomy. It looks at the different Hebrew words used in the entire section of scripture, and comes to the same conclusion many commentators have throughout the centuries.

Leaving the NAR Church: Jared's Story from Pirate Christian - One man's sad story about the experiences of him and his wife with a "deliverance counselor" who attributed everything to demons, and never once gave them the Gospel.

Six Scary But Important Words Every Christian Parent Should Say to Their Kids About Faith from Natasha Crain - Spoiler alert: the words are "Don't believe just because I do." However, the reasons given for why you SHOULD say those words make this article worth the read. As a parent myself, I found this edifying.

3 Key Things Skeptics Will Say to Shame Your Kids for Being Christians from Natasha Crain - A guide on how to ready your children for the charges that will be thrown at them for simply being believers.

5 Signs You’re Forcing Your Religion (or Atheism) on Your Kids…and 5 Signs You’re Not from Natasha Crain - A good guide for believers - and non-believers - to use to make certain they're actually trying to raise their children to be true, confessing believers, rather than just so-called Christians mimicking their parents.

And in the humor corner...

Rob Bell Runs Out of Doctrines to Deny at Babylon Bee - A satirical article on a true "end of an era."

A Response to a Supposed Calvinist Dilemma

This post is going to be in response to a supposed critique of Calvinism, using Acts 13:48 and a popular Calvinist interpretation of it. The source came from Twitter, where I saw this image shared:

The passage in question is this:

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. [Acts 13:48; NASB]

This passage takes place during Paul's first missionary journey, when he and Barnabas arrive in Antioch, and experience the first major group of conversions among the Gentiles. Obviously the contention of the image is towards any Calvinist use of this verse to say that those who believed had already been appointed unto salvation. Indeed, John MacArthur, in his commentary for this verse, states that it is "one of Scripture's clearest statements on the sovereignty of God in salvation" (pg. 1461).

Generally speaking, there tend to be two major objections to this reading:

1) The appointment was for the Gentiles to receive salvation, since the Jews, as a people, had rejected it. However, this passage is clearly talking about individuals. Not all Jews had rejected the message (as verses 42-43 demonstrate), and not all Gentiles had accepted it.

2) Verse 46 says that the Jews rejected the Gospel, and considered themselves unworthy to receive it, hence this is just speaking about the Gentiles' choice. The problem with this contention is that this verse makes it clear that the act of believing on the part of the Gentiles followed the appointment to eternal life. That is, those who were the ones appointed to eternal life were the ones who believed; if one was not appointed to eternal life, they did not believe. That Jews earlier objected to the Gospel does not contradict Calvinism: that is the natural state of man, which is to reject the Gospel and the message of salvation.

It is also helpful to note that, grammatically speaking, Acts 13:48 is an example of the pluperfect tense. Daniel Wallace lists this verse as one such example of the tense, and writes:

...the force of the pluperfect tense is that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results that existed in the past as well (in relation to the time of speaking). [pg. 583; Wallace]

On the same page, Mr. Wallace explains further that the pluperfect does not make a comment "about the results existing up to the time of speaking". William D. Mounce likewise writes:

The pluperfect is used to describe an action that was completed and whose effects are felt at the time after the completion but before the time of the speaker. (The effects of the action described by the perfect is felt at the time of the speaker.) [pg. 237; Mounce]

In this context, the people were not active believers up to this point of hearing the gospel, but their being appointed to eternal life was something done in the past, and not only at that moment, when they accepted, nor did their accepting the Gospel lead into the being appointed to eternal life. Those who had been appointed to eternal life beforehand were the ones who then, at that moment, believed. We will cover this part a little more later on in this post.

Let us now go to the image, and deal with the supposed treatment of the Calvinist position.

The image states that "God arbitrarily appointed some to eternal life and there is no chance for others to be saved." Immediately, we have a problem with the use of "arbitrary"; as I stated in my podcasts on Matthew Gallatin's use of Romans 9 (he likewise uses the term "arbitary"), that word is misplaced in the Calvinist concept of God. In the Twitter thread where I saw this used, the OP explained: "Arbitrary means 'based on random choice or personal whim'. By definition, arbitrary works just fine." This, however, is problematic, for the simple fact that God does not do anything by "random choice," nor does he do anything by "personal whim." Everything God does is with purpose - even election. This is found throughout scripture, where God will say "for this purpose" and "for this reason" whenever discussion his actions.

The image continues by saying that this belief "makes God a liar," and proceeds to cite 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9. These two verses are passages that have been addressed by Calvinists for perhaps hundreds of years, so simply throwing them out in the discussion is (to be frank) highly unproductive, and shows a lack of understanding of the side you are criticizing. For the sake of time, I will link to two discussions on the verses, explaining them from the Calvinist perspective: one on the verse from Paul, and one on the verse from Peter. In short: 1 Timothy 2:4 is speaking about different kinds of men, while 2 Peter 3:9 is addressing believers, not unbelievers (again, see the longer discussions linked to).

The image likewise argues this makes God a "respecter of persons," and cites against such a notion Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, and 1 Peter 1:17. However, the author of this image seems to fail to recognize two things:

Firstly, Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11 are referring to ethnicity and race. Acts 10 tells the story of Peter, an ethnic Jew, visiting Cornelius' household, and seeing that the Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles; Romans 2:11 is preceded by verse 10, which states "glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." God is not a respecter of persons in regards to their ethnic or racial identity (ie., no one will be banned from salvation simply because they're black, or Latino); this is what those verses are attempting to get across.

Secondly, 1 Peter 1:17 is simply saying that God is one "who impartially judges according to each one’s work." This in no way refutes the idea of unconditional election - it only confirms that God will judge each one rightfully according to their deeds. Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike would agree on this.

The final part of this image's opposition to the (straw man) Calvinist position is that this makes it so God does not "appoint everyone to eternal life," and cites Matthew 7:13. This verse simply states: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." This verse in no way states that God has appointed all to eternal life, nor suggests that such a thing is possible.

Let us now go to the right side of the image, and the response to the so-called Calvinist position.

The contention is that these Gentiles were "making an appointment for eternal life." A quick correction here: these were not unbelieving Gentiles, but Jews and God-fearing men (Gentile converts to Judaism who abstained from circumcision), as clarified in verse 43 (the word "Gentile" is not even used in verse 42, but rather simply the pronoun "they"). Let us also not forget that Paul and Barnabas were speaking in the synagogue (v. 14), and verse 42 happens after their long sermon in the synagogue.

However, let's put this aside for now and examine the contention that the the people were "making an appointment for eternal life," and let us remember what we established earlier: which comes first in this verse? The appointing, or the believing? The appointing does. Those who were appointed were those who believed. If there had been no appointing, there would be no believing. If we were to take the sentence, "As many as were drafted served in the army," and then argued that those who served in the army had drafted themselves, it would make no sense. However, this is how some synergists wish to interpret Acts 13:48.

Further confusion is added to the verse when the image states: "they make appointments to hear the truth of the gospel, and faith comes by hearing of the word of God (Rom 1:16; 10:17)." Two points in regards to this:

Firstly, let's again ask who is making the appointment, and what is being appointed. It is people being appointed (not making appointments - note the image's subtle transition from verb to noun), and this appointing is towards eternal life. There is nothing here about individuals "making appointments" to "hear the truth of the gospel" (in fact, they had already heard it in the text, therefore it seems illogical to hear it again in order to believe).

