“It is finished” (John 19:30). What exactly was finished when Jesus uttered those words? What could He have accomplished through ending His three years of public ministry by dying via the most torturous and humiliating form of execution mankind has ever devised? The answer is that what Jesus finished on the cross was a business transaction. We are all familiar with the idea of making business deals. A lot do it quite regularly in our day to day lives. Yet we seldom think of the death of Christ in those terms, when in fact what He accomplished on the cross was the most important business transaction in all of history.

But what is the point of this kind of deal? In order to understand its significance, it is important to first understand our state of nature. An old philosopher once said that man is born free. He is clearly mistaken, because the Bible teaches that we are born enslaved to sin: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We look at the evil people in the world around us and think that we are somehow better. Yet the word of God does not mince words when it talks about the condition of our hearts: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV). This is a condition from which we cannot escape by our own power, which is why Jesus said “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). When we sin, we incur a debt on our record. Our payment for this debt is slavery in this life, and condemnation in the next, hence the scriptural saying: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). This is why in the end, those who remain slaves to sin will experience the fiery wrath of God on Judgment day, when He cleanses the world of every last trace of evil, including those who scripture says are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), who are destined for shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Read the rest of this entry

Some time ago I was working through CS Lewis’s classic, The Problem of Pain. In it there is one line that I lifted out of its pages and plugged into my Twitter timeline – and shortly after that there started some dialogue with a fellow (we’ll call him Pete) who believed that the statement I offered was contradictory and he subsequently mocked it as such.

Well, either this Pete is a very intelligent man and CS Lewis was an idiotic fool or, quite probably, the quote I tweeted was most likely misunderstood.

Speaking on the necessity of God’s love for us and of the characteristic of God’s love for us, I echoed Lewis’s sentiment and tweeted:

[It is because God] already loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable.

Moments after I shared this on Twitter, I received this reply from Pete: “lol contradiction is faith”.

When I inquired as to how the statement was contradictory, Pete wrote back that “If you’re lovable, you don’t need to be made lovable. You already are”.

Now that might sound reasonable, but I believe it misses the point entirely, let alone misreads what was actually tweeted (which was that God’s love for us compels him to make us even more lovable). Lewis was not stating that God already saw us as lovable. In an effort to correct Pete and to point this out, I tweeted: “Love seeks to perfect the object of its love”.

What did I mean by this? Parents know this all too well. When your child is born you love your child not for anything that your child has done, nor even for how adorable your child may be. I should think that you love your child simply because you choose to love your child – the word “lovable” doesn’t really come into it at this point. When your child wakes crying at 1am in the morning, then again at 2.30am, and yet again an hour later, as a parent, the word “lovable” isn’t the exact word that enters your head. But as a parent you do attend to your child out of the love you have for him / her – again, not for anything your child has done to deserve it.

Where I believe Pete erred is that he equated the term “lovable” to be a prerequisite in order to love. In other words, on his view, you cannot love someone unless that someone has a quality that you find lovable. Another problem in defining the term “lovable” in this fashion is that the definition is purely arbitrary – what I find lovable might well be unlovable to you.

God does not see us as “lovable” in this sense at all. In fact, God has some pretty strong words for how He does view us: He hates the sinner; we are far from being lovable (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Leviticus 20:23).

Paradoxically, God loves us immensely (John 3:16, John 15:13). He cannot love us for what we are – rebellious, wanton, unruly, sinful – for God is holy and his holiness will not tolerate what is impure. So what does Lewis’s statement, it “[is because God already] loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable” then actually mean?

Part of the implication of Lewis’s statement is that discipline is involved in the act of love. It has to be: without discipline, love is not love at all. Without discipline, love morphs into an act of, as Lewis says elsewhere in The Problem of Pain, a Benevolent Grandfather who’s sole intent is to please his grandchildren; this type of love leaves unruly behaviour unchecked; and unruly behaviour left unchecked leads to the development of selfish and self-centred adults.

God’s love for us is far removed from that of the Benevolent Grandfather’s; God’s love is richer and purer. God’s holy love entails discipline. As the writer of Hebrews writes:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11, emphasis mine.)

