The John 3:16 Conference- David Allen on Limited Atonement (Part 1)

November 10, 2008

The third point of Calvinism argued against, Limited Atonement, was handled by Dr. David Allen, the Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I will tell you upfront, this was my least favorite of all the presenters. I will do my best to present his argument fairly, though to be honest my gut reaction to this message was that it was 55 minutes of arrogance and non sequiturs, with 5 minutes of poor exegesis. This is not intended to be an evaluation of the man per se, but an evaluation of his argument, which I found cliche and flimsy at best. That said, let’s take a look at it.

To start with, Dr. Allen was the only conference presenter who afforded the audience a handout of his notes to reference for pertinent definitions and various charts. Once taking the stage, Dr. Allen began with the question, What two things do these men have in common: Calvin, Bullinger, Zwingli, Latimer, Amyraut, Baxter, Polhill, Vines, Edwards, Charles Hodge, Ryle, etc.? This he left open for a while, though the answer was apparent from his notes.

The next thing he did was to run through various questions on the atonement. He asked, What is the intent of the atonement? What is the extent of the atonement? When is the application of the atonement? For who is the atonement sufficient? None of these questions did he answer necessarily, but he did state that the debate on limited atonement comes at the point of asking “For who is the atonement sufficient?” Following this he answered his initial question, stating that all the men he named were both Calvinists and were men who denied that the atonement was/is limited.

It was at this point where Dr. Allen spent approximately 30 to 40 minutes reading from the various men named as well as from the minutes of the Synod of Dort and the notes of the Westminster Divines, all to provide confirmation that these men did indeed deny the limitedness of the atonement. Dr. Allen was particularly emphatic in trying to point out that Edwards denied limited atonement (which I will address later). Dr. Allen’s argument for why so many modern Calvinists were unaware that a great number of historic Calvinists were actually four pointers is because all the young Calvinists read are popular contemporary books by five pointers, whereas he himself has read all of the old works and has the largest library of Puritan literature at Southwestern (this sounds snarky, but honestly this is not a misrepresentation of his words).

Finally, at about the 45 or 50 minute mark Dr. Allen stated that we would do some exegesis. He argued that there are three types of texts that affirm unlimited atonement: ‘All’ texts, ‘World’ texts, and ‘Many’ texts. He then stated that the verses saying “Christ died for his sheep” (John 10.11, 15) or “Christ died for the church” (Ephesians 5.25) did not necessarily preclude the universality of the atonement. Then, after another quote, this time from John Owen, he stated that any teaching that says God doesn’t love or doesn’t intend to save the whole world is unbiblical and should be rejected. From here he addressed the criticism that the free offer of the Gospel does not require us to tell people Christ died for you. To refute this he cited 1 Corinthians 15.1-5 and Acts 3.26.

Allen closed with reasons why this is important to get right, stating that limited atonement undermines God’s salvific will, undermines evangelistic zeal, removes the ability to tell a sinner Christ died for them, affects the way a preacher may speak to his congregation, and attacks the idea of giving evangelistic invitations. His final remark was that, “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.”

Alright then, to begin my critique of Dr. Allen, the first thing I would like to say is that, though he seemed convinced that the quotes of dead men who (possibly) denied limited atonement was an argument against limited atonement itself, this journey through old quotes only really served to shake ones faith in labels, not the sufficiency of the atonement. From the build up he had received from others around me I honestly expected more looking at the texts and less self-promotion of his own reading habits in this talk.

That said, I would like to take up one of the men that Dr. Allen smirkingly claimed was only a four pointer, that being the great American theologian Jonathan Edwards. Dr. Allen issued the following quote from Edwards work Of the Freedom of the Will as his only support for this claim:

“From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby.”

Now, to begin with, I am not quite sure how Dr. Allen got that Edwards denies limited atonement from this passage. Yes, Edwards does say that there is some sense in which Christ died “to redeem . . . the whole world by his death,” but look after that. Edwards states that “there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to [those] as he intended should actually be saved thereby.” What does he mean by this? Well, this is not left up for us to decide, as Edwards himself clarifies if you choose to read further:

“As appears by what has been now shown, God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in his proper absolute design, and of a certain number only; and therefore such a design only can be prosecuted in any thing God does, in order to the salvation of men. God pursues a proper design of the salvation of the elect in giving Christ to die, and prosecutes such a design with respect to no other, most strictly speaking; for it is impossible, that God should prosecute any other design than only such as he has: he certainly does not, in the highest propriety and strictness of speech, pursue a design that he has not. And, indeed, such a particularity and limitation of redemption will as infallibly follow, from the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge, as from that of the decree. For it is as impossible, in strictness of speech, that God should prosecute a design, or aim at a thing, which he at the same time most perfectly knows will not be accomplished, as that he should use endeavours for that which is beside his decree.“

So, no matter how many books one has or has not read, when Edwards says that “a particularity and limitation of redemption will as infallibly follow” and “it is impossible . . . that God should prosecute a design . . . which he at the same time most perfectly knows will not be accomplished,” the only possible explanation is that he holds to a limited view of the atonement. How this could ever be construed as a denial of limited atonement instead of a loudly declared affirmation of it is certainly beyond me.