Secondly, the citations of Romans 1:16 and 10:17 are unrelated to this conversation. I know the image maker probably cited them to back up the statement that faith comes by hearing the word of God, but this in no way contradicts Calvinist doctrine. Calvinists believe that God elects people unto salvation, and then calls them unto that salvation through the preaching of His truth, just as Paul writes "and these whom He predestined, He also called" (Rom 8:30a). It is also worth noting that in the famous phrase "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14), the Greek word for "chosen" can literally be translated as "the called of the called."

In short, this image does not present a conundrum for Calvinist doctrine. Like many anti-Calvinist arguments, it misrepresents the Calvinist position and attempts to reword the passages in question in order to make it fit with a more synergistic approach. As I've said elsewhere, both on the blog and my podcast, this is one of the reasons I'm a Calvinist: when I was a non-Calvinist and I was reviewing both sides of the argument, I saw that one side was being dishonest about the other's position, and not handling scripture rightly; that side was the synergistic side. When I was as honest with scriptural passages about salvation as I was with scriptural passages about the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, I had to come to Calvinistic conclusions.

However, I invite the reader to examine this passage themselves, and treat it with respect and honesty, and see for themselves what the word of God has to say. God bless.

***

Works Cited

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. Print.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Print.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Print.

James White versus Dave Hunt on Calvinism

Here's is an oldie from back in the day: James White discussing Calvinism with the (now deceased) Dave Hunt. For those who listen to The Dividing Line, this is infamous for the "I'm very ignorant of the Reformers" line that Dave Hunt said (six months later, he claimed he knew more about Calvinism than most Calvinists).

Here is the link to the discussion.

Listening to it again after all these years, I felt absolutely sorry for Dave Hunt. He was either completely unprepared or (at the time of this recording) not mentally capable to engage in debate and discussion. His inability to stay with the text and give a direct answer to anything becomes painful after a while. Amazingly enough, some people still think his arguments against Calvinism are valid, which makes the preservation of this audio important, I suppose.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part III

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of a review of Romans 9 by Matthew Gallatin, Eastern Orthodox author and podcaster.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part II

Here's this week's podcast episode, where we continue our examination of Matthew Gallatin's series on Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part I

Here is the latest podcast, where we begin an examination of Matthew Gallatin's well known series on Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination.

Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP - Perseverance of the Saints

Here is the latest podcast, and the last in the TULIP series I'll be doing. This one was for the "P" in TULIP, which stands for Perseverance of the Saints.

Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP - Irresistible Grace

Here's the latest podcast, continuing our brief reviews of the teachings of TULIP. Enjoy!

Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP Limited Atonement

Here's the latest podcast, where we continue to examine the five points of Calvinism (aka TULIP), this time dealing with Limited Atonement.

Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP - Unconditional Election

Below is the latest episode of the podcast, where we continue talking about the Five Points of Calvinism, also known by the acronym TULIP. Today, we discuss the "U," for Unconditional Election.

Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP Total Depravity

Here is the latest podcast, where we begin a little series briefly examining all the five points of Calvinism!

Whose Faith is Truly Special?

A while ago, I entered a discussion with someone that covered the topic of synergism versus monergism. The accusation was made my way that my theology turned men into prideful beings, as they looked upon their faith as though it made them better than others with no faith.

My response was that "my theology" (not that I myself invented it, or it rises and falls on my account, but rather it is the theology to which I adhere) could hardly make men prideful. For one, it was given to men as a gift, on account of nothing that they did (cf. Eph 2:8-9). For another, this gift was given completely undeserved. The Lord could have bypassed Tony-Allen and left him an unregenerated sinner, and He would have been perfectly just in doing so - instead, He effectually called him into the fold, for no other reason than His purpose and will (cf. Rom 9:10-11), and owing to nothing but His mercy (cf. Rom 9:18).

Upon what basis can I place my pride? That I was a sinner worthy of damnation? That our blessed Lord had to die to atone for sins which I could never repay? That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had to suffer on my behalf and fulfill all requirements of the Law, because I could not do it myself? That it was by the working of the Spirit that my heart was regenerated and not because I was smarter, kinder, or more holy to do it myself? Where in all this can I truly have pride? How can I look upon my faith as proving I'm better than someone without faith when I recognize: 1) that faith is not my own to begin with; 2) sans this faith and regeneration given by God, I would be no different than the person without faith?

I then told the person that it was their own theology, in fact, which led to prideful thinking. This was because they say that God calls to everyone, and pleads with everyone, and it's up to us to respond of our own power (a rather Semi-Pelagian position). What, then, made them so much more smarter and better than the atheist next door? What made them different than a person who rejects the gospel to their dying day? They would have to be intellectually honest and say that it's because they were somehow better, smarter, or more receptive of the gospel. They were, in essence, somehow better than the other person.

I recognize, of course, that few synergistic testimonies are about how great and wonderful they are, and most synergists are themselves humble Christians. However, their position in regards to salvation - when truly examined - states that part of their salvation was owed to them. They contributed to it. Even if it was a mere 1% out of 99%, they were still responsible for that 1%, without which God would have failed. They were able to contribute 1% by their own accord, making themselves better and, in some respects, far more religious than those who rejected God and did not fulfill that 1%. My position, on the other hand, states that God's contribution was 100% His doing. I offered nothing to the table except my own sin, for which God had to suffer, atone for, and then absolve by grace through faith, bringing me to repentance. There is no room for me to be prideful.

Some might say, "But can't you be prideful that God chose you over someone else?" I respond by repeating what I mentioned earlier: that Christ had to die for me in the first place, to atone for my sins, shames me from any possible pride. With the idea of election comes the responsibility of recognizing that your atonement was paid for at a price (cf. 1 Cor 7:23). I am no more prideful that God granted me faith, at the cost of Christ's sacrifice, than I am prideful that I love today in freedom because an American soldier in a foreign land died on my account. My salvation was paid for with the atoning blood of Christ, and there is no pride that can be taken from that.

There is only one thing I am prideful one, but it is not pride of my own, but pride I throw upon God, the one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and gave Himself so that my betrothed and I can be among His flock. All glory that could possibly go to me I redirect to the Lord, and all who desire salvation I point towards Him. God bless.

How to Speak to Your Calvinist Friend

The following are just some tips in how to speak to your Calvinist friend - mostly dealing with presuppositions I've often encountered in discussions with people.

Tip #1: Don't bring up passages of scripture that involve human action.

It seems like the false presupposition among many who interact with Calvinist theology (even if this is unintentional) is that Calvinism excludes any form of human action. Hence many, believing they refuting Calvinism, will run to passages in the Bible that ask people to confess their faith. "Ah, see," they'll say, "scripture says we have to do something, and since it asks us to do something, that must mean effectual grace is not involved."

Part of this may be the presupposition among some synergists that monergists (Calvinist, Lutheran, what have you) essentially believe that man is a robot, and all God has to do is hit a button and ZAP! man believes and is a good Christian. This, however, isn't the case. Some might be shocked to learn that monergists, be they Calvinist or otherwise, actually believe that man has a will. The question, however, is what we believe regarding the status of that will. That is, is it completely and absolutely free, or (as monergists and orthodox synergists believe) is it enslaved to sin? I could hold up a brick and say, "You are free to go up or down!", but so long as that brick is enslaved to the force of gravity and has nothing to free it from its grip, it will continue to go down the minute I let go. Hence we believe (as scripture teaches) that God's grace is required to free a man's will from the bondage of sin. That grace will then enable the man's will to be turned towards God, just as the Lord Christ said, "No one can come [literally has the power to come in the original Greek] to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44).

