Another Post

I just noticed that I haven’t posted anything since last Wednesday, and in my desire to be relevant to blog culture, it appears that I must post something now. How do you like the post so far? Hopefully it will get better as you read.

This isn’t the first time I have tried my hand at stream-of-consciousness-spencerian blogging, however, it may surprise that this is actually going somewhere.

And we have now arrived at the point of the post:
Don’t blog unless you actually have something to say. I hate it when my bloglines account says that I have four hundred new posts to read only to find that about one-tenth of those post are actually worth reading.

So, here’s a list of people who can blog every single day.

Team Pyro can post any time they want.
Centuri0n can post once a day.
Steve Camp can post once a day. (I don’t have time to read two 6,000 word posts in one day, and I really want to read it all.)
Chad Bresson can post whenever he wants.
Triablogue can post whenever they want, but they must only publish their posts once.
Fide-O can post whenever they want.
Daniel can post every day.
Moorhead can post every day.
Tom Ascol can post anytime he wants.

There are more that I want to list who can post everyday, and there are some who are very good about posting only when they have something to say, like Pastor Steve Weaver, J. Wendell and Matt Gumm. But if I listed those, then I would be too specific about who I am no longer allowing to post everyday. So check yourselves. Don’t make me permanently revoke your blogging privileges.

Was that Turkian enough?

Your Comments, My Response!

This is something I’ve never done before. The questions here are from the previous post. My response is in blue.

Joe said…

I certainly believe in the absolute sovereignty of God and the total depravity of man.

But I also believe in “free willism” and free grace.

O wretched man that I am!

I am unlabelable!

Joe, It will surprise many I’m sure to read this, but I agree with you! Not that it is a surprise that I would agree with you, but that I would believe in a free will and free grace. IF by free will we mean the ability to choose based upon what I want to do, and, IF by free grace we mean that God freely gives us his grace which was not really free but purchased for us by Christ’s death which is liberating us from our sins.

Wes Kenney said…

While I see so much of the debate as semantics, there is one element of it that bothers me.

Calvinists say that their view of salvation is God-centered, while others are ‘man-centered.’ While I try not to personalize rhetoric, this annoys me.

I certainly recognize that God is the Author of salvation, and without His provision, it wouldn’t be possible. But because I believe that salvation is freely offered to man who, having been drawn by the Spirit, freely chooses to submit to that drawing or not to submit, I don’t then say that man is sovereign in that relationship.

We all believe that man is the object of salvation. We all believe that God is the Actor in salvation. We all believe that Jesus is the Provider of salvation. In light of that, is not “God-centered vs. man-centered” just a rhetorical device with division as its objective?

Wes,

I don’t think the difference between Calvinists and Arminians is merely semantics. I think there is a very real distinction between saying, “God chose me because I chose Him”, and “I chose God because He chose me.” The former makes me sovereign in my salvation by making God responsive to me, while the latter recognizes that God is sovereign in my salvation by making me responsive to God.

I’m sorry to annoy you:-), but as you can tell by my first response to you, it’s the truth. I too believe that God is the Author of salvation and not just by making salvation possible, but actually accomplishing salvation for the elect. The elect are irresistibly drawn by the Spirit who regenerates them and gives them the freedom of will to choose Christ, which freedom they were devoid of from the first. Again, by my first response you can see that I do not believe this to be a rhetorical device meant for division, but a truth that should unite us.

Sojourner said…

Wes,

The reason that Calvinist get so uptight about your description is because the ultimate choice of salvation lies with man and not with God. That is, God decided He wanted to save you, but He actually can’t unless you agree to it. This makes man the final arbiter of salvation. This is seen to contradict John 15:16 especially. For Calvinists, God must not only offer salvation; He must also make us able to choose it. Which, by the way, is not very far from the “prevenient(sp?) grace” idea of John Wesley. But alas, I digress…

Darth Doxo,

I have a question about the “T” from your perspective. What remains of the image of God in a non-regenerate person? Or, if you are really feeling like having fun, what is the image of God?