Due to the amount of material left to cover from this message I think we will stop here for today and I will conclude my response to Dr. Allen’s argument in tomorrow’s post.

2 Comments | Calvinism, John 3:16 Conference | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

The John 3:16 Conference- Richard Land on Unconditional Election

November 9, 2008

The second letter of TULIP, Unconditional Election, was argued against by Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Liberty Commission branch of the SBC. He introduced his talk as not only being an argument against Unconditional Election but actually one for a view which he refers to as Congruent election. He started the talk with kind words towards the Calvinist view, stating that he does not see it as injurious to God in any way, only that he believes it is not the biblical viewpoint. He also gave mention that he believes there is a place for both the Separatist and New Hampshire traditions in SBC life (as the melody) and the Reformed Charleston tradition (as the harmony).

Getting into his argument, Land stated that he “believe[s] election is consistent with the free agency of man.” He notes that the failure on the Calvinists part to get it right on election is due to the fact that they have an incorrect view of the dispensations; namely that the standard Calvinist view that God has only one covenant people, believing Jews of the Old Testament together with the New Testament Church, should be replaced by viewing the Old Testament and the New Testament as two separate dispensations. From this Land argues that there are two types of election presented in the Bible: Abrahamic election, which is God’s dealing with Israel, and Salvific election, which is concerned with the salvation of individuals.

Land then presented some differences in these types of election. He stated that Abrahamic election was corporate, whereas Salvific election is individual (citing Romans 9.1-23 for proof). Also, Abrahamic election was covenantal, whereas Salvific election is free or general. Finally, he said that Abrahamic election is unconditional, but the picture of Salvific election has it having to do somehow with foreknowledge. His main point with all of this was that Abrahamic election is never said to be based upon foreknowledge, but Salvific election is (at least in two places, Romans 8.29 and 1 Peter 1.1-2).

At this point Land went into an explication of his view of congruent election, which has as it basis CS Lewis’ conception of the Eternal Now, a state in which God sees the whole scope of time as his present experience (and as Dr. Land later expounded upon for me, is where God sees all time from before we were created through where we are in heaven praising him at a single glance). He also stated that his view differs from Geisler’s view because in Geisler’s framework man provides saving faith, whereas in his God provides the saving faith. Apart from this, his view appears to differ very little from Geisler’s.

To close, Dr. Land shows some charts depicting the order of election and salvation for the believer and the non-believer. The major point which he wants to express with this, where his view separates from the Calvinist view of Unconditional Election, is that whereas Unconditional Election says that God elects and the elect must be saved, Congruent election says that God elects and the elect will be saved (particularly emphasizing the difference between ‘must’ and ‘will’). He also states that God deals differently with the non-elect than the elect and that he has always experienced their rejection.

Analyzing Dr. Land’s presentation, my first big disagreement has to come at the point of saying that the OT believers and the NT believers are not a part of the same once-for-all spiritual Israel. Romans 9.6-7 say that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring,” setting the stage that Israel may be spoken of in terms of two types: those who are truly in the covenant and those who are not. Thus, we get the distinction of spiritual (covenant) Israel and ethnic (descended) Israel. Yes, there are ways in which being a part of ethnic Israel inclines you towards the blessings of spiritual Israel, but this is not at all dissimilar from the way children of Christians are influenced by the church (and which is why Presbyterians unfortunately swung towards paedobaptism).

Then, if we look to Ephesians 2.11-21, we see that spiritual Israel, through Christ, has now been opened up to include those “who were once far off” (v.13). This passage states that Christ “create[d] in himself one new man in place of the two . . . and . . . reconcile[d] us both to God in one body through the cross” so that now “through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (v.18). Finally, the passage seals the deal by saying:

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (vv.19-21)

To me, this shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not desire and did not work to have two separate peoples called in two separate ways, but that he moved to have one unified body reconciled through the death of his son on the cross.