So if a person throws a verse dealing with human action at a Calvinist, the Calvinist can only say, "Yes, I know, I agree with that." The question that must then be addressed, however, is where the ability for that action comes from. If you wish to have a discussion with your Calvinist friend, I might suggest coming from this angle.

Tip #2: Don't bring up popular passages to use against Calvinism.

This is a follow up of the previous post, but for a more specific problem. A lot of people, when they first encounter a Calvinist, want to throw out all the usual passages at them: John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; etc. If you have a Calvinist friend, or become acquainted with a Calvinist, I might suggest not throwing those verses at them. Not because they don't have an answer, mind you...rather, it's because they've probably dealt with all those verses at least a hundred times already. At the very least, you should not throw these verses at your Calvinist friend with the attitude of, "Aha! I've got you! This disproves your theology! Instakill!"

At the very least, what you could do is ask your Calvinist friend, "How do you explain these verses?" or something of that nature - by doing this, you'll come across as curious about their beliefs, and explaining the verses will be easier for them. If you want to go a step further for your friend, do some research on how Calvinists have been responding to these verses for literally centuries. You will then at least be able to adjust your arguments and not come across as someone who did their homework rather than just repeat what they heard a pastor say somewhere.

Tip #3: Don't ask them how they can do evangelism.

Another false presupposition is that, because God has predestined those who will be saved, evangelism is worthless and it's nonsensical for a Calvinist to evangelize. As I've discussed on this blog before, this notion that Calvinists can't consistently evangelize or do missionary work is contradicted by two things:

1) The precedent of history. Some of the greatest evangelists in history (John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon and countless others) were also Calvinists, and their theological beliefs offered no conflict with their missionary work or evangelism.

2) The simple facts behind our knowledge of God's election. That is, many people seem to forget that Calvinists don't know the identity of the elect. Many might be familiar with the John Carpenter film They Live, starring professional wrestler "Rowdy Roddy" Piper. In it, Piper plays a man who discovers sunglasses that permit him to identify aliens maintaining control over the earth. In a similar fashion, many people seem to think that Calvinists have special sunglasses which, putting them on, help them to see who are the elect and who are not. As we said before, this isn't the case. Calvinists don't have special glasses that they put on and then go into a crowded room to say, "I have come here to save God's elect and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum."

This might surprise some people, but all we do is follow God's command: we go out and preach the gospel to all people, knowing that God, by His grace, will save His sheep. In this manner, a Calvinist can evangelize or do missionary work and not feel his theology threatened in any way, shape or form.

Tip #4: Don't assume God's grace is forced on anyone.

Some people seem to be able to recognize both total depravity and irresistible grace, and yet seem unable to understand how the one relates to the other. That is, they seem to perceive that when a person is irresistibly called, that "irresistibleness" is reliant more upon force than it is upon enabling. This is where you get people saying that Calvinism believes people are "dragged into the kingdom," or that it is "divine rape," or even where people give that goofy bridge metaphor which says Calvinism believes there's a bridge to heaven and people are dragged kicking and screaming over that bridge.

This forgets that (as stated in the previous tip) part of irresistible grace is the idea that man's will is turned towards God. The regenerated heart will no longer have the God-hating inner nature of those still unregenerate. They will not be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, but will earnestly desire heaven. That initial resistance to God will no longer be a dilemma, and to believe that it will is to misunderstand the morphing power of the Spirit upon the human heart.

In short, Calvinists do not believe God "forces" salvation upon anyone; God's grace serves to regenerate a person to have a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone.

Tip #5: Don't assume the doctrines of grace end at the effectual calling.

Many people seem to assume that the doctrines of grace only involve the election and/or calling of the individual. I've had people ask me, if I'm elected, why don't I go out and murder somebody, since I'll be off the hook.

Of course, this fits more with the concept of "easy believism" than it does Reformed theology. The Doctrines of Grace do not teach that we are saved by prayers or a one-time human event, and on that one basis alone someone will be justified before God. Part of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is the sanctification of the individual believer towards glorification, which will, of course, be perfect after the resurrection.

Tip #6: Don't call God maleficent, evil, wicked, mean, cruel, etc.

You may not like Calvinist soteriology, and you might have valid objections to bring up...however, you will get nowhere by name calling and declaring that Calvinists worship a different God entirely. I recognize there are many misrepresentations of Calvinism out there, however if you were to speak honestly with your Calvinist friend (or any knowledgeable Calvinist in general) to explain their concept of God, and you listen with an open and calm mind, you will find that their concept of God is no different than yours - if not more or just as Biblical. Your Calvinist friend will also demonstrate how he does not believe in a maleficent, evil, wicked, mean or cruel God.

Tip #7: Don't keep name-dropping Calvinist personalities.

Yes, we know about John Calvin. Yes, we know about John Piper. Yes, we know about James White, John MacArthur, and a lot of other big names in Calvinism, past and present. Maybe you don't agree with everything they say - that's fine, you'll discover a lot of Calvinists don't agree with everything they say.

However, don't throw them at your Calvinist friend as if you're refuting or defaming Calvinism in toto. Don't treat your friend as the whipping boy for any contentions you may have for another individual.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints

Here we are at long last at the final letter in the TULIP acronym. This one is the "P", which stands for Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are brand new to this series (and you are late, young man!) can start with my very first post and work their way on forward, as I tend to assume I've already established certain ideas or dealt with certain objections already in past posts. You can also just click on the "TULIP" keyword. On a side note, please try to keep things organized, and please only respond with objections or questions in the relevant posts (ie., don't ask something about Total Inability in this post, etc.). Any way, let's move on...

Perseverance of the Saints is often confused with "Once Saved Always Saved" or even "Easy Believism." Many people misinterpret that this doctrine teaches believers are free to sin as they please, or that after their confession of faith there is no further responsibility placed upon them. I once had a person ask me, if I believe I'm elected, then why don't I go out and kill someone then? The idea is, if I'm justified before God, then I don't need to worry about hell or judgment.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what the doctrine teaches. For one, part of the Perseverance aspect is not only that a person elected by God is secure from losing that election, but that the individual will be perfected and sanctified throughout their election. For another, it would violate the commands of scripture that believers forsake their sins, and that, because we are saved, we should strive to obey God all the more. A believer is not sinless, but they are striving to sin less. They are never what they ought to be, but they are striving to separate from what they used to be. This leads into a discussion that deviates from this topic, so for the sake of time I'll refer to those who are more curious to this post here.

For our scriptural discussion on this topic, I am going to return to Paul's epistle to the Romans and review the last section of chapter eight. This will perhaps be the longest of my TULIP posts, but I believe it will be well worth it. First, however, some back story:

In chapter seven Paul had been discussing the state of the matured believer, torn between what he knows he should do and what he desires to do. He opens up chapter eight with the beautiful words: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (v. 1). He then launches into a wonderful Trinitarian discussion on the nature of man's salvation. That is, God the Father sends God the Son as an offering for sin, so that the law might be fulfilled in us who are marked walk according to God the Holy Spirit (v. 3-4). Those who are in the flesh - that is, non-Christians - cannot please God (v. 5-8). However, those who are not in the flesh but the Spirit - that is, Christians - belong to God, and Christ will give us life through the Spirit dwelling within us (v. 9-11). We (believers) are hence led by the Spirit of God, and those led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God (v. 14).