Brad, Good point about prevenient grace and Wesley. Wesley, a man that I hope I have some in common with, and yet also some differences, recognized that man’s will could not be truly free unless liberated in some way by God’s grace. His solution was the wrong one, but shows that he knew the issues better than some today. The big bad “T” in my perspective is that they will breeze through March madness.:-) Ohhh…You meant Total Depravity. In a sense the image of God is not there at all, and in another sense it is.
Boice used an illustration of a young girl who was sent out by her mother with some money and a pitcher to buy some milk. Along the way the girl tripped and fell and the pitcher was broken. A man happened by and saw the young girl sitting and crying. When he asked why she was so sad, she retold the incident and added, “I’m sure to be spanked.” So the man willing to help her tried to fit the pieces of the pitcher back together. After several unsuccessful attempts it was found to be impossible. So the man picked the little girl up in his arms, took her to the store, bought a new pitcher and milk, and then carried her home to her mother. The pitcher in the story was made for carrying milk, but the ability of the pitcher to carry milk was impaired when the pitcher was broken. The pitcher was useless as to its original purpose. Boice then remarks that old pieces of pottery are not invaluable, however. Archaeologists can use broken pitchers to date civilizations and many have used broken pottery for ashtrays or artwork. Job used pieces of pottery to scrape his boils. But that pottery is useless as far as its original intent.
So the question then becomes, “What is man’s purpose?” To glorify God and enjoy Him forever by exhibiting Godlike character. Man is useless to fulfill this purpose. The great thing about the Gospel is that it restores the ability to fulfill this purpose. Instead of only glorifying God indirectly or passively, it is our passion to glorify Him. Instead of enjoying the good things that we have from God, we can enjoy Him, and instead of doing good because it seems good to us, we do good in order to display God’s character here on earth. The image of God in man is the ability to reflect His glory back to Him.

The Guiding Principle Behind Calvinism

Perhaps the simplest statement of it is the best: that it lies in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the inevitably accompanying poignant realization of the exact nature of the relation sustained to Him by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. -The Works Of Benjamin B. Warfield; Volume V; Calvin and Calvinism, Part IV, Section 2, “Fundamental Principle”, pg 354.

In working man’s English this means: When a man sees God in His radiant majesty, and then, looking back on himself, sees himself as a worm, Calvinism follows.

God and His glory is the guiding principle in Calvinism. Seeing God as the Holy, Exalted, Ruler, Sovereign, Merciful, Gracious, Awesome, Wrathful, Awful, and Loving God that He truly is, accompanied by a vision of who we truly are; vengeful, sinner, unholy, angry, hateful, full of lies and hypocrisy, it is only reasonable that we come to an understanding of salvation that rests solely and totally in God’s sovereign mercies.
The first point of Calvinism is popularly called Total Depravity. But Total Depravity is not really the first point of Calvinism. God is the first point. God who created all things, God who works all things after the pleasure of His own will, God who causes all that is to continue to be.
Not only is God the first point of Calvinism, He is all the points of Calvinism! And yet, for ease of explanation, acronyms and points have been put together for our understanding.
Following the acronym TULIP then, Total Depravity comes first. This is a correct view of mankind when compared to God. When we say that mankind is ‘depraved’, we mean that mankind is morally corrupt and perverted. Corrupt means gone bad. Perverted means twisted.
As we look back at our initial creation, we find that God created us good and in His own image. But then we find that sin has twisted that image and corrupted it. Sin has taken those similarities we had with God, which were given to us by God, and turned them into something repulsive in the sight of God. Our morals were twisted, our desires were corrupted, and our wills were bound by sin.
On the other hand, when we see God through Scripture, we see Him revealed as Holy. He is revealed as all that man is not, can not be, and will not be. He is really and truly ‘other’. He is not like us.
Isaiah saw God, and after he heard the angels singing back and forth to one another in an endless strain, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, the whole earth is full of His glory!”, his only response was this, “Woe is me. I am disintegrating. I cannot maintain myself in wholeness because I have seen God who is Wholly Other.”