Second, the distinguishing between Abrahamic election and Salvific election seems a step too far for me, aside from the previous point, simply because the argument that foreknowledge is never applied to Abrahamic election and that Abrahamic election is convenantal but Salvific election is individual appear to be inconsistent with Scripture. The terms of foreknowledge, or having an intimate prior affection for, are applied both to what would be termed Salvific election (Romans 8.29) and to what would be Abrahamic election (Romans 11.2). This intimate knowledge parallels the affections which God displays in OT times in passages such as Genesis 18.19, Jeremiah 1.5, and Amos 3.2. And I agree with the idea that the so called Abrahamic election was covenantal, but so is the supposed Salvific election. Notice how in Romans 11.11-24 the salvation of the Gentiles is pictured as a grafting in of branches to an olive tree which was already established, namely the one (and only) covenant. Also, 1 Peter 2.9-10 refers to the Church, not OT ethnic Israel, as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God's] own possession,” stating that “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” This passage abounds with speak of NT believers not as individuals who have been saved, but as a covenant peoples who God has collectively set apart.

Lastly, in tackling his picture of election, though he appeals to a sort of prevenient grace, as opposed to Geisler’s more Arminian approach to saving faith, I believe that this line of reasoning falls under the same attack as Geisler’s view which I recently expressed in this post.

In conclusion, I appreciated Dr. Land’s thorough and humble presentation, but feel that the direction he chose to take it provides no real opposition or alternative to the traditional Calvinist view of Unconditional Election.

2 Comments | Calvinism, John 3:16 Conference | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

The John 3:16 Conference- Overview & Paige Patterson on Total Depravity

November 8, 2008

This past Thursday and Friday I had the privilege of attending the much anticipated John 3.16 Conference hosted by Jerry Vines Ministries at First Baptist Church of Woodstock, GA. For those of you who do not know, this conference was organized as an analysis of the traditional five points of Calvinism and in order to give a Southern Baptist response to them, this particularly in light of the ongoing resurgence of Calvinist convictions in the SBC. Over the course of the next few posts I want to provide snippets of the thoughts expressed at the conference and provide a 5-point Calvinist’s response to them. Then at the end I will provide an overall assessment of how I believe Southern Baptists with 5-point Calvinist convictions should proceed.

Before I begin, however, I would like to make some opening statements on the general tone and nature of the conference. My first comment would be that, despite a lot of the animosity wrapped up in this debate, I feel that most of the speakers over the two days were extremely humble and charitable in their addresses. Particular instances which come to mind are Paige Patterson’s praising the emphasis placed on strong Bible-centered preaching and teaching in Calvinist circles and how that should serve as a role model for all SBC congregations, and Richard Land’s comments that in his opinion a Calvinist view of Unconditional Election in no way steals from God’s glory or mercy, it is simply that he does not believe that view is what the Bible teaches. It is not to say that there were not some pep-rally type moments with other speakers (which I will speak on later), but there was a great deal of humility displayed at times as well, which I greatly appreciated and respected.

Also, a note on the environment. It was a crowd of mostly older, mostly white, mostly male SBC deacons and preachers (as determined by a hand-raising poll the first night). I believe at 23 I was probably among the five youngest people there. Contrasting that with the makeup of the recent Desiring God conference I went to, you can clearly see that the debate between Calvinism and Non-Calvinism in the SBC is as much a generational divide as it is anything (again, comments were made to this effect which will be addressed later).

With that stated, as we go through these points there may arise times when the tone I convey in my writing is not the tone I mean to take with these arguments.  I hold nothing but respect for all of these men who have devoted their lives to studying God’s word and using their studies to enrich and and enhance the lives of people across the globe.  As was stated a number of times at the conference, a disagreement on doctrines does not entail a hatred of spirit.  At the end of the day I would consider all of these men brothers and am honored to serve with them in the body of Christ.

Now, let’s begin taking our look at what was said.

* * * * *

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” -Ephesians 2.1-3

The conference was led off with messages from SBC President Dr. Johnny Hunt and Former SBC President and conference host Dr. Jerry Vines. Neither of these presentations were really focused on the current debate and so I will leave off critiquing them at this point. Therefore, the first presenter who really delved into what Dr. Vines called “the scholarly portion of the conference” was Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. His topic for the conference was Total Depravity.

To begin his message Dr. Patterson turned to Romans 1.18-31 and 3.9-26 in order to lay out a definition for what depravity means. Some parts of this definition for him were “there is not a single human being on earth who is right with God prior to regeneration and justification,” “there is none who seeks after God, they are going away from God,” “there is none who does good towards justification,” and “there is no fear of God.” His explanation for how we got here was that “in Adam all died” (Romans 5.17-19). He then asked the question, Are we born guilty before God?, to which he responded, “No, we are born with a sin sickness.”