Paul then gives very clear Trinitarian language in this manner: God the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God the Father (v. 16), and if we are children of God the Father, then we are fellow heirs with God the Son (v. 17), provided we suffer with him so that we may be glorified in him. Paul elaborates this last point by saying that the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the future glory (v. 18), talking about the "groaning" of creation (v. 22) and the future coming of our glorification, for which we likewise groan. He states that "we hope for what we do not see," and "we wait for it with patience" (v. 25).

Thus having discussed suffering and patience, Paul then writes:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:26-30]

In regards to the Spirit's help for our patience and suffering, Paul states that the Spirit intercedes for us for our flawed prayer, and does so with groaning (which shows the Spirit is personal, not impersonal). The Spirit performs this for the saints according to the will of God the Father (v. 26-27). Paul adds that we know "for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (v. 28). Many people, in attempting to refute Reformed theology, will only quote the first half of this verse ("those who love God"), as if it depends upon us - not seeming to realize the second half ("those who are called according to his purpose") completely refutes it. It is the same notion as what Paul speaks of in his epistle to the Ephesians, where he speaks of those who have "been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11).

Having established the sovereignty of God's will and His strength within us, Paul then writes what has become known as the "Golden Chain of Redemption," which I'll highlight by requoting its fullness below:

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

The "golden chain" is seen in the transition of a person from one state to another: those foreknown by God are predestined; those predestined are called; those called are justified; those justified are glorified. The context of "those" doesn't change in between the actions - they are all one of the same "those." It is a continuous chain of events by God, which are all done by Him and seen through by Him. I talked about this a bit more in this post here.

Many will attempt to get around this by honing in on the word "foreknew" and declaring that God simply had foreknowledge of those who would believe and those who wouldn't, and hence no real election is going on here. However, they forget two things: 1) "foreknew" here is a verb, not a noun - it is something God is doing, not something He is relying upon; 2) the direct object of the foreknowing is not the individual's actions, but the individual themselves. Likewise, if God "foreknew" someone would believe or accept salvation, then the predestination, calling, and all that followed (things done by God, not the individual) would be unnecessary. The fact here is that "foreknew" is a personal verb, referring to the fact that God foreknew those whom He would predestine, call, justify and glorify.

Even more ironic, there are some who uphold "once saved always saved," deny irresistible grace, and yet use the golden chain of redemption to verify their theology. This is because they chop it up into two parts: the foreknowing, predestining, and calling, all of which they believe man can reject at any point; then the justified and the glorified part, which they believe means any person justified will in the end be glorified. The problem is that this is an inconsistent handling of how the word of God is used. The apostle Paul is clearly giving an unbroken chain, and if you read backwards from the glorification part, you see that it continues backwards all the way to foreknowing.

Continuing on, the apostle Paul writes:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” [Romans 8:31-36]

Having established not only in the Trinitarian work of the Godhead in our salvation - as well as God's supremacy in our salvation - Paul now asks a bold question: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (v. 31) He asks again, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies" (v. 33). By "charge" it does not mean a Christian cannot receive a traffic ticket because of some weird kind of divine immunity, but rather it refers back to what Paul said in verse 1: "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." As God has performed the act of justification and obtained for us that justification, granting it to us as a gift, who then can lay any charge against us, especially when it shall come to the great day of judgment?

Paul asks, in the same way, "Who is to condemn?", adding "Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us" (v. 34). Meaning, of course, that it was Christ who died and was raised, and is interceding for us, as by his death and resurrection, as Paul stated earlier, "the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us" (v. 4). Having done this, then, the Law is fulfilled, and there is no one who can condemn God's elect. In other words, our sins have been fulfilled in Christ. There is no longer room for any further justification. No prayers to saints, no charitable deeds, nor anything else can add to or complete what Christ started and did.

Continuing on with his bold questions, Paul asks: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?" (v. 35) Paul illustrates this point by quoting Psalm 44:22, on how Christians realize that for the sake of God they are as sheep led to slaughter (that is, they will endure tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, and the sword).

Moving on from this, Paul writes:

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 8:37-39]

Despite the dangers presented in the previous section, we are conquerors - nay, more than conquerors! - yet it is not because of us, but rather we conquer "through him who loved us" (v. 37), that is, God. Paul then states, very explicitly, that "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation," will ever be able to separate the true believer from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (v. 38-39). In other words, our salvation is secure - nothing, be it spiritual powers or natural, earthly powers, can cause us to fall away.

Generally I've received two kinds of responses for this section (especially verses 38-39):

1) Some people say, "This isn't about faith, it's about God's love." Under what context, however, is this love? Just a general love? On the contrary, it is love for God's elect, whom Paul has been talking about since verse 1. He even made it clear he was talking about God's elect as recently as verse 33, and every use of the pronoun "us" is in reference to Paul and his fellow believers. We even see this in verse 39, with the use of "the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Those not in Christ Jesus (believers) do not have the love of God spoken of in this section, and cannot receive the benefits therein (as explained in verses 9-11).

2) Some people respond to the words "neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation" by saying: "Ah, but see - we can reject God separate ourselves from His love!" Therefore, according to their own logic, they, by themselves, are more powerful than death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, and anything else in all creation. Aside from the fact this is impossible, it is also missing the point the apostle is trying to make here. Paul is literally belaboring the point (as he often does throughout Romans) that there is nothing - nothing, nada, zip, zero - which can separate us from the love of God. God's elect cannot be taken away by him by any means, be it by death, by deeds, by force of arms, or by their own individual personal struggles.

What do we see in this chapter, especially in the last half? We see the very real power of God in the perseverance and endurance of the believer. God is at work in us, preserving us with the Spirit, keeping us in Christ, despite whatever obstacles may come before us. Those whom God foreknew will in the end be glorified. There is no chance of separation from God. With this revelation, let all believers rest easy in the knowledge that God is not a passive God, but an active God who is active in our life - every day, every hour, every second. We will never be perfect until glorification, but as we still draw breath on this side of resurrection, we shall always be loved of God.

At this point, my little series on TULIP has come to a close. As I said in my first post, I did not intend to "convert" anyone to Calvinism, and even if I indeed did not, I hope I at least gave a presentation that corrected misunderstandings, and gave the reader a more edified understanding of Reformed theology. I thank you for your time, and God bless!

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Irresistible Grace

I apologize to my readers (especially the one who asked me to do this) for the delay in writing this post. A combination of real life matters (ie., work) as well as real life events I had to attend (ie., a funeral) delayed me somewhat. For those who might be new to this series, see the first post here.

We are moving along with our tiptoeing through the TULIP (durr hurr hurr, me so clever), and we've reached the second-to-last letter: "I", for Irresistible Grace. This phrase, also known as Efficacious or Effectual Grace, refers to the saving grace which God bestows upon an individual. Irresistible Grace refers to the grace God bestows on an individual that both calls them to the Gospel and regenerates them, thus permitting them to respond to the Gospel. This is why it is called irresistible, in that an individual cannot resist the grace once it has been given to them, and why it is likewise called effectual or efficacious, as every calling of God for salvific purposes is successful.