So this is what Lewis means when he says that it is out of God’s love for us – his desire to see us develop into an upright and holy people – that God must work at making us lovable, more perfect, more like his son Jesus. This is why I responded to Pete that Love seeks to perfect the object of its love, to desire the very best – God requires that we be perfect for he is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Yet the only way we can be perfect is for God to work on us to become so and it is out of his love for us that he “labours” to achieve this (Heb 12:5-8).

God so loved us that he sacrificed his only son, Jesus Christ, so that through Jesus’ cleansing blood we become perfect in his eyes and, as a result, become truly, purely, lovable through and through.

Not because of who I am, but because of what you’ve done
Not because of what I’ve done but because of who you are

(lyrics from “Who Am I?” by Casting Crowns)

In the comments area to a previous article I had written last year about Christianity being singularly unique in its salvation by grace (and not of works), a visitor left the following question (emphasis mine):

This does not help. I need to believe in Christ in order to receive what he did for me. Okay. But if I don’t believe and repent, then I can’t be saved. Correct? So when it comes down to it, I have to do a work in order to be saved. Please don’t change and switch words around in order to fit a point of view. This is a very serious matter. So, how am I to truly receive salvation?

I need to believe in Christ in order to receive what he did for me.

This is not quite right, for that very belief—if it is a saving faith—is itself something that one receives by what Christ did. That is to say, the very act of believing in Jesus Christ savingly means that you are already in receipt of what he did for you; for God removing your heart of stone (that hated God and loved sin) and replacing it with a heart of flesh (that loves God and hates sin) is a product of the redeeming work that Christ did. It is called regeneration and is a work of God, not of one’s self, by virtue of the fact that it is a change wrought in us and not an act performed by us. If a person believes in Jesus as the Christ for the salvation of his soul, then we can know that such a person has been born of God (1 John 5:1, literally “out of God has been born”). The 1689 London Baptist Confession states that “the grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the Spirit in their hearts” (14.1), and that “the principal acts of saving faith relate in the first instance to Christ, as the believer accepts, receives and rests upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life; and all by virtue of the covenant of grace” (14.2). Repentance and faith are gifts of grace from the Father in heaven bestowed upon all those who he gives to the Son for his sake and glory. No one can come to Christ unless it is granted him by the Father and everyone whom the Father gives the Son is certain to come to him. So the very act of believing in Christ savingly means that you are in receipt of what he did for you already.

(And do not get too hung up on that clause, “if it is a saving faith,” for it is meant to simply distinguish between true belief and false belief, the latter signifying a bare intellectual assent that is not a product of regeneration by the Spirit, and thus that person neither properly apprehends his sinful condition before an holy God nor fully surrenders himself to Jesus as Christ and his sovereign Lord.)

If I don’t believe and repent, then I can’t be saved. Correct?

That is not so. The question of whether or not you can be saved is answered by what Christ did, not by what you do. Because of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice you can be saved. So if you do not believe and repent, then you are not saved; but from the fact that you aren’t saved it does not follow that you can’t be saved. You can be, and what Christ did is the reason—not what you do. In Christ alone by grace through faith alone for the glory of God alone.

So when it comes down to it, I have to do a work in order to be saved.

Incorrect. To repent and believe is a fruit of salvation, not the cause thereof. It is not faith that saves, but Christ who saves through faith. There is no work you can do in order to be saved; that is the very reason for and necessity of the faithfulness of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice, apart from whom no one would be reconciled. It is by grace that we are saved through faith—which is the glorious gift of God, so that no one can boast. As Paul writes in Titus 3:4–6, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior” (see also Rom 9:16; cf. v. 11).

So how am I to truly receive salvation?

