Reflections on Isaiah 53:6,10

T.U.L.I.P.

In an effort to set up my thoughts and reflections on Isaiah 53, I am going to provide some of the context around what led me both to study it, wrestle with the seeming paradox in it, and finally come to my personal conclusion as to how we should understand the Isaiah 53:6 in the context of the rest of the chapter.

Even before I really made a personally motivated effort to memorize Scripture on my own, I knew these verses. Now, I may not have remembered the exact reference right away, and I knew what verse 5 much better than verse 6, but I could come close to quoting these verses for you. And it was with this in mind that I planned to study Isaiah 53 to teach in Sunday school. In the past I’ve spent weeks on studying a single chapter, but because I didn’t have that luxury this time, I planned on briefly looking at some of less familiar parts of this Messianic prophesy. My goal was to simply wet the appetites of the class into looking back at this passage with a revitalized sense of awe that may have been diminished because its familiarity.

In my grand design, I wanted to end the last few minutes of the class dealing with verse 6 and how we should understand what “the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” means. I had planned the majority of my time with looking at Christ as the once for all sacrifice as contrasted to the ongoing priestly sacrifices, what “His offspring” and “prolong His days” (v.10) means, or even how it is so important to note that “the Lord was pleased to crush Him” and “if He would render Himself (as) a guilt offering” (v.10) showed both the willingness of the suffering servant and the pleasure of the Father.

We began by reading 52:13 – 53:12 out loud, and when we were done, I asked what impressed them or stuck out to them from what we had just read. Now, I thought that someone would bring up something form verse 10, or something relating to the silent lamb before the slaughter (v. 7) and that is where we would begin the lesson. It was a good idea until the first, and only, person to answer my question referred to verse 6 and marveled at how awesome it was that Christ bore all of the sins for everyone whoever lived.

Now I had a problem. This is exactly the issue and mindset that I wanted to deal with, somewhat briefly, at the end of the class. Primarily I wanted to deal with it briefly because of the potential powder keg that discussing my conclusions on this verse might lead to. What I mean is this: at this time, I don’t necessarily believe that Isaiah 53 teaches the doctrine of particular redemption (limited atonement), but I believe that the correct understanding of it would lead one to think along those lines. And from my experience in preaching anything that touches on the doctrine of election, much less on the doctrine of limited atonement, the reaction could be less than hospitable and even cause enough discord as to motivate people to leave the fellowship of our local body. This is not to say that I will not say what the Word is saying in a particular text or situation, but I am very aware that I must be delicate because it is not my place to be so “controversial” as to motivate people to leave be cause of me.

So when the observation was made that this verse said that all people had their sins placed on Christ, and He paid for them all, I reluctantly took the carrot and decided to begin to look into what this verse means in the context of the rest of Isaiah 53. So without further ado, here are my reflections on Isaiah 53:6 when taken in context (specifically verses 11 and 12).

“⁵ But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being {fell} upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. ⁶ All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.” (Isaiah 53:5,6)

When looking at these verses, my initial gut reaction is to take them to mean exactly what the words plainly say. Namely, that Jesus bore the punishment for everyone’s sins to bring us all to peace with God because everyone of us have gone astray, but God has caused all of our iniquities to fall on Jesus. I don’t think that I go too by saying that this is the general understanding of the majority of Christians when looking at this verse in the same way. I don’t know if I heard this from someone, or if is simply what I have thought in the past, but these two verses come across almost as the equivalent of Romans 3:23 in the Old Testament. In other words, just as Romans 3:23 (built on the context of Romans 1-3) shows the universality of the sinfulness of man, this verse is portrayed as doing the same thing in the Old Testament.

I had believed that exact thing until studying this chapter for this lesson. It was not verses 5 and 6 that caused me to be up way to late struggling with how to understand it, but it was when looking at these verses in light of verses 11 and 12 that I almost pulled my hair out.

“⁶ All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

¹¹ As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see {it and} be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53: 6,11 emphasis mine)

The language of “all”, “our”, and “many” may have caused some initial confusion, but in the past I had just understood them to be referring to different groups and had no problem with that. All people are sinful but only those who have faith in Christ will be justified. There is no problem with this because that is the glorious truth of the gospel. However, the problem that I encountered came from fact that the context indicates that those whose sins Christ bears will be justified, but if all people’s iniquities fall on Christ then all would be justified. In other words, then all people everywhere would be saved. Not that I would oppose universalism if the Bible taught it, but it blatantly does not. So how can I understand this in context?

Even though we understand that we are justified and connected to the death and resurrection of Christ through faith, Isaiah doesn’t address that. He simply states that “the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” and that the “Servant justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.” So, as I understand it, whether the “all” of verse 6 and the “many” of verse 11 refer to the exact same people or not, neither can be referring to all people of all time because the Bible is clear that many people will be eternally condemned.

My concern was not that this text somehow teaches universalism, my struggle was how to understand this passage consistently so that it said what I know the Bible teaches elsewhere. And the first thing that I was drawn too was the pronouns used throughout the chapter. Isaiah uses “our” (1,4,5), “we ourselves” (4), “we” (5), “all of us” (6), “each of us” (6), “us all” (6), “my people” (8), “many” (11,12), “their” (11) to describe those to whom the action of the Suffering Servant relates.

At first, the “my people” from verse eight seems to be the best clue as to who Isaiah is writing about here. I believe based on Isaiah 52:14 as well as 53:8 that “my people” refers to the nation of Israel, God’s covenant people. But that still doesn’t resolve the “all” verses the “many” problem that we get from verse 6 and 11. And unless “all” refers to all Israel and “many” refers to the number of descendants as related to the rest of humanity, I don’t think that identifying “my people” is the final key to unlocking the who’s who of Isaiah 53. And I say that because of what we know; we know that much of Israel is and was apostate, and we also know that salvation came to the gentiles in Christ. So, my dilemma continues.

After more searching and scouring of the passage for another clue as to what might be the best key for understanding the “many” against the “all” language, I reread and reread the chapter and surrounding context for some help. It wasn’t until after having read it many times that I again noticed that the first possessive pronoun used in chapter 53 was used in verse 1, and it was the word “our”.

“Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1)

I believe that it is this verse, this statement or lament of Isaiah, which gives the key to understanding and making sense of the rest of this chapter. And the question that I think is important is this: who is the “our” that proclaimed the message that was to be believed? This is not the nation, it cannot be. The nation rejected God and rebelled against the laws of God and of worshipping and following Him alone from the very Exodus from Egypt. Because of their constant rebellion and hard hearts, God sent prophets who were to call the nation back to the Lord. We also know that there were devout priests and other people who remained faithful to God during the rampant apostasy of their land (see 1 Kings 19:14-18).