Irresistible Grace, like the other members of TULIP we've discussed before, often gets greatly misrepresented in non-Calvinist circles. Many seem to presume that Irresistible Grace means that God must do something to the equivalent of pointing a gun at a person and saying, "Believe in me or else." Hence some will say that Irresistible Grace teaches that God "forces" people to believe, while others have said that Irresistible Grace teaches that God "drags people into the kingdom." Some have gone so far as to call it "divine rape" - a cruel, irresponsible and utterly reprehensible label if there ever was one. To answer all these misrepresentations, I'll quote a man who was far, far, far more knowledgeable than myself:

It is a common thing for opponents to represent this doctrine as implying that men are forced to believe and turn to God against their wills, or, that it reduces men to the level of machines in the matter of salvation. This is a misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such opinion, and in fact the full statement of the doctrine excludes or contradicts it. The Westminster Confession, after stating that this efficacious grace which results in conversion is an exercise of omnipotence and cannot be defeated, adds, "Yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace." The power by which the work of regeneration is effected is not of an outward and compelling nature. Regeneration does no more violence to the soul than demonstration does to the intellect, or persuasion the heart. Man is not dealt with as if he were a stone or a log. Neither is he treated as a slave, and driven against his own will to seek salvation. Rather the mind is illuminated, and the entire range of conceptions with regard to God, self, and sin, is changed. God sends His Spirit and, in a way which shall forever rebound to the praise of His mercy and grace, sweetly constrains the person to yield. The regenerated man finds himself governed by new motives and desires, and things which were once hated are now loved and sought after. This change is not accomplished through any external compulsion but through a new principle of life which has been created within the soul and which seeks after the food which alone can satisfy it. [Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

Irresistible Grace does not compel anyone against their will. However, let's remember we established in our post regarding Total Depravity that the will of man is enslaved to sin. Man's default condition is to reject God. If God were to simply give an empty call sans regeneration, all men would reject Him. Therefore, logically speaking, regeneration is required in order for the man to respond to God's call, and the regeneration is part of God's calling and beckoning to His elect.

Now that we've done some defining, let's move on to the part of the post where I examine a section of scripture to discuss this topic further. For this topic, we will be turning to Christ's words in the sixth chapter of John's gospel.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 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—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. [John 6:35-47]

This follows the account of Christ's miracle with the five thousand fed, followed by his walking on water before the disciples, and will eventually become one of the greatest sermons in scripture regarding faith in God. Now the five thousand who had been fed, desiring to see more miracles, sailed to where Christ was and met him in the synagogues of Capernaum. It seems like Jesus has the chance to start the first megachurch, but then our Lord tells the people, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves" (v. 26). In other words, their faith was not sincere; it wasn't true faith; it was shallow, empty faith that meant nothing. We see this further when the people show a desire to justify themselves, asking: " Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (v. 28) What is Christ's response? What is the one work a person must do to be justified before God? Believe in Christ - sola fide (v. 29). The people are not yet satisfied, and so they ask Christ for signs that they might believe (v. 30-31), suggesting something like the bread that came down out of heaven in the Exodus account (v. 32).

At this point, Christ drops a bit of a bombshell - the Father has already sent them bread out of heaven, and it's him! (v. 35) However, this isn't the Eucharist, and that is made plain when Christ equates eating with coming to him, and drinking with believing in him: "whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Christ is keeping the focus on himself, and especially belief targeted towards him. This belief in him the people do not have, as he says quite plainly in the next verse: "But I have said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe" (v. 36). Yet hadn't these people called him rabbi? (v. 25) Hadn't they sailed across an entire lake to find him and seek him out? (v. 24) How can Christ possibly say they don't believe? How does he even know they don't believe?

Christ then drops another bombshell: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (v. 37). What has our Lord just taught? All that the Father gives to the Son, all these people will come to him, and those who are given to him will never be cast out. In other words, those whom are drawn and called by the Father (and we'll see more of this soon) will come to the Son, and these same individuals will never be cast out. There is a clear chain within this train of thought that is not broken. The reason Christ said the people didn't believe was because he knew who it was the Father had given him, and it was those people who would come to believe in him.

Some people might jump in here and say, "Obviously the Father might give some to the Son, but after that they can reject the Son." The problem with this argument is two-fold. First, it ignores what Christ himself says in verse 37: "whoever comes to me I will never cast out." These people also forget that Christ says in the next verse that he came to do the will of the one who sent him (v. 38), and this is Father's will, as defined by Christ himself: "That I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day" (v. 39). In other words, no one who is given to the Son will fall away, but will be raised up on the last day - in other words, they won't reject the Son, and in fact will be kept secure until the day of resurrection (v. 40).

Now the people in Capernaum have problem understanding all this, as they're harping on the fact that Christ said he was the bread from heaven (v. 41) - after all, didn't he have family and friends that all the people knew of? So how could he come from heaven if (from their perspective) he had an earthly family? (v. 42) How can he be claiming what amounts to divinity? Jesus admonishes them for grumbling (v. 43), and then drops one of the biggest bombshells in the Bible:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. [v. 44]

Here we see the perfect tie between Total Depravity and Effectual Grace (hinted at earlier). No one can come to Christ - literally "No one has the power to come to Christ" in the original Greek. What then happens? They are drawn by the Father. This is not an empty, surface-level drawing, like a sign outside a door beckoning customers to come inside; rather, it is an effectual drawing - a spiritual drawing - that transforms the individual to follow God.

I recognize that many contend this, and argue in this manner: "I agree that no one can come without the drawing of the Father, but people can still reject the Son after the initial drawing." This is similar to the popular concept of Prevenient Grace, which says that God takes totally depraved individual and gives them the ability to respond, either for or against, the gospel. However, we have a great issue here: the person making this argument has only read half a sentence, and we do anyone a great disfavor if we only recognize half a sentence and assume other teachings based on that. For you see, Christ goes on to explain what happens to this person drawn: he is raised up on the last day. Christ clearly teaches that no one can come unless the Father draws him, and it is him who will be raised up on the last day. In my previous post on John 6:44, I used the analogy of a murderer using the phrase "I'm gonna find him and kill him!" and then later telling the police that the two "hims" in that sentence were different. That would be an irrational assumption, and so too would it be to assume that the two "hims" in Christ's statement refer to two completely different individuals. To cut up Christ's statement and read other theologies into it is plain eisegesis.

Some have turned to verse 45, where Christ quotes Isaiah 54:13 with "and they will all be taught of God." The argument, therefore, is that people will be taught of God and hence respond like the better students in the classroom. The problem is that right after the quotation Christ states: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Again - everyone within this category will come to him. Why is this? Well, the concept of "learning from God" in the Old Testament is of itself effectual in nature. The passages in Isaiah 54 feature actions given by God and Him alone in regards to the regeneration and rejuvenation of His people. The teaching of God to His children is not passive, but active, and involves a regeneration towards Him. As God said regarding the new covenant He was preparing: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer 31:33). This is why everyone who has been taught of the Father - through regeneration - will come to the Son.

What have we learned here? Firstly, we've Total Inability reestablished. Secondly, we've been taught that man's coming to God is the effectual work of God, and effectual it is indeed, for all drawn, called, or taught by the Father will come to the Son.

We will, God willing, continue on to the final petal in TULIP within the next week or so.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Limited Atonement

Here we go continuing with our little TULIP exposition. As I said in the last post, if you're new to this little miniseries of mine, I'd suggest you start from the very beginning (a very good place to start!).