Through the faithfulness of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice; “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). If anyone thinks there is even a shred of anything they can do in order to be saved, then that person understands neither the unmitigated holiness of God nor the depth of their own sin and their desperate condition apart from the faithfulness of Christ Jesus. The gospel is not a slogan or a simple decision or a formulaic rite that will only take a minute of your time; it is the consuming fire and everlasting power of God under which we recognize with contempt and loathing the black filthiness of our sinful condition and with unquenchable joy and love the inexpressible beauty and glory of Christ, who he is and what he does. An eternity spent at his feet will not be enough to comprehend the depth and scope of the gospel of our Savior King.

“When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God. For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling. My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God. … God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. … so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people” (1 Cor 2:1–13; emphasis mine).

“For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit” (1Thess 1:4–6; emphasis mine).

Aaron from the Apologetic Junkie blog, and an associate in the Christian Apologetics Alliance, recently offered some thoughts on the question of whether or not all sin is the same, and I think it is well worth a read. He tells how the answer is both yes and no, depending on the context of the question. In the legal context of our guilt before a most holy God, the answer is yes. In the existential context of the damage sin does to others and the church and to our relationship with God, the answer is no.

Click here to read more from Aaron.

In the comments field to one of Adam’s recent posts, [1] a visitor called Trolando asked the following question regarding John MacArthur’s explanation of the word boulomai with respect to its appearance in 2 Peter 3:9.

Then what do you make of 2 Peter 3:9? … Not only is it stating that God wants (boulomai) all to be saved, but also no one to be lost, which makes an even stronger case for universalism. [2]

Since I know that I have addressed this passage before, [3] I went looking to see if I had published it anywhere on this web site. But I could not find it so perhaps I never have published it here. So allow me to correct that and simultaneously answer Trolando’s question. My comment at the Duane’s Mind blog was answering the question posed to me by Marc Kay, “What do you think 2 Peter 3:9 means?”

~*~

Very simply, 2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what it says. Every time this passage is brought into question, the problem hinges less upon what it means and more importantly upon what it says. You see, most people don’t even know what it says because they have become accustomed to using the passage as a proof-text, reading it in isolation rather than interpreting it in context, as though Peter’s second epistle was not actually a complete letter but a collection of pithy sayings. When you start asking relevant questions about Peter’s second letter, like who he was writing to, you move beyond proof-texting errors into responsible exegesis and consequently discover what it says…

…and therefore what it means.

But before we get into that, let us first assume that it means what you think it does, that God does not want anyone whatsoever to perish. And let us further assume along with you that there are no distinctions in what God wills, that he has but one will. If we understand his singular will here in the decretive sense (i.e., that which God decrees or ordains shall happen), then we discover a violent contradiction between this understanding and what the Bible declares elsewhere, in so many places, about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. If this passage means that it is God’s holy decree that no one whatsoever perish, then the fact that so many ultimately end up perishing means that God can—and does—fail, that his purposes can be thwarted, that he sometimes cannot do as he pleases, that he is neither almighty nor sovereign. It shipwrecks countless scriptures.

In every case I have observed, the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will, a notion for which there is not a single shred of scriptural evidence. That is bad enough in itself, but it is made all the worse by the wealth of scriptural evidence of God not only being able to violate man’s free will but his precisely doing so, from Genesis clear through to Revelation (cf. Exo. 21:13; Gen. 20:6, Rev. 17:17). So the fact that this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 creates such violent contradictions, plus the fact that its underlying assumption is without scriptural support at best and contradicted by numerous biblical passages at worse, we have ample, solid reason to consider such an interpretation as highly improbable.

If we understand his singular will here in the prescriptive sense (i.e., that which God prescribes or commands should happen), then we find no overt contradictions with other scriptures. But it does create a problematic dissonance in the context of the passage, for it seems out of harmony with not only the text itself but the context of the letter overall. It does not exactly make sense to understand it as saying, “God is patient with you, not commanding anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.” While it is certainly true that God commands everyone to come to repentance, it is nonsensical to think Peter is reminding his readers that God does not command anyone to perish. That creates a monkey wrench in the flow of the text that gives us reason to think it is a rather improbable reading.