From here he went into Ephesians 2.1-9, addressing the use of the word ‘dead’ in verse 1, saying that this doesn’t really mean ‘dead’ since dead men don’t do anything. Continuing in this thought he referenced Romans 4.16-22 saying that though Abraham and appeared dead they were still able to bring forth life. He wrapped up his message with an illustration of a soldier who had been burned and blinded, floating out at sea, as good as dead, when a rescue chopper lowered attempting to save him. The man struggled at first against the rescuer, but once he calmed down and reached out to the man, the rescuer was able to grab a hold of him and pull him to safety. This, Patterson said, is the picture of our depravity and salvation.

The first thing I would want to say about Patterson’s message is that I feel it was somewhat vague and on the issue and how his viewpoint differs from the Calvinist view.  Some of this came from the fact that he seemed to use total depravity in respect to his view at points of the message, other times calling it human depravity.  I do agree with him on his definition of depravity as gleaned from Romans, although at the point where he says that we are not born guilty but only with a sin sickness, I think I would have to diverge, my fear being that this would necessarily lead to the question of, if we have not sin then how come we do sin?  Does God make us sin?  If not then how come there are none who do not sin?  If we are born without sin yet sin is inevitable, what makes it inevitable?  I think this is all answerable by turning back to the Romans 5 passage where we see that “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (v.12) and Ephesians 2.3 which states that all of us are “by nature children of wrath.”  Also, if we believe that all children are born sinless than how could a child die, since it is sin which produces death, both spiritual and physical (Romans 6.23).

Secondly, I take issue with Patterson’s cliched non-Calvinist response to Ephesians 2.1-3.  To simply state that dead men don’t do anything and therefore ‘dead’ really means ’stunned’ or ‘impaired’ displays either a too far reading of Calvinist interpretation or a too lenient understanding of just how grave our sin is, not to mention the fact that “dead doesn’t mean dead” brings forth the same argument which non-Calvinists reject when used in favor of Limited Atonement (i.e. “all doesn’t mean all).  Beyond this, the fact that Paul mentions that “God . . . made us alive together with Christ” (v.4-5), as well as the numerous uses of this phrase or the word ‘regeneration’ in the NT (cf. Colossians 2.13, 1 Peter 1.3, Titus 3.5), make it abundantly clear that we are actually dead and need to be made actually alive.  It was mentioned multiple times at the conference that “God’s image was effaced not erased,” but that is not what Calvinist’s argue for.  We don’t claim that we are no longer image bearers of God, what we declare is that man in his state of total depravity, his state of death, is completely cut off from being able to reach out to God, there is no desire in him to do this and no good in him to which God would be pleased (cf. Hebrews 11.6).  Oddly enough, Patterson appears to agree with this, and yet he argues that we are just stumbling around blinded and “as good as dead.”

What I feel Patterson is arguing towards, through both his view on Ephesians 2.1-9 and the remainder of his prsentation, is one or two directions, though from the vagueness of the message I’m not sure which.  Either he believes in synergism, that man reaches out on his own accord and God grabs him/he grabs God and is brought to salvation, or he holds to prevenient grace, which states that God must incline man towards him, but man is responsible for reaching out and actually grasping God.  Both positions I believe are in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.  If it’s the first (which I do not believe is Patterson’s actual position) then it is at odds with Romans 3.9-12 and Ephesians 2.1-5, both of which say that we are in no way inclined to God by our nature, and the Ephesians passage also stating that God made us alive again, and so to say we reached out and attained it is Scripturally untenable.  If it is the second view, then the question becomes, if God gives his prevenient grace to all yet it is not effectual for all (which if it were would be irresistible grace, a Calvinist position) then what makes one person believe and another not?  Is it God’s will or something else?  If it’s God’s will we appear to be in contradiction of 1 Timothy 2.3-4, yet if it is something else then seemingly we are back into synergism where the person is making their self alive again, not God.  Thus, neither option seems okay.

In closing, I surprisingly did not find this presentation to be one of the stronger arguments at the conference, and even more surprising that Dr. Patterson simply hand-waved away the idea of being dead from Ephesians 2, which I find to be the most undeniable statement of our depravity and total inability.  It seemed to be a stock answer at the conference to just say that “dead doesn’t mean dead” and then give an illustration of an animal which has been decapitated running around, a refutation which I do not find sufficient, maybe even half-hearted, against the Calvinist viewpoint.

1 Comment | Calvinism, John 3:16 Conference | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Dear Titus, . . . - An In-Depth Look at Paul’s Epistle, Titus 1.3-4

November 7, 2008

“And at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior.” (Titus 1.3)

God hid his plan from all until the right time in which he sent Christ to the world and nailed him to the Cross. Not the angels not the prophets knew of who or what they foresaw, but now the Gospel truth is present for all to see through the preaching of the word (1 Peter 1.10-12). It is this preaching which has been entrusted to Paul as his calling, specifically among the Gentiles (Romans 15.8-21). Yet again, lest we think Paul took on this task by his own desire, we are reminded that it was the command of our God which led him so. Notice the priority placed upon preaching, ‘kerygma’, the heralding. It is by these means which God’s promise is made manifest to the world. The God who could write the Gospel in the clouds for all to see or send angels to declare him from heaven, instead chose human transmission and testimony as his way of reaching the lost and dying. For this reason we are not absolved of responsibility in sharing the Gospel with others but thus must always be engaged in preaching and evangelism so that all may hear and may have the opportunity to believe (Romans 10.14-17).