It seems best to understand the possessive and inclusive pronoun “our” in verse 1 as well as “each of us” and “all of us” in verse 6 to refer to those people who were proclaiming the Word of the Lord. And for lack of a better way to categorize them, I’ll call them the prophets, even though this group would include more than those who wrote the prophetic books in the Old Testament. Isaiah wasn’t commenting on the general sin of Israel in verse 6, he was referring to the faithful group of prophets who proclaimed the message. Remember, this is the same Isaiah who lamented his own sinfulness before the throne of God,

“Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty." (Isaiah 6:5)

If Isaiah is referring to those faithfully proclaiming the Word of the Lord to the nations when he says “all of us” and “each of us”, then who are the “many” in verse 11? It seems best to understand the “many” in God’s ultimate redemptive sense. In other words, it is not simply the faithful among the prophets of God to Israel and Judah that He will save, but He is the savior of the gentiles too. The prophets knew this well, and that is why Jonah fled; he did not want God to be merciful to the Ninevites, even though he knew that He would be.

So in this case, “many” is actually a larger group than “all of us” is. Everyone who has been justified by faith is included in the “many”, but only Isaiah’s contemporaries proclaiming the Word of the Lord at that time would be included in the “all of us”. I could even be convinced that “all of us” refers to all of the believers of the message, not just the proclaimers of the message, in Isaiah’s time and in all time. And in this case, the “all of us” would include the totality of those chosen by God, and the “many” would refer to their numerical value.

This understanding of who the various groups are allow us to interpret Isaiah 53 consistently in its context as well as in the broader context of the Bible’s teaching on salvation. All of those people who have their sins imputed to Christ will be justified by His righteousness, and there will be many people who come from every tribe, tongue, and nation who receive God’s gracious gift of salvation through Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

God is No Respecter of Persons

For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 2:11)

Over the past month or so, I have seen this verse used to defend the idea that those who haven’t heard the gospel of Jesus Christ may still be covered by the blood of Christ even though they would not have placed their faith in Christ. I have also seen this verse used as the primary Scriptural cudgel used to attack the “demonic doctrine”¹ of predestination. In either occasion in my experience, when it comes down to it, the issue that is being defended is the free will of man to choose God apart from divine sovereignty.

This verse seems to be utterly debilitating to the doctrine of election if, as the King James Version puts it, “there is no respect of persons with God” means that God gives all men everywhere from all times the exact same ability and opportunity to respond to the gospel. Whereas the individuals who I have seen use this verse may not have stated their position in just this way, the issue remains the same because users of this verse for this reason hold that God would be a liar if this were untrue. And I agree, if Romans 2:11 means that all people everywhere for all time have the same opportunity and ability to respond to the gospel, then God would be called a liar if the doctrine of election were true. But is that what this verse is saying?

In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul is making the case that all men everywhere, in fact, have not honored God as they ought and therefore do not measure up to God’s standards. In fact, the summary of Paul’s argument up to that point is one of the most memorized verses in the New Testament,

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Paul goes into great detail as to why man is in this predicament, whether or not he’s heard the law of God before, and the end result is the same; Man falls short of God’s perfect standard and is justly under condemnation because of what we have done. And moving forward from Romans chapter three, Paul begins to unfold the great doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law or any human righteousness.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

With the general flow of the first few chapters of Romans established, we now have the perspective to look at Romans 2:11 to find out if using this verse to proclaim or defend the more Arminian understanding of the doctrine of free will. In the whole flow of the first few chapters of Romans, Paul is not addressing the issue of election or free will; he is making the case for the universal depravity of mankind. He does address these issues in detail, specifically in chapters eight and nine, but that issue has not been introduced in the first few chapters.

In the first 17 verses of chapter one, Paul gives his salutation and opens his letter with some statements concerning the gospel and the fact that it is the power of God for salvation for all who believe (Romans 1:16). Paul also gives us glimpses of the gospel in chapter two when he admonishes us that it is God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience that lead the sinner to repentance (Romans 2:4). However, what Paul is saying in verse eleven is made very plain with the immediate context of that verse.

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; (Romans 2:9-12)

Paul’s statement about God showing “no partiality” or being “no respecter of persons” (KJV) is a statement regarding God’s judgment on mankind. Furthermore, I submit that he is saying that all men stand condemned by God in this text even though verse 10 speaks of God giving a positive reward to those who do good. The reason is that in just a few lines, Paul quotes the Old Testament stating that there are none who do good, and his conclusion is that all men fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the penalty of this offense is death (6:23).

It is true that God doesn’t discriminate on account of race, gender, or social status when it comes to salvation (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). In other words, being a woman, a slave, a barbarian, or a Jew doesn’t disqualify you from the God’s promise to forgive your sins if you repent of them and trust in His son. This is not either affirming or discrediting the doctrine of election, it simply affirms that there can be (and there will be) people of every tribe, tongue, and nation in Heaven with Christ (Rev 5:9).

It is also true that Christians are not to show partiality in regards to Christian fellowship. One believer is the same as the next. James condemns showing favoritism for a rich man over a poor man in the gathering of believers. Again, we are all of equal worth in Christ Jesus, and we must not discriminate on account of social status, ethnicity, or gender when it comes to our fellowship.

In short, the truth that God is no respecter of persons is in no way related to the doctrine of election, whether you agree with that doctrine or not. This verse is explicitly talking about the universality of judgment and condemnation of mankind on account of sin. This is seen from the surrounding few verses as well as the overall argument that Paul is making in the first three chapters of Romans.

---

---

¹ TheVineRhyme, “Predestination”, youtube video. 0:40 – 0:54. Uploaded on 5/21/08. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YirjO7e8i8

Is the Atonement of Jesus Christ Limited?

T.U.L.I.P.

"I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody..." - C.H. Spurgeon

"...the Arminian view of the atonement can be compared to a wide bridge that extends most of the way across a river." - Loraine Boettner

The video correctly states that the "L" in the Reformed acronym is the most missunderstood and potentially offensive part of reformed soteriological theology. It is primarily because of this doctrinal conviction on the part of historic Calvinistic theology that the presense of four-point Calvinists is prolfic.