So if God’s will here is in neither a decretive nor prescriptive sense, what other sense is there for us to take it in? Well, that is a conclusion I do not feel we have reached yet. This passage certainly is referring to God’s will in its decretive sense, but the question is less theological and more exegetical; in other words, the issue is not about the nature of God’s will so much as the identity of who Peter is talking about. Many people like you use this as a proof-text that God’s purpose was to save literally all mankind without discrimination, an easy and tempting instinct when this verse is isolated from its context—the chapter, the letter overall, and the letter that preceded it. But the passage itself is clear about who is being referred to. First of all, the complete verse reads:

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

And that is the vital key so many people overlook, “toward you.” Peter has a specific group of hearers; the context of “anyone” and “everyone” that Peter is referring to is defined by the “you” he is writing to. That direct relationship is important to note. Consider the following illustration.

Imagine that you have called a staff meeting. As you stand looking over the people gathered in the board room, you announce, “We cannot afford to have anyone miss this information, so before I get to what I have to tell you, I need to know if everyone is here.” Obviously you are not asking if all six billion people on the planet are present in the board room; moreover, you are certainly not asking if all people who have existed, do exist, and will ever exist are present. The “anyone” and “everyone” are directly related to the “you” being addressed—your staff members.

The Lord is patient toward you, Peter said. That is a vital key too often missed. The Lord does not want anyone (of those he is patient toward) to perish; he wants everyone (of those he is patient toward) to come to repentance. So then who is this “you” that Peter is addressing in his letter? All mankind indiscriminately?

Back up to the first verse. We find Peter saying, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” So those he is speaking to in this letter are not all mankind without discrimination but rather his beloved who he has already written to once before. Moreover, the beginning of the letter (2 Peter 1:1) is addressed even more clearly still; Peter is writing to “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Obviously what Peter has to say is not addressed to all mankind because not all mankind has obtained a faith of equal standing with the apostles by the righteousness of Christ. He is addressing the faithful flock of Christ. Peter had a specific mission with a specific message.

There is further importance to the fact that this message is being addressed to friends that he has written to before. What will we find out about these people from that first letter of his? We will find out that they are (1 Peter 1:1-5) “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood” whom God has mercifully caused “to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

That is who God is patient with in 2 Peter 3:9, who he will not have perish but have come to repentance. God is patient toward you, my beloved, to whom I have written before, God’s faithful elect, chosen by the Father through the Spirit for the Son. God is patient with you, such that every single one will be redeemed.

This understanding gains even further support still when you read elsewhere in the Scriptures that God has a select remnant of Israel chosen by grace and a select number of Gentiles. God is not slow in keeping his promise; he is being patient, waiting until that full number of God’s chosen has been fulfilled (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15). In other words, the day of the Lord will not come until all those he has chosen have been brought forth and redeemed. Believers must not be impatient with God and his timetable, but faithful and praising the glory of his plan set from eternity, humbled and giving thanks to his incomprehensible mercy. Not only does this interpretation make sense, it is the only one that does.

Under an unbiblical understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very little sense because it holds that God’s plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet untold masses have and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet untold masses have not and will not. On this view the sinful desires of mankind is more important to God than his own righteous glory.

Under a biblical understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes perfect sense—within the context of that verse itself, the chapter, the letter overall, the previous letter, letters written by other apostles, and so forth. God’s own righteous glory is more important to God than the sinful desires of mankind. As John Piper has said: for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory, “he would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry … Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable?”

1. Morgan (2011).
2. Trolando (2011, August 1). Comment to Morgan (2011).
3. Smart (2009, November 3). Comment to Proud (2009).

References:

• Morgan, Adam (2011, July 20). “It is God’s will that all men be saved.” Aristophrenium. [Blog]
  http://aristophrenium.com
• Proud, Duane (2009, October 1). “God Saves! (Or, Jesus is not a rope).” Duane’s Mind. [Blog].
  http://home.people.net.au/~DuanesMind/

In the comments section of Fisher’s post John Calvin on Fatalism, the conversation seemed to have found its way to 1 Tim 2:4. And since this verse seems to generate a lot of debate these days, at least from my perspective, I thought it would be a good idea to explore 1 Tim 2:4 a little bit more thoroughly.