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: . . . ” (1.4)

All who are believers in Christ (i.e. united by a common faith) are related in his family. In this instance we see moreover that Titus is Paul’s child, a disciple who he has raised through the faith into a man ready to handle the capacities of the pastorate.

“Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” (1.4)

Grace and peace are blessings bestowed upon us by God through the actions of Christ. The presence of grace and peace in our lives assures us of God’s mercy and Christ’s sacrifice. For grace saves us and peace allows us to trust fully in God without the anxious distractions otherwise there.

No Comments » | Verses | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Dear Titus, . . . - An In-Depth Look at Paul’s Epistle, Titus 1.2

November 6, 2008

” . . . in hope of eternal life . . . ” (Titus 1.2)

This is not a fingers-crossed hope of uncertainty, but a hope which keeps Paul striving forward to the goal.  This is the same hope which Peter speaks of being regenerated to, a hope based on an inheritance which is being guarded by God that it may be given to those who have believed (1 Peter 1.3-5).  This eternal life is a result of our faith (John 3.16) and is an eternity to be spent in the presence of the God who saved us (Revelation 21.1-4).

” . . . which God, who never lies, . . . ” (1.2)

God is an honest God.  Not deceitful, not coniving as the capricious gods of Greek mythology.  We may trust what God says as truth and what he promises as a sure promise.  None shall find in the end that they did what God commanded and yet he was unfaithful.  God’s Word is truth and we can never go wrong by trusting in his revealed word to us.

” . . . promised before the ages began . . . ” (1.2)

It was God’s plan all along to bring us into eternity with him.  Some say that the Bible is a story of going between two trees: the tree of life in the Garden of Genesis 2 and the tree of life in the Holy City of Revelation 22.  Both of these trees represent God’s unwavering commitment to glorify his people for all time at his side, eternally dwelling in their presence and sharing his divine glory with them.

In this we also see a reiteration of the fact that God chose his people, the elect, before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1.4), which is God’s declaration that this was the plan all along and not some second-chance to fix an earlier mistake.  God’s purposes will not be frustrated.

No Comments » | Verses | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

Dear Titus, . . . - An In-Depth Look at Paul’s Epistle, Titus 1.1

November 5, 2008

Over the next several days I will be out of town attending the John 3.16 Conference in Woodstock, GA and so during that time, in order to keep making posts, I will be unveiling a brief series of posts featuring expanded thoughts on the introduction to the book of Titus. These posts will occur in what should be a larger look at Titus appearing here over the next month or two. When I return I will be posting the last post or two in the predetermination vs. foreknowledge series, and then we will have an extended response to what is said this weekend at the conference. I pray that you guys enjoy the commentary while I’m gone and have a nice rest of the week.

* * * * *

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” (Titus 1.1)

From the outset Paul lays down where he stands in relation to God and from whom his authority comes. As a servant, Paul is bound to doing the will of his master. This submission is displayed throughout the New Testament, both by obedience to God’s direct instruction (Acts 16.6-10, 18.9-11) or by a more general adherence to God’s universal commands (such as the universal call to evangelism).

As for authority, we find reference in other of Paul’s writings to argue that what he says is not based on his own will or desire but is the word spoken straight from God (1 Corinthians 1.17, 14.37, Galatians 1.11-12, 1 Thessalonians 2.13). Thus again, Paul’s authority to instruct comes from submission to God as master first, and is followed by his faithfulness to the Word of God spoken into his life. Were this the mere philosophical or pragmatic writings of a fallen human then we could just throw them out and ascribe to our own pinnings, but since this is the purpose of the Almighty God transmitted through his humble servant we should take heed.

” . . . for the sake of the faith of God’s elect . . . ” (1.1)

Paul is directing this letter specifically to an overseer so that it may be used in regards to the whole body of true believers, the elect. Clearly Paul sees no distinction between the elect and just plain believers, or else we must take this epistle to have direction for only part of the church, and an unidentifiable part at that. Does this make much sense?

” . . . and their knowledge of the truth . . . ” (1.1)

Not only is Paul writing to Titus but he is writing for the elect, that they may receive more of the light through the words he’s about to share. The pastor should always be concerned about the knowledge of his people. If a congregant claims to be saved and yet Sunday to Sunday is not growing in their knowledge and understanding of the things of God then the elders and leadership must be accountable to helping them make the connect. A church filled with static believers will struggle to do the depth of the work which God has called them to.