It was my struggling to understand this doctrinal statement that kept me "in the closet", as it were, for a few years when it cam to being openly Calvinistic. Even though the quotes that I have written out are in the video, I believe that some of them pack such a punch that they need to be restated. That is true for proponents of a particular redemption as well as its oponents. If I could summarize the objection in my mind that continually led me to question my tendencies for believing in a general atonement, it would be the issue that a steadfast Arminian raised.

many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say taht Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to [historical] Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did He did for every person; therefore what He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. - Dr. J. Kenneth Grider,

Irresistible Grace and the Heart’s Desire

Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him." (Matthew 2:13)

Joseph was warned in a dream that his young son, as well as he and his wife, were in great danger from King Herod. He was instructed to take his family and flee to Egypt as a temporary refuge from the danger at hand. What father wouldn’t listen and obey the warning of an angel of the Lord when it came to the safety of his own family? Some might scoff at the warning if they hadn’t been convinced of the faithfulness and truth of the messenger, but this was not the case for Joseph. So could Joseph have heard the warning in the dream, thought about it, and then rolled over and gone back to sleep and not heeded the warning? I guess that I would assume that he had the cognitive ability to do this, and he really could have chosen to ignore the true warning from God and subject his family to death. I bet that it would have been possible.

However, the fact that he may have had the ability to ignore God’s warning here does not even touch the question of “would he” ignore God. Sure he might have had the mental facilities to ignore God and choose a different path, but there is no way that any father who loves his family would willingly leave them in a situation where there is a certainty that they will be killed. Moreover, if there is a certain way of escape, what father would not wake the family up in the middle of the night and be gone before an hour had passed? No father would dawdle or ignore this warning. He would not ignore it because of the reliability of the messenger and the fact that he loves his family.

Similar to this, when a sinner’s eyes are opened and he has been granted faith and repentance from God alone, is it possible that the sinner might choose to reject God’s grace and stay in a position of being at war with God and awaiting His righteous and holy wrath? I suppose that it is possible that this person could make the choice not to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of his sins. But similar to Joseph’s situation, what person wouldn’t throw himself on the mercy of Christ in order to be saved from the wrath of God that is coming? For the work that is done in the sinner to enable him to believe in Christ opened his eyes so much that he agrees with God both about his own sinful situation as well and with the just punishment that the sinful man deserves. In addition to that, he has a love for both his own soul and for the savior of his soul.

So, because the man being drawn by God to Christ is both able to understand the reality of the situation, the truthfulness of the message, and has his affections aligned in such a way that he would want to be delivered from the wrath of God, what sinner would ever reject the grace of God? The grace of God given to men when God is saving that person is more irresistible to that man than the choice that Joseph’s situation gave him. There seems to be a one to one correlation between those who are drawn by God and those who are saved by Christ’s work (cf. John 6:37-44, Romans 8:29,30). The work of God’s grace is irresistible because no one who is granted this grace would want to reject it.

“Whosoever will” and God’s Sovereignty in Election

Since the last Friday of 2007 I have been thinking about the subjects of sovereignty, depravity, grace, free will, election, and the atonement in order to formulate an answer a question that was posed to me regarding a sermon I preached on December 9, 2007 titled "For To You It Has Been Granted" based on Philippians 1:29. The following is both the thoughts of my heart and an intentional articulation of how I understand the gospel.

My intention with this article is not primarily to win an argument or to “convert” anyone to the theological convictions that I hold. I say that while also believing that my position is true (otherwise, why would I hold it), the theology that I am defending has been the victor in the debate in my mind (otherwise, why would I hold to it), and that I would not be at all upset if anyone who currently disagrees with me were to come to be in agreement with me over time. That being said, I truly want to be subordinate to Scripture, and so I will not neglect to look at these issues or passages that may be difficult to understand because they may seem to push me away from my understanding of sovereignty.

To start off this article, I would like to articulate a few of the many points of agreement that I share with my more Arminian brethren. Many of those who may have some points of contention with the force of my convictions and their doctrinal implications are good friends of mine, and those who are very passionate about the preaching of the gospel to the lost. Some are family, some are Baptists, some are both of these, and some are friends who also love me and my family. That being the case, I am sure that we agree, believe, confess, and would defend the following things:

• Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and not based on man’s merit or works (Ephesians 2:8,9).
• Man must be born again to inherit eternal life (John 3).
• The correct response by any man to the hearing of the gospel must be faith in Christ and repentance of sin (Mark 1:15).
• The gospel is and should be preached to anyone and everyone and anyone who will believe will be saved. (Rom 10:10-17).

I am sure that there are more issues and things pertinent the focus of this article that we would agree on and stand shoulder to shoulder on, but these were just a few to begin with. However, what tends to be a primary point of disagreement seems to be dealing with the compatibility or incompatibility of human responsibility, or free, will and that of God’s sovereignty in all things including election and salvation. I submit that in each of our understandings of these two things they are compatible in our own minds. The difference is that our understandings of sovereignty and free will are different. So, perhaps the best way to begin is to briefly articulate how I define these words and make a distinction from how many of my Christian brethren may define them.

1. Free Will (not my definition):
• Definition: Man’s will is free to choose to believe in God. Even though man is dead in sin, there is a real sense that he is able (in and of himself and his own power apart from a specific working of God) to place his faith in Christ that goes against his sinful nature.
• Application: Natural man will freely choose to sin, but he can also freely choose to believe in Christ and repent of sin.
2. Free Will (my definition):
• Definition: Man’s will is able to choose anything that is able to choose. He can choose anything that his desire and nature will allow him. He, in and of himself, is not able to make choices that supersede or counteract his nature and desire.
• Application: Natural man will freely, consistently, and constantly choose to sin, reject God, and never ever repent of sin, trust in, believe in, or worship Christ because that is not what the sinful nature desires.

Whether or not the second definition that I gave accurately reflects any specific person’s personal definition or not, I believe that it may be a good way to state how many people think of free will. So, realizing this, in an effort both to defend my position while at the same time showing how and why I believe that the other position (which is drawn from the first definition above) is not correct, I will divide the body of my thoughts into three sections. The first section will be addressing the theological and Scriptural support for my position. The second section will address the theological and Scriptural objections commonly raised against the position that I hold. The third section will address practical concerns that may arise.

Let it be noted that neither my statements in affirmation of the sovereign understanding of salvation that I will put forth nor the objections to that understanding that I will address are to be understood as being a full treatment of the issue at hand. I am sure that this is obvious, but if there are concerns or proofs that are not addressed, either adequately or at all, in this article, it is not out of an intentional shirking of verses or arguments. So, please feel free to raise verses in objection, affirmation, or question regarding this debate so that we can be as iron sharpening iron.