We've now approached the dreaded "L", which stands for Limited Atonement. Next to Unconditional Election, this is perhaps one of the most controversial of the Five Points of Calvinism. So much so, in fact, that there exist out there people known as "Four Point Calvinists" (their historical name being Amyraldians) who deny this doctrine.

The nitty gritty of Limited Atonement is that when Christ died on the cross, he did not die for the sins of the entire world - rather, he died to atone for the sins of those whom God would elect and hence redeem. Limited Atonement is also known as Particular Redemption, since it teaches that Christ died to redeem a particular group of individuals. The opposite of this would be General Redemption, which believes that Christ died to redeem all mankind. In fact, historically speaking, Baptists in America were often identified as either Particular Baptists (Calvinistic) and General Baptists (non-Calvinistic).

As we're going through TULIP bit by bit, and we showed the tie between Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, it might be worthy to note here the tie between Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement:

It will be seen at once that this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem the elect. [Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

In other words, if we establish that mankind is under a total depravity, and therefore God's election must logically be unconditional, then it likewise stands to reason that Christ would not die for the justification of those whom God knew ahead of time would perish in their sins. Therefore, we can conclude that Christ would die and atone for those predestined to be elected under the saving grace of God.

Now let's move on to the part where I shut up and I start letting scripture speak. Those who are familiar with this blog will know that I've already touched on this section of scripture before, and in greater detail, but for this part I'm going to be quickly reviewing the tenth chapter of John's gospel.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice." [John 10:1-4]

This is the beginning of one of the seven big sermons made by Christ in John's gospel, and is addressed to the Jews, including the Sanhedrin, who had gathered after the meeting between Jesus and the man born blind in chapter nine. It is the famous "Good Shepherd" sermon, and the Good Shepherd is, of course, Christ Himself.  It is the initial, summarized version of the much larger version which Christ will elaborate on for most of the chapter.

Christ starts out by identifying that those who enter the sheepfold by the door or climb in another way (in other words, false prophets and teachers) are thieves and robbers, but they who go through the door are the shepherd. He then describes this scene: the shepherd enters, he calls the sheep by name, and leads them out. Once they are all out, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him "for they know his voice." Note that the shepherd enters and makes the first move by calling the sheep. Note likewise that he calls the sheep by name - this is a personal calling, not a general one. The sheep respond, and follow him, for they "know his voice" as their shepherd, which further identifies them as his specific sheep. Just this little section alone, therefore, gives as good enough evidence for Irresistible Grace as it will eventually for Limited Atonement, but that's for another post. For now, keep in mind that the sheep are called by name and that they know the voice of their shepherd.

Because the people do not understand Christ's figure of speech (v. 6), he begins to elaborate on the previous parable:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." [John 10:7-11]

Christ identifies himself with two motifs from the aforementioned parable: he is both the door and the shepherd. In this sense, he is not only our mode of salvation, he is likewise the author of it. He is the only "door" to salvation, for anyone who enters by him "will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture" (v. 9). Thieves (again, false prophets and teachers) only come "to steal and kill and destroy," but Christ came so that his sheep "may have life and have it abundantly" (v. 10). Our Lord then says the famous: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (v. 11).

Note quickly - what did Christ just say? For whom does he lay down his life? He lays down his life for the sheep. Who are the sheep? Obviously within the context of everything we've discussed so far, it's the people of God. Christ died for those who belong to his flock. Shepherds are not willing to die for sheep of other flocks, but rather for sheep of their own flock.

To elaborate further on this, let's look at the next few verses:

"He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." [John 10:12-15]

Again Christ elaborates on the special care and love that the shepherd has for the sheep. He then states: "I am the Good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" (v. 14). Not only does Christ know those who are his sheep, but his sheep know him. Again, this is referring to an effectual kind of knowing, for the shepherd knows the sheep by name (v. 4), and the sheep, upon being called by name, follow (v. 5). Christ takes this even further when he states that he knows the sheep and the sheep know him "just as the Father knows me and I know the Father" (v. 15a). In other words, just as the Father and Son are in perfect knowledge of one another, so too is the Son in perfect knowledge of those who are his, and those who are his own know him. Christ then says again: "I lay down my life for the sheep" (v. 15b). Again, for whom does Christ die? The sheep. Who are the sheep? The elect of God. Those whom he knows by name and calls by name to go out to pasture.

As one will see in the my previous post about John 10, which I linked to above, I'm well aware of some synergist responses to this. To respond to them briefly:

1) Christ doesn't say he died for just the sheep and no one else. Aside from this being the "prove a negative" fallacy, the individual making it is forgetting the overall point: Christ doesn't say that because he doesn't have to do so. When Christ says he died for the sheep, and demonstrates the deep relationship between the Good Shepherd and his sheep, he doesn't have to specify any further. If an officer said, "I am a general, I lead my soldiers," it would be completely fallacious to suppose that we can interpret that to mean the officer commands even people outside his unit - maybe even non-soldiers - simply because he doesn't specify as much.

2) Christ can call sheep, but they can reject him. This creates the idea of a shepherd who calls out his sheep and leads them, but it is possible for one of those sheep to say "Forget this!" and dart off, with the shepherd able to do little more than wag his hands in anger. Aside from the fact that a real life shepherd would never allow such a thing to occur, this would contradict a continued application of the Good Shepherd sermon found later on in the chapter. While at the Feast of Dedication, some unbelieving Jews approach Jesus and as him to tell them plainly if he is the Christ (v. 22-24). Christ tells them:

"I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." [John 10:25-30]

Christ tells the people bluntly that they do not believe (v. 25). Why do they not believe? Christ says "You are not among my sheep" (v. 26). His sheep hear his voice, and he knows them, and they follow him (v. 27). The Good Shepherd states regarding his sheep: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand" (v. 28). Christ then turns this into a Trinitarian affair when he says: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (v. 29-30). The phrase "I and the Father are one" refers to their unity in Trinitarian work, and hence the treatment of the sheep is something done both by the Father and the Son (the Holy Spirit will be discussed later on in the gospel). The Father gives the sheep to the Son, and the Son gives the sheep eternal life and keeps them from falling. No one is able to snatch the sheep, for they are in the hands both of the Father (v. 29) and the Son (v. 28). Those who do not believe or have false belief are, as Christ said to the unbelieving Jews, not even God's sheep to begin with (v. 26).

Just as one says "baa" not to become a sheep, but because they are a sheep, so too does a person believe not to become God's sheep, but because they are God's sheep. Christ does not say "You are not my sheep because you do not believe," he clearly states "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." Their identification of sheep was not dependent upon their belief; their belief was dependent upon their identification as sheep. Likewise, those who are Christ's sheep are incapable of being lost, for they are being preserved by both the Father and the Son, who are working together in this act of salvation.

3) When Christ talks about "the sheep," it's different than "my sheep" - "the sheep" is general, but "my sheep" means those sheep who come to believe. This would presuppose that Christ is completely irrational in his train of thought. As we've seen thus far in this exegesis, no where does the context of "my sheep" and "the sheep" stop being synonymous. They both refer to the same group.

To return to the subject of this post, what do we see being discussed here in John 10? Admittedly we see a lot of things (I'd argue all Five Points of Calvinism), but one of those thing is the identity of Christ's sheep and the clarification of for whom the Good Shepherd dies. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, whom the Father has given to him, for it is his sheep whom he grants eternal life and preserves in his hand until the day of resurrection, so that they may go out and find pasture.