” . . . which accords with godliness, . . . ” (1.1)

There is no way to be gaining in knowledge of the truth and not at the same time being further conformed into the image of Christ (Romans 8.29). By knowing the truth we know Jesus (John 14.6) and knowing Jesus we cannot help but be changed (2 Corinthians 5.14-21).

No Comments » | Verses | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

You Should Have Seen this Coming- Defending the Calvinist View

November 4, 2008

Alright, so a couple of posts ago I discussed the idea of the relationship between God’s predetermination and his foreknowledge and said that there are basically three prevailing ideas, known as the Calvinist view, the Arminian view and the moderate view. I then went through and offered refutations of the Arminian and the moderate views. Therefore, the only option we are left with is the Calvinist view, and it is in this post where I hope to offer a defense of why I believe this is true.

The Calvinist view, as I stated in the initial post, is that “God’s predetermination of events precedes (or is independent of) foreknowledge, and so God predetermines events to occur and then works through time to influence their occurring.” How do we defend this? Let me offer a few supporting Scriptures.

Ephesians 1.3-6, 11

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. . . . In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.“

To me this is the cornerstone verse of God’s plan and predetermination, particularly in election to grace. Here we see Paul stating that God “chose us . . . before the foundation of the world” and “predestined us for adoption.” Yet why did he do that? Was it because of his foreknowledge as the Arminian view would assert? Surely not. Instead what it says is that his choosing, his predestining, was executed “according to the purpose of his will” and “according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Thus, God’s predetermination for salvation is solely based upon his purposes, his will, in order to fulfill the end for which he put all of this in motion to begin with.

Now, does that tell us why he chose some and not others? Certainly not, but should we expect to be able to understand that answer in the first place? I think all we can hope for is understanding that he did it and that he has his reasons for it, first and foremost of which is the completion of his will.

1 Corinthians 1.27-29

“But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.“

In reading these verses, particularly following the passage in Ephesians, I believe we get an even deeper insight into the motivation for God’s predetermination. Paul at this point states that God “chose what is foolish . . . to shame the wise” and “chose the weak . . . to shame the strong.” Not only are we once again presented with God’s sovereign choice in election, but we are presented with it in regards to the reasoning behind it, namely to complete some aspect of God’s will for his creation.

Acts 4.24-28

“And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘”Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed”‘- for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.’“

Moving away from predetermination to grace (election), we find that God’s predetermination also works in the general actions of men. As I brought up in the first post of this series, in this passage, what we see is that God had “predestined” the murder of Christ “to take place,” and so in order to do this he “gathered together” a collection of peoples “to do whatever [his] hand and [his] plan had predestined to take place.” And, referring back to the prophecy in Isaiah 53.10, it was God’s “will” to “crush” Christ, and so the workings that we see spoken of in Acts 4.24-28 were predetermined, once more, to accomplish the ultimate will of God in creation.

Proverbs 16.33

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”

Wrapping up what we have said so far, I think that this bit of wisdom from the book of Proverbs is the final nail in hammering down the Calvinist view of predetermination. The main objection levied by the moderate view is that the Calvinist view has no place for human free will. Yet, their gross mischaracterizations aside, I think that there complaint against the Calvinist view would also have to stand as a complaint against this piece of Scripture as well, which is a line I would hope they wouldn’t consider pursuing.

The idea is this: yes, man does make free decisions, but there is something about those decisions which cause them to always work into the plan of God, and since we have already shot down the view that God’s will is simply reactionary to man’s choices (the Arminian view), there must be something else at work here. That something I believe was most adeptly described by Jonathan Edwards when he describes the human necessity to choose in accord with its strongest inclination, and it is this inclination which is given by God to lead us into doing his will (I hope to expand on this further in the next post using it to refute some of Geisler’s objections in Chosen but Free).

Therefore, yes, we have a choice, but to assume that our choice is somehow able to guide God’s will, which both the Arminian and the moderate views must to some extent affirm, would stand in complete contradiction to this passage. Then, the only option left on the table, which agrees with all of the other Scriptural evidence we have presented as well, is the Calvinist view.


No Comments » | Calvinism | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

How Many Rootless Trees in Our Orchard?- A Sermon on True Christianity from Matthew 13.3-23

November 3, 2008

“And he told them many things in parables, saying: ‘A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away. Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear.’” -Matthew 13.3-9

60 million Americans claim to be evangelicals. 6 out of every 10 Americans say they have had a born-again experience with God. Do you believe that? Really, do you buy into those numbers? I don’t either. Yet, what can we do? Can we say these people aren’t saved? Can we say that what they think they experienced they didn’t? No, I wouldn’t encourage that. Then what?