Section One: Scripture Support

To start off this section, let me say that I completely and whole-heartedly believe that anyone who calls on the Lord can and will be saved. It is impossible for someone who calls on the name of the Lord in true repentance and faith not to be saved. So, I am not trying to duck any passages that say this. I believe it! Let me say again, “for ‘WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’” (Romans 10:13)

The issue, in my mind, is not can “whosoever will” call on the name of the Lord and be saved. The question is “who will” and “how will” they believe. Or, how can the “whosoever will” call on the name of the Lord and be saved. And to begin to answer this question, I will say that God makes a sweeping declaration of the extent of the vileness of the human condition both before the great flood and directly after. In both of these places, God sums up man’s condition by stating that “every intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) and that “the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). I don’t believe that one can read what God has said here and come up with any notion of some ability to do the very opposite of evil which is trusting in and believing in God. The New Testament is not silent on this predicament either. When writing to the Galatians about the differences between the fruits of the Spirit and the deeds of the flesh, Paul begins by setting up a dichotomy,

“For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” (Galatians 5:17)

Even in the heart and lives of those who are saved (as the context is referring to here), there is nothing similar about the desires and inclinations of the flesh as compared to the Spirit of God that is present in the believer. And let it be noted that it is only after God has saved a person that there is even this type of a struggle.

“¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:1,2)

¹⁰ as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; ¹¹ THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; (Romans 3:10,11)

Before the gift of faith and the new birth, the flesh still is opposed to the Spirit, but there is no Spirit to move the person away from evil and toward God. In other words, unless there is a distinct and sweeping work of God on any person’s behalf, there would not be anyone who would call on the name of the Lord.

So, my contention is that all men are dead until they are made alive, born again (John 3), by the Spirit. And until that time, all men would freely and continually choose to blaspheme God and reject Him utterly. No one would (or could) believe in Christ. And the primary disagreement, if I were to guess, that we have is not even with what I have laid out so far, but it is with the implications that I drew (based on my understanding of Scripture) about the “whosoever” people.

On Sunday the 9th, my only goal with the portion of the passage that I was preaching out of (Phil 1:29) was to make the point that faith, initial saving faith (but also continuing faith), is a gift from God and it does not originate with man. I did this based on three points, the first is that faith had to be a gift from God because the Bible says so (Eph 2:8, Phil 1:29). But I built the case, drawing on the above Scriptures from Genesis, Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians to say that man is also incapable and unwilling to believe in Christ on our own.

My point on Sunday was not to preach on Predestination or election because that is not what the verse was talking about, and I tried to be very careful not to preach about those issues. However, the only way to completely address the “whosoever will” concern is to bring up the idea of election.

And to do that, I will just reference a few passages that are clear (I believe) statements to the affirmative and make some brief comments about them, and then once I’ve done that I will try to deal with one or two that are used as objections against it.

But once again, I want to be clear that this was not material or subject matter that I preached at all on Sunday evening.

¹ Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; ² And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; ³ And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3)

God called Abraham, who was a wretched sinner in opposition to God if he was not a practicing idol worshipper like those around him as well. God chose Him instead of Lot, Terah, or anyone else including Noah or Shem (both Noah and Shem were still alive at that time) to father the chosen people.

³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, ⁴ just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love ⁵ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, ⁶ to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. ⁷ In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace ⁸ which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight ⁹ He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him ¹⁰ with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him ¹¹ also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, ¹² to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. ¹³ In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:3-14)

God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world according to the kind intention of His will, not according to the future choices of humans. We have been predestined according to His purpose based on the counsel of His will, not according to our purpose, will, choices, or seen future faith.

³⁵ Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. ³⁶ "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. ³⁷ "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ³⁸ "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." ⁴¹ Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." ⁴² They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, `I have come down out of heaven'?" ⁴³ Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:35-44)

Whoever believes will be saved (v.41), but Christ makes a clear statement about who will believe and come to Him. The Father will give to Christ all of those people who will come to Christ, and Christ will keep all of them (v.37). But He also goes on to say that no one can come to Him unless God draws him (v.44). The meaning is that all of those whom God draws to Christ are saved by Christ. Those who are not drawn are not saved. Not everyone is drawn because not everyone is saved.

¹⁰ And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹ for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, ¹² it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." ¹³ Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

¹⁴ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! ¹⁵ For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." ¹⁶ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." ¹⁸ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ¹⁹ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" ²⁰ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? ²¹ Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? ²² What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? ²³ And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴ even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:10-24)

This section in Romans 9 is extensive and I cannot address everything here, but first of all if election was not based on sovereign grace alone but on the foreseen faith of individuals based upon their free will decision to believe in God, would this objection that Paul addresses here even be raised? How could God ever seem unjust if you, the individual, bore the full weight of your own non-election because you weren’t smart enough, wise enough, or “whatever” enough to receive salvation based on your own person and attributes? The objection of injustice only comes when our minds have a hard time dealing with the truth that God freely elects and chooses whom He desires to be saved according to the council of His will (cf. Eph 1).

Paul clarifies that he is stating what he is stating in this section “so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls”. It is not based upon any future seen faith, but on the sovereign Lord who is doing the calling. Furthermore, God claims the authority and the right to have compassion on whomever He wants. Some vessels were created for honorable use and some for common use, and that is done so by the choice of the potter. And God shows His patience by enduring the vessels of wrath that were prepared for destruction when He has no obligation to do so.

”⁴ But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, ⁵ He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:4,5)

Now while this verse is specifically in response to the works righteous heresy of the Judaizers, I think that the application is true for any “deed done in righteousness” and that would, in my opinion, include saving faith. Again, if we understand that saving faith is to have originated from the person himself and not in response to a specific work done on his or her life by God that is not done to those who do not believe, then we, in effect, make man his own savior. I don’t say that lightly or flippantly, but purposefully and intentionally. If my decision, apart from any specific work on God’s part, is the thing that activates my salvation, then I truly am the one who adds my mite, however small that mite might be, to the scales of God’s justice that tips it all to the side of salvation and not damnation.

Also, I fully understand that Christians, true Christians, who would hold a different view of depravity and election than what I hold would never say that they believe that they are their own saviors. That is precisely why I stated that I believe we are in agreement about salvation being by grace through faith and not on account of works at the beginning of this response. So my statement was to point out what seems to be the logical conclusion of the understanding of free will that I am opposed to. So I am not attacking the genuineness of the salvation of believers who disagree with me, but I am trying to point out that their theology in this regard, however genuine, is not consistent.

² "But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. ³ "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴ "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.

²⁶ "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. ²⁷ "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; ²⁸ and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. ³⁰ "I and the Father are one." (John 10:2-4, 26-30)

I think that John 10:26 is pivotal here. Those who Jesus is talking to don’t believe because they are not His sheep; He didn’t say that they are not His sheep because they do not believe. The point is important because it goes to the root of the problem. The sheep believe because they are His, they are not His because their faith in Him ultimately makes that so. Their belief doesn’t make them (in an eternal sense) His sheep. Their being His sheep and having been chosen from before the foundation of the world is the reason why they believe.

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

Corresponding to John 10, those who were appointed to eternal life believed the preaching; it is not the believing of the preaching that caused them to be appointed to eternal life.