The guiding principle of Calvinism is God. Calvinists, like Isaiah, have caught just a small glimpse of the majesty and glory of God, and they cannot continue to see themselves in the same light as before. Now we must see ourselves by the light of the radiance of God’s glory.

Was Calvin A Calvinist?

It may or may not surprise my readers to find out that I worked for about one year in a ‘Christian Store’. (Notice I said ‘Christian Store’ and not ‘Christian Bookstore’. ‘Book’ was dropped out of the name before I arrived, but I didn’t notice it till after I was working there.)
But this is not about the ‘book’ store. This is about Calvin, right?
The reason I bring up the store is this. There was a few Calvinist gentlemen who worked there alongside with me. One of these men was a ‘greeter’. Whenever this certain man would want to describe a ‘hyper’ Calvinist, he would say, “That man is more Calvin than Calvin.”

The question I want to pose to all of my readers is this:
“Just how Calvin was Calvin?” Was Calvin ‘Amyrauldian’, or a five pointer?

The reason I ask is, as we all know, the five points came along years after Calvin had died. As we read Calvin’s writings and sermons we can ascertain whether or not he agreed exactly with the Canons of Dort.
Another reason I ask is that people are always stating matter-of-factly that Calvin did not believe in Limited Atonement. This happened recently at the Founders Ministry Blog with Emir Caner. Emir Caner said;

Dox. asked which of the 5 points of Calvinism would Calvin himself reject. Dr. Kevin Kennedy (SWBTS), as well as Cumberland Presbyterians, argue that Calvin would reject limited atonement. I have perused his dissertation and find his assessment quite coherent.

I responded;

You said that Calvin would embrace all of the five points set forth by Dort except for Limited Atonement?
Do you realize how ridiculously inconsistent saying that is? Even for Dr. Kevin Kennedy!
Just for clarification Emir, you’re saying;
1. Calvin believed that men were totally depraved and that they could not come to Christ unless they had been regenerated first.
2. Calvin believed that God chose beforehand those that He would save not based on any foreseen faith or good in themselves.
3. Calvin believed that everyone that God effectually calls come to faith.
4. Calvin believed that all of those who were chosen and called also would continue in faith until death.
5. Calvin believed that Christ died for everyone.

Don’t you see the inconsistency there? The inconsistency of saying that God selected a certain number of people for salvation and then sent His Son to die in the same way for all of the rest too? Was Calvin capable of this kind of inconsistency? Either he believed all five points or none.

I have found in my reading of the Institutes that Calvin never once says that Christ’s death was for everyone. He uses the following pronouns in describing the efficacy of Christ’s death: ‘we’, ‘us’, and ‘our’. In this way he limits the atonement to believers only, and if he is consistent (considering that these sections follow prior sections that discuss election), then he limits it to the elect.

Since you guys aren’t Calvin fans anyway, I think you should turn him back over to the Calvinists.

So what do you think? Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or was he less than a full-fledged member of the Calvinist family of theologians?

Wanna Watch Me Dance?

Click here!

HT: The Thirsty Theologue

What Did I Do?

Jason and Scott have put me in the doghouse.

Those guys are worse than my wife!

Obi-Wan Kenobi Is A Sith Lord!

I finally made it to see the last installment of the Star Wars trilogy, series, or whatever you want to call it, last night. The movie script was great! Acting wasn’t. There was plenty of action though, and at least for me, that makes up for the poor acting. All the loose ends were tied up, the whole series fits together very well now. And that’s a great accomplishment, even when you take into account that the scripts were for the most part written around the same time as the first (last? Episodes 4-6) three movies were made, given the time that has elapsed between the two trilogies.