Well, I think we must examine what the problem is. To me, and to many other American Christians, the problem is clear: to “be born-again” requires little more than an emotional response and an intellectual exercise in the vast majority of American churches. People pray a prayer, sign a card, walk an aisle, and splash around in a baptismal. But, at the end of the day, they still live however the hell they want to without the slightest change.

A few weeks ago JD Greear of The Summit Church in Raleigh-Durham, NC preached a sermon on this covering the parable of the sower and the seeds. Here is a snippet of what he had to say:

See, here is what is troubling to me: our evangelical culture . . . really emphasizes a moment of conversion. . . . But did you notice, in this parable, these are all people who have made that initial response to Jesus? . . . Jesus’ warning is, these people though aren’t really followers of mine.

That’s right. Christ himself knew that there would be people who would show initial signs of conversion, a good start, and yet after a period of time (usually 8 weeks in the American church) they had fallen away. Now, this is not that they have been saved and then lost that salvation, but that they were never saved in the first place (Christ says that they “have no root” and “[prove] unfruitful“).

If this is the case, then why is it that we focus so much on simply getting an initial “conversion” and emphasizing our free grace theology? Well, the first reason, I think, is because it increases numbers a lot faster than the type of conversion and discipleship needed to grow solid followers of Christ, much in the same way that a healthy, fruitful tree requires more care than one that is withered and dead, with no root and fruitless. Second, it is much less confrontational. If all a person need do is sign a card and then that serves as their assurance for the rest of their life, that is certainly easier to promote than the radical repentance and accountability that true believers are called to. There are sure to be others, but I will stop and let you brainstorm the rest.

Also, while you ponder this issue, please take a listen to the sermon I noted above. JD Greear has a very easy to follow and yet profoundly deep style of teaching which I think really makes the prevalency and severity of this issue clear to see. Enjoy!

JD Greear- Why the Jesus Thing Never Takes with Some People; Matthew 13.3-23

No Comments » | Observations, Sermons | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

You Should Have Seen this Coming- Refuting the Moderate View

November 2, 2008

“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” -Acts 2.23

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are 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:May grace and peace be multiplied to you.” -1 Peter 1.1-2

In interacting with the moderate view of predetermination versus foreknowledge I will most readily be interacting with the views of Norman Geisler’s “moderate Calvinism” (or as I feel is the more appropriate name given by James R. White, “inconsistent Arminianism”) from his book Chosen but Free.

As stated previously, we find that the moderate view of the relationship between God’s predetermination and his foreknowledge is “that God’s election is neither based on his foreknowledge of man’s free choices nor exercised independent of it” (Norman Geisler, Chosen but Free, p.53). Moreover, “whatever God forechooses cannot be based on what he foreknows. Nor can what he foreknows be based on what he forechose. Both must be simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God” (p.53), or, as put elsewhere by Geisler, “He had to predetermine in accordance with his foreknowledge. And He must have foreknown in accordance with his predetermination.”

This, if not interesting, is at least a very cumbersome viewpoint to try and digest. The basic idea is that the Arminian view cannot work because it causes God’s sovereignty to be dependent on something else (as I agreed in the previous post), and that the Calvinist view cannot work because it does not regard the choices of free moral agents in God’s plan (which I will explain why it is not a problem later). Yet, at the end of the day, this amalgamation of predetermination and foreknowledge, which seems so “moderate” and “balanced,” I believe is not quite balanced itself.

Geisler states that God “had to predetermine in accordance with his foreknowledge.” That is exactly Arminianism and has exactly the same problem as the Arminian position with the fact that God becomes a dependent being as pertains to his will be done. Yet, for some reason, Geisler assumes that this problem just goes away when he says that God “must have foreknown in accordance with his predetermination.” How? If this position is unfeasible then it must be unfeasible no matter what else it is paired with.

Beyond that, I take issue with the idea that we can conceive of predetermination and foreknowledge as simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God. My reasoning brings into it an idea from the theory of time travel. Geisler agrees with what I believe is the general consensus God’s knowledge, that being that God knows everything that will ever happen all at once because God is not bound by a temporal nature. However, where I break from Geisler is that he obviously believes that God’s knowing all of this is not a result of his predetermination of how it would go, but is simply that God knows how man will freely choose. What I think Geisler fails to take into account is that, in light of the fact that God’s knowledge is not temporal, man’s free choices are, and necessarily man’s free choices at one point are influenced by everything that has occurred prior to the time of the making of that decision.