1 Tim 2:3-4 “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”

The key part is “who will have all men to be saved” (KJV). Other versions state it as “who desires all men to be saved” (NASB) and “who wants all men to be saved” (NIV) but it essentially means the same thing.

The first thing we need to do is look at the context of this verse. According to John MacArthur (from whom I’m getting this explanation), this verse falls in the middle of a section of scripture addressing Evangelistic Prayer (verses 1 through 8). So given the context of this section, we should remember that Paul is addressing how we, as believers, should be praying for the lost to be saved as this lines up with Gods desire. It is Gods desire that all be saved so therefore it should also be our desire that all be saved.

The full explanation can be found here, but I just want to look at the words will, desire and want as used in verse 4 of the various english translations. In each case we find it has been translated from the Greek word “thelo” into will, desire, or want. Now, working back to the Greek from will (KJV). There are two basic Greek words for will and they are “thelo” and “boulomai”. So what does each of these words mean? “Thelo” reflects the will of desire springing from feeling and inclination while “boulomai” speaks of a will that comes from precise determination.

So the will/desire/want used in 1 Tim 2:4 is not the will/desire/want in the “boulomai” sense; that God has precisely determined the salvation of all men. It is not a sovereignly ordained fact that everyone is going to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4 is not talking about that kind of will but that of “thelo” which is the word used in the original Greek text.

It’s not simply a “What God wants he gets” in some sort of universalistic salvation or that we have some sort of impotent God who is unable to fulfil His will. There’s a distinction between God’s sovereign will and His moral will.

To put it another way, we would all agree without equivocation that God does not desire people to sin. Could we agree with that? We do not believe that God desires people to do evil, to sin, to be disobedient, to be unholy, to fail to give Him glory. No, we would all agree with that. In fact the spectrum of evangelical theology would agree to that. We know God desires men not to sin. We do not for a moment advocate anything different than that. So turn the table a bit. Would we would all agree then that God desires all men to be holy? No one would argue against that, right? God desires all men to be righteous. God desires all men to be sinless. God desires all men to give Him glory and give Him honour and give Him respect. God desires all men to be obedient. I mean, He commands men over and over and over and over to be obedient. He calls for righteousness. He calls for holiness. He calls for sinlessness. He calls for everyone on the face of the earth to give Him honour and give Him glory. He calls for all men everywhere to repent. Nobody debates that. We all know God wants men to be holy.

Therefore, we conclude that people sin though God does not want them to. That’s obvious. People are unholy though God does not want them that way. People do not give God glory though God does not want them not to give Him glory. Then why is it such a hard thing for some people to realise that people also go to hell though God does not want them to? God wants all men to be saved. That is the desire of God.

Men sin and they go to hell, not because it is God’s express sovereign purpose for them. They go to hell because they denied God’s moral will for their life. He calls them to repent. He calls them to be saved. If anyone goes to hell, they go there not because of the predetermined choice of God, but because of the rejection of Jesus Christ. That’s what He’s saying. He wants all men saved.

In the exact words of John MacArthur;

I believe in the sovereignty of God, I believe in election, I believe in predestination, beloved, I also believe that God wills men to be saved and by their choice they are not saved and that is their responsibility not God’s. And if you ask me how those two things harmonize, I say I’ll tell you our first day in heaven, I’ll explain the whole thing. But I know this, God has a broken heart because He desires salvation from the ends of the earth, why else would Jesus weep over Jerusalem. “O how often I would, I willed to gather you together but you would not.” He said that. You wouldn’t do it. Why will you die? Why will you reject?

So in tying this with the challenge in the comments of Fishers post, I believe the will of God espoused by John Calvin, Ryft and Fisher with regard to the issue of choice, election and predestination is the will of “boulomai.” It is not the will of “thelo” that we find in 1 Tim 2:4.