I was bothered however by the blurring of the lines between the ‘darkside’, and the ‘other’ side of the force. What do they call it, by the way? As far as I can remember it has no name other than ‘force’. And this force has a darkside. I guess we have to assume it is the ‘lightside’ or the ‘goodside’ of the force. This may not be a problem for others, but it presents a problem for me. Not because I want to equate the fictional ‘force’ with the very real Creator, but because it isn’t really stated with any clarity what this side of the ‘force’ is. Is it good, moderate, light, obscure, perfect, alright, or the ‘good ol’ boy side’ of the force?

This problem is only heightened for me as I hear one of the heroes of the movie, Obi-Wan Kenobi, say, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes!” Are you absolutely positive about that Obi? If so you have just joined the Sith in the ‘darkside’! I know that these are fictional characters but I believe they represent a fairly accurate modern conception of good and evil. ‘Absolute truth is bad and uncertainty is good.’ No, no, no, a thousand times no! How’s that for a statement of the absolute? Good and evil are not joined at the hip. It is not our responsibility to live in the gray. There is no gray, only black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, up and down, left and right, east and west. They are opposed to one another. They exist in the same world, but they war against each other, between nations, countrymen, brothers, and even in the depths of our own souls. And they will never be reconciled.

This statement by Obi-Wan also represents a common sentiment toward good prevalent in the U.S., and perhaps throughout the world today. This sentiment calls good evil, and evil good. Didn’t God or somebody say something like that once? We are taught to believe that if anyone has any kind of conviction, then that person is evil. Oops! Correction. Unless that conviction is opposed to Christianity or Christian principles, then the person of conviction is evil. Muslims? ‘oh they’re just protecting their way of life’. Atheists? ‘well you can’t force your views on others’. Murderers? ‘they’re just reacting in a way they’ve been conditioned to act by society’. Now, What about Christians? ‘religious zealots, warmongers, lazy morons,’ and anything else they can think of. That is the attitude of the world.

Now, why did I move from the attack on good and truth to attacks on Christianity? Because Christianity is good and is true. Any attack on morality or truth is an attack on Christianity and Christ himself. Christ founded the Christian church with His own blood. He said that He would build His church. He also said, ‘Love one another.’ This statement is the highest form of morality, not a warm and fuzzy feeling we have for others, but the love of God working in us and through us to do those things that please him, namely moral things. Jesus also said, ‘I am the Truth.’ Not a way or path to enlightenment, but very Truth and very Light Himself.

But we must continue to live in this world, even if we are not of it. And I would still recommend this movie to Star Wars fans. Just don’t be seduced by the Jedi’s philosophy that, ‘there is no absolute truth, and shame on you if you think there is’.

But that’s just one man’s opinion. Just kidding. It’s the truth.

Submitted by,
Sith Lord Darth Weaver,

‘We deal in absolutes.’

Something I Gave Out To My Sunday School Class As We Study Galatians

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN APOSTLE?

An Apostle in the New Testament meaning of the word is one who carries Christ’s words on His behalf. They are Christ’s representatives. In Acts chapter 1, when the disciples were gathered to replace Judas Iscariot in his ‘bishopric’ with another man, these qualifications were given:

For it is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and ‘Let another take his office.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. (Act 1:20-22)

So an Apostle is one who had seen the risen Christ and could be a witness to His resurrection.
Paul identifies himself as an Apostle in most of his letters. This is because the risen Christ had appeared to him on the road to Damascus, and had commissioned him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.
In the book of Galatians, Paul devotes the first two chapters to defending his apostleship.
Read the following verses and note Paul’s argument for his own Apostleship to the Galatians:

Paul, an apostle–not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead– (Gal 1:1)
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; (Gal 1:15-16)
And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Gal 2:6-9)

As an Apostle, Paul was a spokesperson for Christ. His words and teachings are to be regarded just as though it were Christ Himself speaking and teaching! This is the reason we can say that all Scripture is given by inspiration from God, because Christ entrusted the Gospel to His Apostles, and they in turn have committed it to pen and paper.
One of my favorite quotes comes from the Early Church Father, Irenaus. Irenaus wrote;

We have learned the plan of our salvation from no one else other than from those (Apostles) through whom the gospel has come down to us. For they did at one time proclaim the gospel in public. And, at a later period, by the will of God, they handed the gospel down to us in the Scriptures-to be the ‘ground and pillar of our faith’.