This makes the atonement, of course, a very personal event. If Christ knows his sheep by name, and it is these sheep for whom he dies (as he clearly did not die for those who are not his sheep, like those in verse 26), then Christ died for a special group of people, and as a substitution not only for a vague or general idea of a people's sins, but a specific group of people's sins - people with names, faces, and personal lives. This means, dear Christian, he died not just for you, but for you. As he hung upon that cross, he had your name on his mind, and his blood atoned for every single one of your sins, however how great or small. He died for your specific sins within your specific life, and he suffered knowing that the day would come when you would be called and justified, and he knows even now a glorious day will come when you will be glorified together with him. You were elected by the Father, the Son atoned for your sins, and you are now being preserved today by the Holy Spirit. Your salvation is a blessing from the Trinity, but most of all your atonement was done personally in your stead by the Son. If you gain anything from that post, ponder on that most of all - that your sin was not atoned for in a vague sense, but that all specific sins you ever committed were atoned for by Christ, and he did this out of love for you.

We have two more petals of the TULIP to go. God willing, those will be going up in the following weeks.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Unconditional Election

We are continuing through a series requested by a sister in Christ regarding the five points of Calvinism, also known as TULIP. This post will deal with the second letter in the acronym, which is a "U" and stands for Unconditional Election. To any newcomers to this little miniseries, I'd suggest starting with this post to understand how I'm doing this and where I'm coming from.

Unconditional Election, in its simplest, crudest definition, states that, before the foundation of the world, God chose the elect to inherit salvation, and it was not based on anything we did. In other words, God does not look at Man A and Man B and say, “Ah, Man A does way more good deeds than Man B,” or “Oh, Man A is way more receptive of the gospel than Man B,” and choose His electing that way. Most importantly, this electing is not based upon anything we do, hence the unconditional nature of it. We are not saved because we walked the aisle, did good works, or responded to the gospel - we believe because we were elected and called by God.

As many might have already guessed, this, along with Limited Atonement, is one of the most attacked of the TULIP phrases. That God would elect someone for reasons outside of their own person has become one of the chief reasons many attack Calvinism and label it a hateful theology. Some charge that Calvinism makes God maleficent and evil. Others say that Calvinists believe God's decision is arbitrary, as if God places up pictures of everyone who will ever live, throws a few darts, and saves whomever the darts landed on.

Therefore, let's dispel some common straw men right off the bat:

1) God does not do this out of malevolence. God is not doing this out of wickedness. Remember that in our last discussion, regarding Total Depravity, we established that mankind in toto were objects of wrath who were deserving of God's judgment for their sins and whose natural inclination was to reject God. Those who would say that God electing unconditionally is not fair forget that, if God were truly "fair" and "just," we would all be in hell. God could have done with mankind what he did with the angels who rebelled against Him, which was to leave them destined to perish in hell. Therefore, we should not be surprised that God elects some, but that He elects any.

2) God is not doing this for arbitrary reasons. The word "arbitrary" suggests that it was by near random personal whim without reason or understanding. Therefore many people have the idea God's electing individuals is similar to someone choosing a lobster from the tank at Red Lobster. However, everything God does has a purpose. Remember that when Christ heard that Lazarus was sick, he intentionally stayed where he was for two days (John 11:6), during which Lazarus died. One could therefore argue that Christ intentionally let Lazarus die. However, Christ did not permit Lazarus to die for any mere "arbitrary" reason, but, as Christ himself said: "It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it" (John 11:4). In a similar manner, God's purpose in election is not a matter of "eenie meenie miney moe," but a matter of fulfilling His purpose and will.

3) God does not predestine damnation. Many people assume that, if God elects some for salvation, then He must elect everyone else for damnation. This, however, is not the case, and those who argue in such a fashion do so in a false dichotomy. The natural state of man, without the electing intervention of God, is one poised for damnation, and it is God's election through grace which saves us from that. Remember that in our past discussion, regarding Total Depravity, that we established that the natural state of man is one in rebellion against God and is headed for damnation. God doesn't need to predestine a man for hell - he does a fine job of that on his own.

4) The election itself is not salvation. Many people think that, because God brings about salvation through election, that election and salvation are equatable to one another. On the contrary, election is not itself salvation, but is merely the act by which God chooses those who will receive the benefits of salvation. A governor may choose to pardon an inmate on death row, but it is not that actual act of choosing that is the freedom from death for the prisoner.

Yet as I said in my last post, there's only so much I can discuss on the subject. As per the series, we are now going to see what scripture says on the matter. To discuss this scripturally, I’m going to take a leap and jump into a controversial passage. I'm going to be discussing this topic from...you guessed it...Romans 9!! (Cue shocker music.) Let's start:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. [Romans 9:1-5]

First, let’s understand the context. Paul has just finished giving his great exposition on salvation in Romans 8, and now turns to a difficult question: if God’s plan of salvation is so assured, why then are there disbelieving Jews? In other words, why does a Jew like Paul believe the Gospel, but a Jew like Caiaphas rejects it? Paul begins to answer this question by going to Old Testament examples:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” [Romans 9:6-9]

Paul writes that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are descended from him naturally - in other words, not all ethnic Jews are God’s people automatically. You are not born a believer, and hence you are not born a true child of Abraham. What does make you descendant? Not being a child of flesh - in other words, a natural descendant of Abraham - but rather a child of the promise, or being those who have inherited the promise of salvation from God. As an example, Paul brings up Isaac, who was selected over Ishmael by God. Ishmael was a child by human action - God did not deem Ishmael to be born, but Sarah asked Hagar to produce him with Abraham. Isaac, on the other hand, was a choice by God, and based on God’s will. Although God looked out for Ishmael and made certain him and his mother didn't die in the desert, He said that Isaac was the son whom He would bless and with whom He would stay.

Now Paul has to presuppose arguments against his position, and he recognizes that some Jewish Romans might point out that the situation with Isaac is a special one. After all, Ishmael was the product of a slave woman, not Abraham’s actual wife, and was conceived by the will of man rather than the will of God as Isaac was. You can't possibly compare that to two people - one a believer, one not a believer - who are not in such a condition. Therefore, Paul presents another example which levels the playing field, and makes it so that no one can make such a contention.

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Romans 9:10-13]

Now I know, I know...it’s common for people to say that these are nations, not people. They do this by going to the verse from Malachi (which Paul quotes) and pointing out that Malachi is speaking of the nations of Israel and Edom. The problem is that Paul, in this specific section of scripture, doesn’t talk about nations, but rather individuals. You can see that in the details he outlines: they are all personal; they deal with personal traits; they deal with traits that an individual would have, not ones that nations would have. We have to also remember Paul’s train of thought: he’s talking about why Jew A would believe the Gospel while Jew B would not - why would he suddenly change his train of thought in the middle of his discussion? No rational person thinks that way.

I'm also aware that some people argue the word "hated" here doesn't mean a passionate, sinful kind of hate, and in fact just means "loved less." While it's true that the word refers to a kind of moral antipathy, this argument fails on two points:

1) The grammatical use of these words for "love" and "hate" are always used in opposition to one another. For example, this exact same grammatical use is found in Matthew 6:24, when our Lord says: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other." Clearly, even if this doesn't mean the servant will violently hate the one master, it's still plain from the context that he's not going to love both of them.