Section Two: Scriptural Objections Addressed:

One of the most common objections to the view of sovereign grace and election that I have put forth has to do with an understanding of the “whosoever” passages in the Scriptures. In order to address this issue, I did a search for whosoever passages and found 179 in the KJV (that word is not used in the NAS, NKJV, ESV that I normally use)¹, and most of these don’t deal with the doctrine of salvation. So instead of trying to wade through them and address ones that are do not strong arguments for the position that is opposite mine, I will deal with seems to be the primary “whosoever” passages that many people have raised. These “whosoever” passages that will be addressed are Romans 10:13 and John 3:16, but I will also address a few others that are commonly brought up.

¹ First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³ This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

I think that it is accurate here, and not a stretch, to understand that the “all men” here is referring to all types of men including kings “who are in authority.” One of the things that is key to remember, I think, is that the Jewish culture was a very racist one, and gentiles were possibly considered to be a little better than dogs. And to think that Jehovah would save Jews was totally reasonable, but Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament are continually stating that there are sheep of a different flock (i.e. from the gentile nations), and so Jews needed to understand this (cf. John 10). The whole issue of circumcision and law keeping was rooted, at least in part, in the false idea that Christianity and Christians had to be Jewish. So, the gospel call and salvation is for all types of people, not just Jews.

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

This one honestly had given me much concern, but I think that I understand it better now. The hardest thing about this passage is trying to understand that the letter was written to the elect of God or to those who have “received a faith of the same kind as ours” (cf. 2 Peter 1:1), and the specific intended and primary meaning of these words were for those who were saved and in the churches at that time. So the “you” are the saved. The Lord is not wishing that any of His own perish, but that all of His own would come to repentance.

for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” (Romans 10:13)

This verse is absolutely true and correct. The problem is that this verse does not describe the person who calls or how they call on the Lord. It simply says that “whoever will call on the name of the Lord” will be the beneficiary of salvation in Christ. This addresses the question of “what will happen” to those who call on Christ, but it does not address “how” question. How can a dead man call on anyone? How can a dead man desire anything? It is the “how” question that is the heart of the issue, not the “who” or “whosoever”. The answer is, I believe, apart from God’s specific work in an individual’s heart (the new birth, the granting of faith, the grating of repentance), there would be no “whosoever”.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

This is the primary “whosoever” passage that I could come up with, and I want to address it delicately. First of all, I have to come to this verse understanding that natural man, under no circumstances because of his depravity, would or could choose to believe in the glorious Son of God. “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18). Secondly, there is a very true sense that God loves the world, the whole world, the sinful and the redeemed, “for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:45b) So, there is a general grace and a general love and patience that God displays to all humanity. I mean, the vilest rejecter of God will sin and live to breathe again. That is truly a display of God’s general grace toward mankind. John also tells us that if we love the world that the love of the Father is not in us (cf. 1 John 2:15). I don’t think that we should be too extravagant in our understanding of God’s love for the whole world.

Q: Does God love the world?
A: Yes.

Q: If anyone believes in the Son and repents of their sin, will they be saved?
A: Yes.

Q: Do those who do not believe in Christ also reject Him and sin against God willfully (i.e. in line with their will)?
A: Yes. (cf. Gen 6:7; 8:21)

Q: Do those who receive salvation by repentance and faith do so willfully?
A: Yes. Their wills have been transformed by the new birth and they have been given faith and repentance.

This is how I have come to understand God’s sovereign work in salvation. I believe that it is consistent to the whole counsel of God, it magnifies God above all things, and it still holds man accountable for his actions toward God. In short, both the continual sinful rejection of God by unregenerate man as well as faith in Him by regenerate man are free, willful, and deliberate acts done in accordance with the thoughts, intents, and desires of that individual person. In no way does God’s work in election drag a sinner “kicking and screaming” into heaven so that “heaven would be like hell”²

Section Three: The Practical Objections:

The first objection tends to be a concern that taking a firm stance on the doctrine of election completely disregards 'whosoever will'. I did attempt to deal with this in the previous portion of my response. But, for the record, I do not see any contradiction or compromise in understanding what the Bible puts forth as the doctrine of election and the doctrinal understanding of man’s corrupt nature.

Another objection usually deals with the concern that pride, arrogance, or a lack of evangelistic motivation is the inevitable result of taking a firm and defined position on the doctrine of election and God’s sovereignty. Basically, the call to witness is not ever limited to “go find the elect and preach to them only”. We are to go the world and preach the gospel to everyone. I still contend that understanding the doctrines of election, grace, and depravity are the most self-stripping truths that break down every pillar of pride or self-importance and cultivate the exact opposite reaction; that of humility and being poor in Spirit.

Some simply dislike a “hard line” stance taken on these doctrines. But to be quite frank, I am not sure what is totally meant when they refer to this position as being “hard line”. If they are simply referring to a clear, definite, and forcefully preached understanding of God’s sovereignty in election that is fairly summarized by the 5 points of Calvinism³, then that is fine. If that is the case however, I do not know if it is any more “hard line” of a position than a “hard line” position of non-distinction or assertion that the answer is so complete a mystery that the understanding of the doctrine of election as I have put forth is not possible. And if that is the case, we have a choice of which hard line to be on. However, if by “hard line” people are referring to hyper-Calvinism, which may see no need of evangelism or other types of perversions, let me make it clear that I am not a hyper-Calvinist.

Christians are to preach the word so that the elect can hear it and believe. But, more than that, evangelism is the method that God has setup for the furthering of His will, His kingdom, and done for His glory. We do it out of obedience to Christ and love for Him. I should witness with the primary motivation of glorifying God, not of saving sinners. Do we want sinners saved? Yes. But if we put our primary goal or intention on anything other than God and His glory (since I believe that is the primary thing that He is concerned with), this goal or intention that is idolatrous at the heart. No matter what replaces God and His glory as our focus, whatever “it” is, “it” is being exalted above God and that is unacceptable.

I truly believe that God will save all of His own, but that does not ever give me the cause to think that I should sit back, eat potato chips, and shut my mouth about the gospel. That kind of an attitude (that some hyper-Calvinists espouse) is as false an understanding of the Scriptural call to evangelize as universalism is. This perversion of the command to evangelize is easily defeated by simply looking at the Scriptures. I am commanded by Scripture to go and preach the gospel, and that is something that I both take seriously and fail miserably at.

Is it possible that this understanding of “chosen” can or does bring up the sinful reactions of pride, laziness, or others among believers at times? Yes, that is possible. But the possibility or reality of sinning because of a certain theological stance no more condemns my theological stance than another. Likewise, a more strongly held “whosoever will” focus in theology with the emphasis placed on man’s decision over and above God’s sovereign plan may produce the sinful reaction of pride or produce a mindset that says “I was smart enough to believe, but those people were too dumb…”. The issue is this: which theology is true? It is not which adherents sin less, evangelize more, or anything else.