One of the most common accusation that is hurled by Arminians and other non-Calvinists against Reformed theology is that it promotes fatalism. It is not uncommon to hear an Arminian charge that we teach that God “hinders people from coming to repentance when they really want to” and that believers are “forced to love God.”[1] Of course, nobody who actually knows what the doctrines of grace entail would actually make such statements. The Bible is clear enough on how people become saved: Men are by nature sinful and in rebellion against God (Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9), and are rendered incapable of even desiring to come to Him because of this inclination (John 6:44, 65, Romans 3:10-12, 8:5-8), which is why it is necessary for Him to change their hearts and minds (Ezekiel 36:25-27). It is only after this change of heart takes places that a person becomes willing to come to Christ.

That being said, statements such as “whosoever will may come” are totally compatible with a Reformed understanding of salvation. In fact, John Calvin himself made a statement similar to this in his commentaries. He writes:

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.[2]

Not only this, but he refutes the very idea of fatalism. In his Institutes, he points out that the belief that people are forced by necessity to worship God is a heathenistic doctrine that has nothing to do with Christianity in any way:

To this fault they [i.e. the heathen] add a second—viz. that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statius properly applies: “Fear first brought gods into the world,” (Theb. lib. 1).[3]

When one takes the time to study the writings of Reformed theologians, one will quickly find that there is nothing fatalistic about the doctrines that are being propounded. Nobody should ever accuse the doctrine of predestination with fatalism, for the simple reason that the former is accomplished according to God’s eternal purposes and takes into account the man’s will and responsibility, whereas the latter teaches that whatever men become happen simply by virtue of blind, purposeless chance, and that their wills and desires are ultimately irrelevant, if not non-existent. Loraine Boettner said it best in his section on fatalism in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, so I shall end this note with a quote from there:

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.[4]

End Notes

1. These are, of course, statements that I have personally heard from Arminians at some point or another, so I can personally testify that these accusations are regularly hurled against Calvinists.
2. Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts – Volume 1. 2:14-21. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.ix.iii.html.
3. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I:4:4. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.v.html.
4. Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. III:1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.i.html.

See Also

• Fisher – Refuting Lou Ruggiero on Calvinism

(HT: @Shinar_Squirrel)

Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today published an opinionated response to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler who seized upon Congressman Anthony Weiner entering “treatment” to make a point about Jesus Christ being the only answer for the problem of sin. Mohler tweeted the following on June 11, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Grossman’s scurrilous opinion piece about Mohler began by describing his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at Jews like Weiner and other non-Christians.” That sounds rather scandalous, does it not? But if you remove her spurious histrionics about Jews it loses all its force. For instance, consider if Grossman had instead described his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians.” But that risks representing Mohler and his tweet accurately—gasp!—which targeted Weiner as a person, not as a Jew. And in a subsequent blog post Mohler also points that out. “I never mentioned Judaism,” he writes. “Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation” (emphasis mine).

As she goes on to characterize Mohler’s tweet (in this and another article), notice how persistently Grossman harps on Jews and Weiner being Jewish:

• “… an evangelism tactic … aimed at people like Jews such as Weiner …”
• “What he told the Jewish congressman was …”
• “So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a Jewish person in crisis as a sermon springboard … Right?”
• “He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is Jewish …”
• “… a turn-or-burn message addressed to a Jewish person …”

The fact that Weiner is Jewish was never a relevant point in Mohler’s tweet. And if she were to give it even a moment’s thought Grossman ought to realize that. The relevant point was that Weiner as a person struggled with a particular sin and chose to seek “treatment” to make himself well, which can never work apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on behalf of all believers. She can make a big fuss about this person being Jewish or that one being Muslim but at the end of the day she has a battlefield full of straw men of her own making, none of them being relevant to Mohler’s gospel point which stands irrespective of the religion of this or that person, Weiner included. It is about people inescapably being sinners regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and so forth.

Consider the following rewrite and notice how her opinion piece loses just about all of its scandalous punch when the spurious histrionics about Jews is removed (the underlined text indicates where I made a change):

One of the nation’s top Southern Baptist leaders takes sexting-pol Anthony Weiner’s case as a chance to throw an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians. … This reads as an evangelism tactic, riding in on the Weiner headlines but aimed at people like Weiner, Woods, and many others, such as Weiner’s wife, who hold different ideas about salvation, different approaches to atonement.