2) Even if we argue that the use of "hate" here refers to moral antipathy rather than passionate hatred, it's still a fact that Esau was passed over for Jacob. Jacob received the blessing, Esau did not. In other words, some form of electing took place. Therefore, to argue that "hate" just means "loved less" is a complete non sequitor.

I likewise know that it’s common for people to say that God merely used foreknowledge of what Jacob and Esau would do and based his decision on that. However, let’s review what these verses say, and answer some basic questions:

Question: What is the condition of the two boys when the election took place?
Answer: a) Neither had been born; b) Neither had done good nor bad.

Question: What drove God’s decision-making?
Answer: a) His purpose of election; b) Not because of works!

It is impossible to argue that Paul is referring to any kind of foreknowledge on God's part regarding the actions of Jacob and Esau, and this is because of the clear language scripture gives us. For one, nowhere is such foreknowledge made mention. For another, Paul literally says that God's choice had nothing to do with what Jacob or Esau did do, were doing, or would do. The deciding factor in God's choosing Jacob over Esau was His purpose of election and His will. Anyone who argues God looked into the future to see what Jacob and Esau would do is reading into the text.

What we see unfolding in the epistle to the Romans is Grade-A Unconditional Election. We see this more when Paul quotes God from the Old Testament in verse 15 with, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." The apostle develops this further in verse 16 with: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Again, it is neither our will nor our works that make us "electable" before God, but God’s own mercy, serving His purpose and will. I have listened to and read many attempts to insert human will into these verses, but all have failed due either to jumping from the context of the verses or cutting them up and reading each in an isolated context. When you start from verse one and move on in chronological order, the point Paul is making is clear.

So when we look down upon a Christian in the church, that Christian is not a saint because of anything he has done or would do, but by the kind mercies of God, who, though that man was dead in trespasses and sins, made him alive together with Christ. As I said at the beginning of this post, we shouldn’t ask ourselves why God elected that man, but rather we should ask ourselves, knowing the state of man, why God elects anyone. That is why God's election towards salvation is in and of itself called "mercy" in this chapter of Romans - because it is completely undeserved.

We will, God willing, continue on with this series in some of the posts to come.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Total Depravity

Durr hurr, my title is so clever. Any way...

I was asked by a sister in Christ to explain the five points of Calvinism, known today by the acronym TULIP. This will by no means be an in depth discussion of the five points, as plenty of resources like that are available online or in printed format. This is also not meant, in its primary goal, to convince anyone towards Calvinism, although God might use it in such a fashion. This is simply meant as a quick and brief explanation of what Calvinists believe and what the five points really mean, hopefully dispelling any misconceptions along the way. As we're going through TULIP, it might make sense to start with the "T", which stands for Total Depravity.

Total Depravity talks about the moral condition of man, and teaches that, morally speaking, he is a fallen creature. Most Christian churches and schools of thought already teach that man is fallen in some way, but Total Depravity goes to the very heart of the matter...literally. Man is a totally and utterly fallen creature, to the point of being naturally corrupt in regards to spiritual things.

Let's go through a few immediate clarifications about what this means. This does not mean that the only thing man can do is evil and nothing else. This does not mean that non-Christians can’t do “good” things. What this does mean is that an individual, without the regeneration of the heart given by God, is unable, on his own, to come to God in saving faith. This is why many people use the phrase Total Inability rather than Total Depravity. Mankind is completely unable, by his own power, to convert himself towards God.

This brings us to the age old question: Does man have a will? Many people seem to presume that Calvinists don't believe they do, and hence they think Calvinists believe men are like robots that have to be reprogrammed. However, Calvinists fully believe man has a will...the issue is, what is the state of  that? According to the position of Calvinists and other monergists (and some synergists), man's will is enslaved to sin, and if left alone it will always pick sin. This is the essence of total inability. You could hold a brick and say "You have free will, go up or down" and let go, but if left to the power of gravity, the brick will always go down. In like manner, you can say to an unregenerated man "You can have life or death," but if he's still under the power of sin, he will always choose death.

A quote on this matter from someone who was far, far more learned than myself:

Man is a free agent but be cannot originate the love of God in his heart. His will is free in the sense that it is not controlled by any force outside of himself. As the bird with a broken wing is "free" to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able. How can he repent of his sin when he loves it? How can he come to God when he hates Him? This is the inability of the will under which man labors. [Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

But enough about what I can say - from here on, I’m going to let scripture do the talking. I could easily do the shotgun approach, throwing out a lot of verses and declaring victory, but I’m not fond of proof texting unless I’m in a hurry. As I’m trying to put some effort into this, I’m going to bring in some of the stronger sections of scripture that I think demonstrate the point, so that we have some solid grounds for discussion. We’ll start with one of my favorite moments of scripture: the second chapter of the apostle Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this section by saying to the Ephesian Gentile believers (the “you” in verse 1) that they were dead in the trespasses and sins in which they once walked. These trespasses and sins, however, were not unique to the Ephesians themselves, as Paul says that they were following the course of the world, the “prince of the power of the air” (the devil), and the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience (in other words, those who refuse to believe). Paul then says that “we all once lived” in this mode, the “we” here referring to Paul and his fellow Jewish Christians. All of them, Jews and Gentiles alike, were “children of wrath” - also translated as “objects of wrath” - like the rest of mankind were.

Paul’s point here is clear, and is vital for the following verses (which we’ll get to in a moment). The apostle is belaboring the point that the natural state of mankind is one of being spiritually dead. Before a person is regenerated by God, they are dead in trespasses and sins and are by nature an object of wrath - in other words, they are worthy of judgment, and little else. Just as a man who is naturally dead cannot do anything towards, a spiritually dead man cannot do anything towards salvation.

Now that might sound like grim news, but now we get to the good news. In many ways, Ephesians 2 is like the miniature version of what Paul discusses in the first three chapters of Romans, and it’s here that Paul switches gear and goes from sin and judgment to gospel and grace.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus [Eph 2:4-6]

Paul tells us that God, out of love for us, and while we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. Let me reiterate this: we (the believer) were still dead when God quickened us. This blows the idea of Pelagianism and to a large degree Semi-Pelagianism out of the water. When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, there was nothing Lazarus contributed to that act. In a similar matter, Paul says that we, who are dead and objects of wrath, are made alive together with Christ by God, with no assistance from us. God is the main actor here, not man. Paul even belabors this point by writing that it is by grace we have been saved. He will reiterate this two verses later with: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”

So how is this related to the topic of Total Depravity? Paul is quite clearly teaching here that mankind is completely depraved - the natural state of man the world over is one of a dead being. We are objects of wrath because of our inclination to sin. If God left every man alone, no one would be deserving of eternal life. They would still be following the course of this world, and it won't be until the quickening power of God comes upon them that they can change direction.

I should quickly note here (least anyone accuse me of misrepresentation) that Calvinism is not the only theological system which teaches Total Depravity. Most monergists (such as Lutherans) believe in Total Depravity, and most orthodox synergists do as well. John Wesley and George Whitefield - two famous street preachers who were Arminian and Calvinist respectively - would see eye-to-eye with one another on this. Where the different parties would start to differ is what they believe in regards to the other letters in TULIP, which we will, God willing, continue to tiptoe through as these posts progress.