I hope that my treatment of these issues have come across in a way that both has been fair to objections that can be raised and that has addressed some of the pertinent texts. I hope and pray that this will encourage anyone to engage the texts with me, and if we still disagree, we can reason together over specific passages of Scripture. This article has been a labor of love for me. Love for my friends and their families. Love for my church and fellowship. Love for the Scriptures. Love for the gospel. Love for the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

¹ http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?section=0&showtools=0&version=kjv&word=whosoever&st=1&sd=0&new=1

² Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible answer man, is a staunch advocate of libertarian free will that characterizes election with this type of language. I have heard it on the air many times.

³ As a note, the 5 points of Calvinism only became “points” in response to the theological false teachings put forth by Joseph Arminius’s followers.

Arminian’s Theological Assertions (5 Points of Arminianism)	Dutch Church’s Response (5 Points of Calvinism)
Free-will/Human Ability	Total Depravity/Complete Inability
Conditional Election (God ratifies human faith)	Unconditional Election
Universal Redemption/General Atonement	Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption
Resistable Grace	Irresistible Grace
Falling from Grace (can lose your salvation)	Perseverance of the Saints

I got some light reading for Christmas...

...Oh, yeah, and by "light" I was totally being tongue in cheek. My brother in law (God bless him) gave me this book. I'm really psyched about reading it. My understanding is that this is the quintessential book written on the defense of the reformed understanding of the atonement from the Scriptures. This is the "L" portion of the TULIP acrostic, and it stands in reference to the theology of Limited Atonement (also called Particular Redemption). This was the last of the real objections that I had to deal with before I could take my stand in the Arminian vs. Calvin debate.

"The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Owen Works, X:139:148) is a polemical piece, designed to show among other things, that the doctrine of universal redemption is unscriptural and destructive of the gospel. There are many, therefore, to whom it is not likely to be of interest. Those who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological debates which show up divisions between so-called evangelicals may well regret its reappearance. Some may find the very sound of Owen's thesis so shocking that they will refuse to read his book at all, so passionate a thing is prejudice, and so proud are we of our theological shibboleths. But it is hoped that this classic may find itself readers of a different spirit. There are signs today of a new upsurge of interest in the theology of the Bible: a new readiness to test traditions, to search the Scriptures and to think through the faith. It is to those who share this readiness that Owen's treatise is now offered, in the belief that it will help us in one of the most urgent tasks facing evangelical Christendom today - the recovery of the gospel." - J.I. Packer (from the Introduction to the book)

I also found that you can read the whole introduction (not a small task) online. You can see it by clicking here.

For To You It Has Been Granted

It seems to me that the first chapter of Philippians is book ended by two great passages that intertwine the doctrines of the perseverance of the saved with the actual doctrine of salvation itself. Both the Philippians’ continual perseverance in the faith of Jesus Christ and the fact that intensifying persecution was looming on the horizon for them seem to be the immediate motivation for why Paul provides both of these encouraging statements.

The opening book end in chapter one is that Christ will complete the “good work” of the gospel that He started in the life of all who believe (v.6). The true Philippian believers, as do all true believers for all time, were to have no fear that God will allow them to fall from grace, be lost, or apostatize. The very fact of their final, total, and eternal salvation was as sure of a reality as the fact that they even possess saving faith, because, just like their perseverance and final salvation, faith too is based upon God’s work and His perseverance alone. This powerful and gloriously stated truth was given as a comfort to the Philippian believers in their continuing life of faith. What makes this truly glorious, in my opinion, is that Paul bases the reason for their comfort on nothing less than God’s character and nature; the fact that since God began their faith, He will finish what He began.

The closing bookend of the first chapter of this book is set in the context that the Philippian believers will endure the “same conflict” or suffering that Paul was undergoing. And in his desire to comfort and encourage them in this increasing persecution, Paul again connects the reality and purpose of this type of suffering with their faith itself; not simply the faith in the gospel, but the actual reality, presence, and existence of their own faith (believing) as well as the “why” and “how” that they now possess this faith.

The Scripture here leaves nothing to the imagination. It is clear that Paul is telling these Philippian believers that they are (or will be) on the receiving end both of the gift of faith and the gift of suffering, and that the giver of these gifts is God Himself. But the question that I have, and I am sure this is the question that we all want answered by God is this: Are we the beneficiary of both of these gifts too?

And in order to address this question, I want to first look at the issue of suffering and then look at the issue of faith. And the reason why I want to deal with it in this order is that the primary intention of the text here, I believe, is encouragement in the face of coming suffering, whereas the underlying, larger principle that is the basis for comprehending this uncomfortable reality is the reality that they understood about their faith and that it is naturally foreign to them as well. Saving faith is as foreign to the natural man as transatlantic flight is to the North American continent.

The main point that I want to communicate with the issue of suffering and the Christian, at least at this time, is this: suffering for the sake of Christ is truly a gift from God to those who believe in His name.

”¹¹ Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. ¹² "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matt 5:11-12)

”¹⁸ If the world hates you ,you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. ¹⁹ "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. ²⁰ "Remember the word that I said to you, ' A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:18-21)

”12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. 14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.” (1 Peter 4:12-14)

Christians in America have been blessed with centuries of virtual persecution-less existence. Now, I use the word “blessed” cautiously here, but that is the fact. Since the founding and taming of this nation and its geography, the greatest extent of persecution that Christians have had to endure has been fairly harmless. Christians may be asked to move a few feet, get off private property, or be the recipients of a frustrated cough or grunt, or even the occasional verbal berating, but it is nothing compared to the violence perpetrated against God’s people throughout the history of the church. That being said, I think that it is safe to say that today’s American culture is far more openly hostile to Christianity than it has been at any other time in its existence. And in that light, perhaps Paul’s statement to the Philippians is, to a great extent, a message that will ring true with us in our cultural context.

One of the things that the Philippians prided themselves on was the fact that they were Romans. This is not uncommon or unheard of because being Roman citizens instead of simply being occupied and conquered foreigners carried with it rights, status, and privileges that others did not enjoy. And looking back with the 20/20 vision of history, we can see that the Roman Empire was rocked with the persecution of Christians. And this persecution was carried out upon all people, citizens or not, by the government itself.

The stories of the Neronic persecution are far too gruesome and on too great of a scale for me to deal with them here, but the main point that I want to get across is simply this: The Philippians’ status as Roman citizens did nothing to stop the persecution that was on the horizon and was being driven by their own government. And as a point of warning for all of us in the West, hear me well: our status as American citizens will not save us when (I personally don’t think that it is a question of “if”) persecution begins to intensify in the states. The unjust persecution and suffering of those chosen by God is a consistent occurrence throughout the history of the world.