So, if God knows what will happen and predetermines what will happen, and then makes what he has predetermined known (as in prophecy or divine revelation), then his making his predetermination known has to occur some place in time, and thus it can influence the choices or free moral agents at a later date, which in turn changes his foreknowledge, which is not possible. Therefore, if God knows everything that is going to happen all at once then this necessarily seals him from being able to make his predeterminations known. (This is the equivalent of what is known as the Grandfather paradox in the philosophy of time travel, which basically asks the question, Is it possible to travel back in time and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother?, and is a problem since if you did then you would be preventing yourself from being born, which means you couldn’t travel back and kill him, which means you would be born, etc.) But, God does make his predeterminations known! Therefore, by way of contrapositive, if God makes his predeterminations known, then God does not know everything that is going to happen all at once. Uh-oh! That’s open theism (which I’m not even going to humor with arguing against here).

(Note: some may ask for an example of predetermination influencing foreknowledge, and to that end I think the most accessible instance would be the view that, when Christ was on the cross and he spoke “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27.46), the reason he did this was not just an act of his own free will, but it was in accord with the prophecy in Psalm 22.1, a prophecy Christ certainly would have known was speaking of him (Luke 24.27, 44). One might also think to Moses who would have certainly been influenced by God’s revelation of Pharaohs future stubbornness as he was being instructed to go and seek the deliverence of God’s people (Exodus 4.21-23).)

Thus, there must be something wrong with the moderate view, and judging off of what has been shown already, that problem must lie in the idea of predetermination occurring in accordance with foreknowledge, which leaves only foreknowledge occurring in accordance with predetermination, which is the Calvinist view and is what we will defend next.

[P.S.- There also appears to be a problem in Geisler's view where God's predetermination comes out to be more of a skilled prognosticating than a powerful decree. This is because he seems to put predetermination out on an island where it is neither accurate because it is based on foreknowledge (Arminianism) nor accurate because foreknowledge is based on it (roughly Calvinism), and so it is simply some impotent act which God is in no way capable of making sure comes to pass, which I believe removes God's sovereignty altogether.]

No Comments » | Calvinism | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

You Should Have Seen this Coming- Refuting the Arminian View

October 31, 2008

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” -Ephesians 2.8-9

“For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” -1 Corinthians 15.27-28

To recap from the previous post, the Arminian view of the relationship between God’s predetermination and his foreknowledge is that man is entirely free in his choices and yet God is in complete control of the universe, the reason for this being not that there exists some type of “coercion” to do what he has determined, but because his predetermination is based on “the knowledge of what the free agents will do under whatever persuasive means He may use on them” (Geisler, Chosen but Free, p.51). So, in short, God’s foreknowledge of man’s decisions is what guides his predetermination of what will happen.

Now, why do I believe this is an incorrect view of the relationship as shown in Scripture and in logic?

First off, looking into Scripture, the biggest problem we find with this is that, if God’s decree of election to salvation is dependent upon his foreknowledge of who can be persuaded to choose him then this makes the criteria for salvation being man choosing God and God acquiescing to this choice, instead of what is taught in Scripture which is that salvation comes by grace through faith (Ephesians 2.8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God“).

In fact, looking at that verse, we see that it says, “And this is not your own doing.” But under the Arminian view it is your own doing. Yes, they still view salvation as being completed by God through his mercy, but the giving of it to you it is not an act of grace, it is an act of compliance to your free moral choice. This objection is also supported by Titus 3.5-7 and Romans 11.6.

Second, logically, if God’s predetermination is based upon his foreknowledge of how free moral agents will respond under persuasion, then the ultimate determination in any event actually lies with man and not with God. When the Arminian says that God’s predetermination is based on “the knowledge of what the free agents will do under whatever persuasive means He may use on them” what they intend is that God acts out in choosing those who he knows can be persuaded to choose him, leaving open the amount of persuasion which God uses to do this (thus we have a difference between the amount of persuasion used to convert Joe Christian versus the radical persuasion used in influencing Paul on the Damascus Road).

But consider an instance in which there is a person A who cannot, under any amount of influence or persuasion from God, be led to choose God. Then, if God is constrained from imposing upon that persons freedom in any way which exceeds persuasion, what we find in the end is that God is utterly incapable of determining this persons salvation, and ergo God’s purpose is actually subject to the will of person A, which is a contradiction of the fact that all things are in subjection to God (cf. 1 Corinthians 15.27-28).

Yet one must not get so radical as person A to see that in any instance God’s working is constrained by what this free moral agent will actually let him do and so God falls subject to the will of all his creation, a decree that I never find being made in the Scriptures.

Thus, from both the perspective of pure Scripture and of philosophical reflection we see that the Arminian view of the relationship between God’s predetermination and his foreknowledge is false.

No Comments » | Calvinism | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Burus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »