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."

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Predestination Part 3

Here is the final part in our review of Eastern Orthodox author and speaker Matthew Gallatin's series on whether or not Ephesians 1 teaches predestination.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Predestination Part 2

In this episode, we continue our examination of Eastern Orthodox author and speaker Matthew Gallatin's explanation of whether or not the Bible teaches predestination.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Predestination Part 1

This episode begins our examination of Eastern Orthodox author Matthew Gallatin's review of whether or not Ephesians 1 really teaches predestination.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part V

Here is the final part in our examination of Eastern Orthodox author Matthew Gallatin's review of Romans 9 and whether or not it teaches predestination and election.

Podcast: Matthew Gallatin and Romans 9 Part IV

Here is the latest podcast, continuing our examination of Matthew Gallatin handling the question of whether or not Romans 9 teaches predestination and election.

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.

Getting Around Romans 9:10-13

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; or 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, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Romans 9:10-13]

In the middle of his letter to the Roman Christians, the apostle Paul begins to answer the question of why not all Jews are accepting Christ as their Messiah. Turning to Old Testament examples, Paul brings up Jacob and Esau, pointing out that, despite neither twin had been born, and having not done anything good or bad, Jacob was chosen over Esau to fulfill God's purposes and His promise. In these verses we find the clear teachings of God's sovereignty over man's will, as well as the nature and purpose of His divine election onto salvation.

Yet along with John 6:44, Romans 9:10-13 is one of those passages that is so clear in language that many will try to find a way to avoid what it is plainly saying. The following are some popular responses to it (with a counter-response provided for each):

1. The passage is referring to nations, not individuals

The Argument: This is one of the most common arguments against the Calvinist interpretation of the passage. Those who make it do so by pointing out that the quote "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is taken from Malachi 1:2, wherein God is referring to Israel and Edom, who were the descendants of Jacob and Esau respectively. Therefore, Paul is speaking here not of individual election, but rather of national blessings.

The Dilemma: In order for this to be true, one has to completely ignore the full context of Romans 9, which is dealing with individuals. The apostle Paul, after talking of the assurance of salvation for God's people in Romans 8, has to preemptively respond to a contention that some in Rome might be presenting: if God's people are given the promise of faith, then why are so many Jews - God's supposed "chosen people" - rejecting the Gospel? Paul replies that it is "not as though the word of God has failed," and explains "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (v. 6). He follows this up with the statement that the Jews are not "all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (v. 7). In other words, you have Jew A and Jew B, and Jew A accepts the Gospel and Jew B does not - but this is no mater, for it is not being an ethnic Jew that makes you one of God's elect. In fact, it is now set so that Jew A and Gentile A together are the true Israel of God with Jew B not being a part of Israel.

Note very carefully here: Paul's talking about individuals. Jew A and Jew B are not members of specific separate nations. Paul is answering the question, "Why does Jew A follow the Gospel and Jew B rejects it if both are supposed to be part of Israel?" This is not a question of nations - this is a question of persons.

This is also contradicted with how Paul uses the quotation from Malachi 1:2, which is really just an expounding of the earlier quotation of Genesis 25:23. Paul's reference to the story of Jacob and Esau is one entirely of individual traits, not the traits of nations. He cites throughout verse 11 that "the twins were not yet born," and had "not done anything good or bad." Who is being addressed here? The twins, Jacob and Esau - individual persons.

This is seen likewise in the passages that follow, wherein Paul quotes God saying to Moses "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (v. 15), followed by Paul's own summation: "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (v. 16). This is, again, dealing with election on an individual basis. We see it again when Paul mentions Pharaoh (v. 17) and declares, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v. 18). Once again, this is dealing with individual election, not national blessing. This is why reading nations into verses 10 to 13 is to simply jump from Paul's train of thought.

2. God was merely reacting to foreknowledge of what Jacob and Esau would do

The Argument: This is another popular argument, especially by those who recognize that Paul is referring to individuals and not nations. Essentially, God looks down the corridor of time, sees what Jacob and Esau will do, and thus makes His election of Jacob over Esau based on that. Therefore, God is not unconditionally electing Jacob over Esau, but He is choosing Jacob because of how Jacob will be later on in life.

The Dilemma: Despite its popularity and its seemingly simple response to Calvinism, this is perhaps the most fallacious argument to make, as it completely contradicts the original text. Namely, the fullness of verse 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, [all emphasis mine]

Paul is presenting a clear scenario: two twins are yet to be born; they haven't done anything good or bad, so you can't judge them by any actions. A choice is then made - one of the children is favored by God. Why was this done? Does the text have God say, "Because I see in the future that Jacob is going to be a great man"? On the contrary, it says it was done on the basis of "God's purpose according to His choice," and even specifies that it was not because of works, but on God, the Him who calls. God's decision of choosing Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with what Jacob or Esau would do decades after their birth, and the verse makes that clear. Nowhere does it even imply that this election was based on passive foreknowledge of future events.

This is likewise contradicted by Paul's repetition a few verses later with the previous quoted: "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (v. 16). Once again, it is not man's works upon which God made His electing decision, but God's mercy alone. It was not what Jacob did which made God choose Jacob over Esau, but God's purpose and His full intent with what He wanted to do with Jacob. This very argument, in fact, leads logically into a works-based method of salvation, wherein man's works or actions come first, and essentially convince God to justify them upon that basis.

In this same vein, I might ask which action of Jacob made him appear justified before God? Was it Jacob's making his hungry brother give up his birthright (Gen 25:29-34)? Was it when Jacob tricked his blind, dying father into handing over Esau's blessing to him (Gen 27:1-38)? The way some interpret this passage, one would think that Jacob was a holy individual, but while he found favor in God's eyes, he was far from perfect. In any case, even if we disregard this, it still remains that the verses clearly tell us that what Jacob did had no affect upon what God decided. For a person to argue thus is to read something into the verse that not only isn't there...but is completely contradictory to what the verse says.

3. Hated doesn't mean "hated," but "loved less"

The Argument: The original Greek word for "hated" in the verse does not mean a literal hate, as if God downright loathed Esau, but that God simply loved Esau less than Jacob. This can be seen in some translations: the NLT renders it "I rejected Esau"; the CEV renders it "the Lord liked Jacob more than Esau"; the Amplified adds the parenthetical statement "held in relative disregard in comparison with My feeling for Jacob."

The Dilemma: It is certainly affirmed from many commentators (such as A.T. Robertson) that the word used here for "to hate" (μισέω) can mean to have a form of moral antipathy when contrasted with the word "to love" (ἀγαπάω). One example of this is Christ's own use of the two words in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13, wherein He says that one cannot serve two masters "for either he will hate the one and love the other." One could therefore make a valid case that when scripture says Esau was "hated," it doesn't mean a violent, passionate malice similar to an antisemitic person against a Jew, but, as stated before, a form of moral antipathy, with full preference given to Jacob.

Yet even if we concede this, where does it really get us? That God elected Jacob over Esau on preference does not hide the fact that election took place, and that Esau, during that election, was forsaken. Imagine a parent saying, "No no no, I don't hate my second son, I just prefer the first one over him." Or let's return to the citation of Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 - are we supposed to believe that the servant loves both masters equally? That would completely contradict the point Christ was trying to make. The point made is that God went over Esau and gave His blessing to Jacob, irregardless of what either individual did.


Therefore, to argue that "to hate" actually means "to love less" is, in the end, simply a non sequitor.

"Predestined" does not equal "predicted"

A common analogy used by many to try to explain God's knowledge of future events (and yet maintain some level of man's autonomy) is one that explains it as a very, very educated prediction. One such analogy involves a stock broker who is familiar with the trends of the stock market, and so accordingly plans his trading with those trends. Another version is of a veteran football coach who is well aware of his opponent's strategies and thus plans his game accordingly. However, both these examples are dangerous, because they lead one into the doctrine known as open theism.

Permit me to explain a few problems with these analogies:

• These scenarios present someone with fallible knowledge. That is, the stock broker does not know for sure what is going to happen, only an educated guess at what will happen. The football coach might likewise have a general idea of how his opponent will behave, but not an infallible foreknowledge of what will happen. This introduces the idea that God has limited knowledge of future events.
• These scenarios present the possibility of both men being wrong. Even if we say the stock broker is right 99% of the time, there is still that 1% wherein he is wrong. The same for the football coach. This introduces the idea that it is possible for God to be wrong about future events.
• In both these scenarios, the taking in of knowledge is passive and the reaction is just that - a reaction. Neither the stock broker nor the coach have any form of sovereignty over future events or that which they are responding to. This presents the idea that God does nothing but merely react to the actions of His creation.

Herein is our dilemma: that God has a limited knowledge of future events, that it is possible for Him to be wrong, and that He is simply responding to all that occurs...all these are the traits of Open Theism.

Open Theism, of course, is the teaching that God does not have infallible knowledge of future events. However, it would be wrong to represent it as simply a helpless God worried about the next day, as if God is sitting in heaven biting His proverbial fingernails. Most Open Theists liken it to a master chess player playing against a novice: although he does not know for sure what will happen next and may have one or two surprises, God is still able to maneuver around the actions of creation and still come out on top. Their argument is that if God knows something will happen, and there is no possibility of it not happening, then that is merely an indirect form of determinism. To quote an Open Theist source:

However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists the "future" is not a present reality-it does not exist-and God knows reality as it is.

This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God's knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do. [source]

This more accurate definition sounds like the examples we looked at in the beginning of this post. Those who use these examples to try to teach a libertarian free will are inadvertently teaching Open Theism instead. They are presenting a God who has fallible knowledge of future events, no assurance of what will happen, and almost every action of God is merely a response to His creation. Both examples are therefore simply fallacious analogies to make.

The Golden Chain of Redemption

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [Romans 8:29-30]

Many people exegeting this passage hone in on the word "foreknew." In fact, I've seen blog posts which will put the word in bold and go on for paragraphs about it while seemingly forgetting everything that comes after. "Foreknew," however, is not said in isolation, and in fact is said in a series of verbs in what is known by many as "the golden chain of redemption." The order is:

• Foreknew
• Predestined
• Called
• Justified
• Glorified

The first question to bring forward: does God truly know foreknow what will come? The easy answer is: yes, God does know what will come, having perfect knowledge of all that has been, is, and soon will be. All knowledge, wisdom and understanding comes from the perfect knowledge, wisdom and understanding of God (cf. Prov 2:6). This is why the blessed apostle begins this section of his epistle with "those whom He foreknew." Those who jump to this word immediately argue that God already knew what was going to unfold, and therefore conclude that God merely reacted to the libertarian free will of man. However, no where does this text say that God reacted to that which the person did, only that He foreknew their existence beforehand.

What the synergistic conclusion also forgets is that the apostle Paul moves on from this perfect knowledge of God to God acting upon that knowledge. Those "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." God, seeing Person A and Person B, both of whom He knew would be in the fallen state of Adam, predestined Person A to "become conformed to the image of His Son." Note this: if God simply foreknew Person A would become a Christian, there would ultimately no need for this predestination, for it was already known that Person A would, in the far future, become a Christian.

After this, we have a further procession: from this predestination for conformation comes the order of how this conformation comes about. That is: "these whom He predestined, He also called," then "these whom He called, He also justified," and finally "these whom He justified, He also glorified." We have here four actions - predestination, calling, justifying, and glorifying - overlapping one another in a true chain. One thing is absolutely certain in this case: those God has predestined will in the end be glorified. Nowhere in this entire chain is it ever suggested that those predestined would not end up being called, nor that any of those called would not be justified, nor that any of those justified would not be glorified. Those God had chosen through predestination to be called and justified will in the end be glorified. A perfect case, if any, for Perseverance of the Saints.

Many would still interject here with: "But the word foreknew! God foreknew all this would happen, which means He simply reacted to the free will!" I reiterate again, however, that if God already had perfect foreknowledge of what the person was going to do, then there would be no need for predestination to conformation. If the person was already set in stone to be conformed into the image of Christ, God would not have to predestine the matter. If we argue that he was conformed because of God's predestination, then the argument for libertarian free will is simply turned on its head. That is, if we say God foreknew He would predestine the person, then that leaves God in complete control of the situation. If we say God foreknew they would become Christian, and so he predestined, but he foreknew because of the predestination...then we simply argue in circles. To even suggest the foreknowing is from God's foreknowledge of His predestining is likewise still placing the authority upon God.

In this regard, it must be noted that God is said to be the only active party here. By that I mean that God is the enabler and causation of all the actions. The apostle Paul writes: He predestined, He called, He justified, He glorified. Everything happens because of God and God alone. This is not man acting down the corridor of time and God merely reacting. This is God carrying out His divine decree.

Many reacting to this conclusion will jump to the assumption that this exegesis essentially turns God into a great puppeteer with mankind nothing but marionettes, and others will claim that it turns mankind into robots. However, this is not the case. It is not that a man's actions are controlled completely by God's will, but that God's will is sovereign to mankind's free will. The man going through the golden chain of redemption will be free to do whatever he pleases, but only within those parameters. A man predestined cannot refuse the call; a man called cannot deny himself justification; and a man justified cannot forsake glorification.

Many more will call this unfair, as anyone glorified cannot resist God's will, while those left perishing are not able to receive that glorification. Ironically, this was precisely the argument Paul posed later on in the same epistle...and then answered:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

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? 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? 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? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. [Romans 9:19-24; NASB]

Mankind is in a perishing state, and no one does what is right in the eyes of God. That God chose to save any of us through His Son is enough of a sign of mercy. If our Lord were "fair" in the strictest human sense, then we would all be in hell. God, however, as Potter, is the Perfect Artist, and the Golden Chain of Redemption is but one example of the Perfect Artist going about His handiwork with His glorious creation.