I am not convinced that Christians, at least in America or the West, really understand, like, or agree with either of Paul’s statements here. In the West we have been so sheltered from persecution on account of our faith because we have been privileged to live in various forms of democracy that have protected religious liberty. But going along with that, the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty over all things, including our salvation, is so contrary to our democratic, capitalistic, American ideals and society (where we have rags to riches stories of millionaires who grew up on the streets with nothing and ended up in the highest class of citizens) that the very notion that I would have no “right” to heaven or that I would not be able to cast my “vote” for Christ slams up against so many of our presuppositions about all of life.

So it is with a desire to exalt God in all of His glory and to proclaim His greatness that I would like to look at the gift of faith. God has granted the faith to believe in His son to those individuals whom He has chosen from before time began, and this is one of the most precious gifts that any man could ever receive from God.

There are many words used to describe those of us who have placed our faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and have repented of our sins and have been born again by the Spirit, “chosen” is only one of them but some people tend to recoil at the concept that individuals are chosen by God to receive His grace. For instance, in the Bible the name for a gathering of Christians or the universal body of Christ is “church”. But there are many different words that are used to speak of those who make up the church.

• “Christians” is used 3 times in the New Testament.
• “Believers” is used 12 times in the New Testament. And one of the truths that we understand from the text at hand is that the faith that we have to become “believers” is itself a gift of God.
• “Elect” or “chosen” (the same Greek word) is used 22 times in the New Testament.
• “Called” is used 31 times in the New Testament.
• “Saint” is used 61 times in the New Testament. “People who have been separated from the world and consecrated to the worship and service of God.”¹ Who does the separating and who does the consecrating?
• “Church” is used112 times in the New Testament. The Greek word “eklesia” is a compound word. “ek” means out of or from, and “kalein” means to call. So literally, the term “church” speaks of “the called out ones”.

My point is this; I cannot find a word that describes our relationship with God or our position as those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ that doesn’t specifically imply and proclaim the fact that God is the active one in our salvation and we are not. So I as again that faith is a gift of God to those who have been chosen by God to receive it.

One other interesting note is that the Greek in verse 29 uses the same root words as does Ephesians 2:8. The words translated “grace” (Eph 2:8) and “granted” (Phil 1:29) both have “charis” as the root word. Likewise the words “faith” and “believe” in these texts both have “pistis” as the root word.

In Philippians, Paul is using doctrinal truth as a foundation for their understanding of the coming suffering. But in Ephesians Paul is declaring a doctrinal truth of man’s salvation. If the understanding of “grace” were insufficient, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the faith by which we are connected with that saving grace of God has its roots in God Himself alone and not in our condition as men.

“Faith is the most beautiful, the most God honoring, the most humble of all acts that a human being can perform. Therefore, we must not imagine that a natural man, who cannot even receive the things of the Spirit, would have the inclination to do the most wonderful, beautiful, God honoring, humble act that can be performed by a human being. Before a person can perform that act, the best of all possible acts, he must be born again. Thorns do not give forth figs, an apple tree does not give forth olives, and natural men do not believe, they cannot.”²

“Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17)

So I believe that we must understand faith in terms of being a complete gift from God. The first reason is simply that this text, as well as others, states that faith is a gift of God. That should be the end of any discussion of human merit or ultimate human determination over if one possesses faith in Christ or not, but sadly the debate rages. I believe, over and above the simple reason that the Bible says that faith is a gift; there are two very powerful Biblical arguments to say that faith must be a gift.

Now before I get into my argument much further, I want to be absolutely clear that fact that my doctrinal conviction that faith is a gift bestowed upon unworthy sinners, and thus it is only those who receive this gift of faith who are enabled to believe in Jesus does, not negate any personal responsibility on the part of an individual sinner. When we proclaim the gospel, we call all men everywhere to repent, and all of those who do repent of their sin and trust in Christ alone as savior will be saved. The issue here is not the response or responsibility of the sinner to the message of the cross. The issue here is who is ultimately responsible for the faith that any man expresses and places in Christ. It is my contention that since faith in God goes so far against anything that is natural to the unsaved man, it must have its origin with God.

First of all, the Bible says that the natural man is completely unwilling to choose to believe in God. God makes a sweeping declaration of the extent of the vileness of the human condition both before the great flood and directly after. In both of these places, God sums up man’s condition by stating that “every intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5) and that “the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). There is no way that one can read what God has said here and come up with any notion of some ability to do the very opposite of evil by trusting in and believing in God. The New Testament is not silent on this predicament either. When writing to the Galatians about the differences between the fruits of the Spirit and the deeds of the flesh, Paul begins by setting up a dichotomy,

“For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” (Galatians 5:17)

Even in the heart and lives of those who are saved (as the context is referring to here), there is nothing similar about the desires and inclinations of the flesh as compared to the Spirit of God that is present in the believer. And it is only after God has saved a person that there is even this type of a struggle. Before the gift of faith and the new birth, the flesh still is opposed to the Spirit, but there is no Spirit to move the person away from evil and toward God.

This dovetails into the next reason why faith must be a gift is that man is completely unable on his own to choose to believe in God. It is fair to say that the extent of man’s unwillingness is virtually indistinguishingly intertwined with his inherent inability to do so. And the inability of man to do anything righteous is best understood in our spiritual deadness in sin.

“¹ And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, ² in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 2:1,2)

It is my belief and experience that if this doctrine of faith is rightly understood, it will be one of the most self-stripping, pride-crushing, and God-glorifying truths that will cause more thanksgiving to God and a richer understanding of grace. You don’t have to be a card carrying member of the Synod of Dort in order to agree with these truths. You don’t have to agree with everything that a French pastor and reformer ever wrote to understand the implications of this truth of the Bible. But what you need to be is humble, and see God as God is described in the Bible and see man as we are described in the Bible.

---

¹ (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

² John Piper – “That Which is Born of the Spirit is Spirit” 7/30/07 DGR (cf. Matt 7:16)/span>

2 Peter 3:9

This video is a good look at this verse in 2nd Peter to see how it relates to biblical soteriology known as Calvinism.

Will the real Emir Caner please stand up

Which picture is Emir?

One of these pictures is of Emir Caner, and the other one is of Stephen Root (an actor). Sometimes Leno, Letterman, O'Brien, or others put the faces of famous people next to others for comic value. The most notable instance (that I can remember) is when Conan O'Brien put his own picture next to a female political candidate in Norway (I think). Aparently this generated such a huge fan base in Norway. Also, it didn't hurt his publicity when they ran political commercials for the candidate and based the only reason for voting for her on her facial likeness to Conan. It was a pretty funny bit.