Warning!!! Blogging May Be Hazardous For Your Spiritual Health!

There are many great things about the world of Blog. One advantage of the Blog is instant publication. Another is that we have unlimited space to put down our thoughts. Actually, space is a little more constricted for some bloggers (coughstevehayscoughgenebridgescough), but these are the exception.

There are many who bloggers who have something to say that we all need to hear, some who have something that some need to hear, some who have some certain things that some need to hear, and others (like me) who like to hear themselves talk. (Right now in my mind I am saying to myself, “Everyone needs to read this!”)

Which brings me to the meat of what I want to say to all of us who are not in that first category of bloggers who have something to say that everyone needs to hear (We know who we are and is that a run-on sentence?). The message I have for us all is this, “Have a little humility and be teachable.”

It never ceases to amaze me how many times I have seen a blogger with some far out interpretation of a text hold onto that interpretation no matter how ridiculous it is proven by others to be. The problem, in my opinion, goes back to the instant publication thing. It seems that we say things before we think them through, and then, for fear of a perception of weakness, feel compelled to defend our ridiculous statements no matter what.

There is one blogger I am thinking of who goes around to every blog, spewing out his/her ridiculous notions on the Gospel, only to have them totally destroyed on every blog, and yet this blogger grows more determined to salvage his/her ‘gospel’ and force it down everyone else’s throats.

This isn’t a bunch of post-modern mumbo-jumbo here. Au contraire! Defend truth! Love the Word of God! But have a teachable spirit as you do. We all have blind spots. We are all at different points in our sanctification. Read James 3:2.

Furthermore, some people know more than me! You knew that, but I needed to be reminded, and now I will remind you, there are those who know more than you. Listen to those who have clearly progressed further than us in the Christian life, both in the truth and deeds. Comment on their blogs. Ask the hard questions. Tell them what you think. And then listen to what they say and judge it by Scripture. You might learn something. I know I have.

Resources For Studying Galatians

Here is a list of resources I have used in my studies of Galatians. To buy these books, either go to Pastor Steve Weaver’s Blog and click through the Amazon search box, or call Kingdom Bound Books AND DO NOT ask for Frank Turk, just leave your order with whoever answers the phone.

Commentaries:

Commentary On Galatians by Martin Luther
Galatians by Timothy George, NAC
The Epistle To The Galatians by Ronald Y. K. Fung, NICNT
Romans Through Galatians edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10 (Galatians Commentary by James Montgomery Boice)
The Epistle To The Galatians by F. F. Bruce, NIGTC
Historical Commentary On Galatians by William M. Ramsay
Galatians by John MacArthur
The Message Of Galatians by John Stott
Be Free by Warren Wiersbe
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians edited by Mark J. Edwards, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
Galatians: Paul’s Charter Of Freedom by Leon Morris
Galatians by Philip Graham Ryken, Reformed Expository Commentary
Galatians by G. Walter Hansen, IVP New Testament Commentary Series
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians And Colossians by John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 11

Additional Resources:

Interpreting Galatians: Explorations In Exegetical Method by Moises Silva
A Bible Handbook To The Acts Of The Apostles edited by Mal Couch
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craig S. Keener
An Introduction To The New Testament by D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris
The Message Of The New Testament: Promises Kept by Mark Dever

Online Resources:

John Gill’s Exposition Of The Entire Bible
Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible
Martin Luther’s Commentary On Galatians
Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible
Barne’s Notes On The New Testament
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown’s Commentary On The Bible
IVP Commentary On Galatians by G. Walter Hansen