And a rewrite of her follow-up piece:

What he told the congressman was, “There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” … So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a person in crisis as a sermon springboard to preach to his known flock to return to traditional faith. Right? But he didn’t begin “Dear Christians…” He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is a sinner … Evangelism is Mohler’s job description: He is charged with preaching the Good News, as Christians believe it, to the world and using every vehicle he can, even the sad case of #Weinergate in Twitterspeak… So, it would be no surprise if many read a message that starts, “Dear Congressman Weiner,” as a turn-or-burn message addressed to a person in the public domain.

All of a sudden Weiner being Jewish is irrelevant—as it always was. With all of her spurious histrionics about Jews removed, all of a sudden Grossman is reporting about an evangelist addressing a sinner about the necessity of being in Christ in order to “make himself well” (which Weiner’s spokesman Risa Heller said his aim is). Apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ no “treatment” will save him from his carnality and sin. This goes for everyone, completely irrespective of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth.

References:

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 12). “Baptist to Jewish Weiner: Christ is the only ‘treatment’.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 15). “Baptist leader stands by ‘Christian love’ for Weiner.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Mohler, Albert (2011, June 14). “Theology, therapy, Twitter, and the scandal of the gospel.” AlbertMohler.com.
http://www.albertmohler.com

Among the various threads I participate in at AtheistForums.org was one started by a Muslim user who had a particular question for Christians. I thought I would share my response to him here at the Aristophrenium.

I’d like to hear from Christians what original sin is, because I can never understand why God would allow the sin of a father (Adam) to be committed to the son (humanity). I’ve heard reasons from others to believe why this is wrong, but can anyone prove why it is right?

The question of original sin is somewhat difficult to discuss with non-Christians because it is a theological issue that is settled exegetically (i.e., study of the biblical texts); if one denies the Scriptures as divine revelation, the whole matter becomes rather moot (but their denial is a product of original sin). Outside of the biblical texts I suppose one could define original sin however they like, although the fact that such a person is talking about original sin at all would be quite odd, since it is quintessentially a biblical concept. While the term itself is not found in the Scriptures—it was actually coined by Augustine of Hippo—the concept is deeply biblical, rooted in the theology of salvation (soteriology).

There is an aphorism penned by Paul E. Little that captures the essence of original sin: “We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.” Original sin means quite simply sin derived from our origin; biblically and theologically that origin is “in Adam,” who is the federal representative of all mankind as imago Dei. It is not so much that we are all held accountable for Adam’s sin, as your question alluded to, as that all mankind is fallen as sinners because Adam, our federal head in the economy of salvation, fell into sin; i.e., from a sinful origin comes a sinful lineage, a condition which produces in man every sort of sin. In this same theology of salvation we have Jesus Christ, described in this context as the “last Adam” (cf. the theological dichotomy revealed in the New Testament gospels and epistles); that is, all mankind is represented in one of two camps, such that those who are not “in Christ” thus remain “in Adam,” each being the federal head of those they represent. So that is the meaning of original sin: sin derived from our origin, condemned “in Adam” as sinners until we are justified “in Christ” as redeemed.

Photo Credit: Susan Hamm (http://www.facebook.com/wincerbeen)

If you have been paying attention to recent news, then the picture above does not require any explanation. If you are a Christian, you probably went to church this morning, and you and the rest of the congregants had a good laugh about the recent failed endtime prediction by Harold Camping of Family Radio (Which, by the way, has gone through a complete overhaul, with all references to May 21 taken out of the homepage). God knows what will happen from here; perhaps Camping will finally admit that he has been wrong all these years, repent and rejoin the rest of the Church. Or perhaps he will persist in his errors and attempt to recalculate the end to a different date (After all, his failed 1994 prediction of the rapture didn’t stop him from predicting it again this year). Whatever the case, we hope for the salvation and restoration into fellowship of those who have been deceived into following this man’s false prophecies.

Read the rest of this entry