Anyway, there is no real deep or meaningful purpose to this particular post (if you can't tell already), but when I was tracking the non-debate (Caner + Caner vs. White + Ascol) and I saw the picture of Emir Caner I just couldn't stop seeing Stephen Root and specifically his character as "Jimmy James" from the comedy "News Radio". So, in my mind I was imagining the debate with Stephen Root sitting in next to Ergun Caner in Emir’s place...and it made it all very, very humorous.

edifying discussion

I recently came upon a blog discussion between evangelicals over Particular Redemption (i.e. Limited Atonement). It is a good "iron sharpening iron" discussion.

The World From Our Window: The Atonement Question: For Calvinists And Arminians, It All Comes Down To This

all analogies falter, but..

Humor me while I present an analogy in the form of a story, two stories really, relating to salvation that I came up with.

There are two brothers who have recently lost their father. Their father was a very successful business man, and his skill at making money was only surpassed by his joy and energy in giving that money away to others. When he died, he gave most of his fortune to general charities so as to make his money do a common good for many people. However, in his will, he left two sums of money to his sons.

There was a stipulation (of sorts) to the inheritance that he left for them, though. You see, he left the funds in the care of his financial investment company and in order for his sons to get the inheritance; they had to meet with their father’s personal investment consultant and discuss any possible investment options. Well, both sons came together to the meeting with the investment consultant and were told that the sum of money left to each of them was $100,000.

In the course of the meeting, the sons were told that they could go downstairs to the accounts payable department and have that money transferred into their own private bank account and that would end the relationship between them and this investment organization. But they were also told that this same consultant would be willing to invest their money and watch it even more diligently than he would his own money out of respect for their late father. He told these boys of a brand new product on the market that their father had just invented prior to his death that he (their father) was sure everyone in the world would want and need.

He offered to invest the entire sum (for it was an all or nothing proposition) into this new product and, if the father was right, the $100,000 would be so small an amount compared to the dividends and earnings that would come. However, initially, they would not have the $100,000 to make use of, and the dividends might take a while to start or to even be of much value at all….

Well, needless to say, both of these boys were not foolish enough to make this kind of a decision on the spur of the moment, and so they asked if they could think about this proposition for a week. They were allowed to do so, and after the week was complete, they found themselves back in the same office with the investment consultant.

The older brother thanked him for the offer, but he had decided to take the $100,000 and use it as he saw fit. The consultant again told the older brother that if he did that, which was his right, he would no longer be able to do business with this firm – nor would he legally be able to access any of the profits or benefits of his father’s product. He listened again, understood the stipulations, thanked the consultant, and then asked him to inform accounts payable that he was on his way down to retrieve his inheritance.

After his brother left, the younger brother was still sitting in his chair. He looked up at the consultant and said that he could really use the $100,000 now, but he believed in his father and loved his father so he would trust his money and invest it in this way. The investment consultant was so thrilled and he brought out the paperwork to complete the authorization. After this, the younger brother left.

The older brother had taken his money and paid off his debts and used the rest to purchase a home. He was not living an excessive life of luxury, but he was living comfortably. The younger brother still had his debts and hardships, but hoped that all would be well in the end.

It had been many more years still when finally the younger brother began receiving dividend checks. The first one was not much to speak of, but after that the amount grew exponentially! Within a few years, he had become almost as wealthy as his father was.

Upon learning of the financial gain of his younger brother, the older then went to look up the investment consultant and company that now owned and controlled all aspects of this new profitable product. He asked if he could invest all of the money that he had available so that he too could enjoy the benefits that his younger brother had. The consultant looked at him and said no. Then he showed the older brother the paperwork that he had signed when he took the $100,000 where he knew and understood that he could no longer use this firm to invest money.

When the two brothers come together and discuss their fortunes, what is the single different thing that changed their fates so utterly and completely? The younger brother chose to trust in the investment offer and the older one did not.

Many people would see this analogy (as far as it goes) as a good metaphor for how one comes to salvation. The problem arises in the fact that the younger boy can (and most of us would) boast of his good decision. Even though he would acknowledge the fact that he was given the money, the advice, the vehicle, and the opportunity to make the lucrative investment but – the difference between he and his brother is the fact that he decided to make the investment. Therefore, he has some claim to his good fortune, right?

Let’s go back to the time just after their father had died. The two boys were called into separate meetings with the investment consultant. The older brother was given the exact same speech and came with the exact same conclusion as he did above. The younger boy came in, not knowing of his brothers fortune or decision, was told that his father had left him an inheritance, but he had specified that this amount for this brother was to be invested in such and such a way.

The rest of the story plays out as it did before, but now when the two brothers compare their fortunes, the older only has himself to blame for not investing his money wisely, and the younger has only his father to thank for his exceedingly great inheritance that he eventually received.

He has nothing to boast about – not his decision. Nothing. He only can say that he was blessed by his father with the gift that was greater than anything that he would have ever chosen on his own.

That is the story of salvation. We cannot boast in anything we do in relation to salvation! It is only God who gets all of the glory. For if, as the story first showed, it is my decision that tips the scale and causes the blessings to fall on me (for without that affirmative decision, my fate would be no different from those who don’t believe), then I do have something to boast about in my salvation, no matter if I try to make it sound all pious and holy, the fact is that I would be able to boast in my decision in that it was better than my brother.

It is God who chooses those who will believe and saves them on His own behalf so that we cannot boast. The gospel is glorious. The way that you know if you have been chosen by God is in the way that you react to the gospel. If you reject the gospel – don’t repent of your sins and believe in Christ – you will show by your actions that you are a child of the devil. If, you are able to repent of your sins and place your faith in Christ, you have the proof that God chose you before time began to be saved.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Non-Debate

There was to be a debate between 4 prominent Baptist leaders regarding the issue of Calvinism. The debate was set up to be James White and Thomas Ascol (affirming Calvinism) debating Ergun and Emir Caner (denying Calvinism, and I believe all 5 points). Well, to make a long story short, the debate didn't happen.

You can get the story from Dr. White's perspective here, or you can get Dr. Caner's perspective here. It seems (for whatever motivation) that one side was dragging its feet in getting everything setup not to mention just being upfront and honest. In some of the correspondence between these parties (you can find the links the e-mail correspondences here) Dr. White repeatedly asked if the Caners considered him a brother in Christ. Dr. White had referred to them as brethren in his e-mails but noticed that the sentiment was not be reciprocated. He asked numerous times and received no response. How sad.

Anyway, the real reason behind this post was that I found a video called "The Unofficial Caner/White/Ascol Debate Video" that I found very enjoyable. The bed music is...heavier than some enjoy, but I have to tell you - I loved it. The montage of pictures and the syncing them up with the music is done pretty well too.

Well, I hope you enjoy it. I sure did.