This morning I stumbled upon this while browsing another blog:
The inward attitude certainly holds first place in prayer, but outward signs, kneeling, uncovering the head, lifting up the hands, have a twofold use. The first is that we may employ all our members for the glory and worship of God; secondly, that we are, so to speak, jolted out of our laziness by this help. There is also a third use in solemn and public prayer, because in this way the sons of God profess their piety, and they inflame each other with reverence of God. But just as the lifting up of the hands is a symbol of confidence and longing, so in order to show our humility, we fall down on our knees. (John Calvin, Commentary on Acts 20:36)
Who says that physical expressiveness in worship is incompatible with the Reformed tradition?
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Is Calvinism Significant to the Gospel?
In light of my ongoing series examining the doctrines of grace and evangelism, I thought it would be pertinent to write a brief entry considering the general question this whole series has been probing: how important is Calvinism to the gospel? I am still constantly bewildered by the response of those (especially those who bear the moniker "Reformed") who would challenge the necessity of contending for these precious truths. Most would rather sit back and talk about harmony and unity within the body than defend orthodoxy. After all, in the wake of this postmodern culture, who is to determine what orthodoxy is? What this amounts to is the syncreticism of two divurgent belief systems in an oxymoronic fashion. Movements like Fed Vision or "Reformed Catholicism" as one blogger calls it are prime examples of this. But can we who know or love the truth settle for such integrationalism? Consider the famous quote by C.H. Spurgeon:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. - C.H. Spurgeon in "A Defense of Calvinism"
Opponents of this would say, "Well there is more to the gospel than Calvinism." Sure, Calvinism is not exhaustive of the gospel or co-extensive with the gospel. There are other equally precious and valuable doctrines that make up the gospel such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, etc. But as Spurgeon said, the pure, unadulterated gospel cannot be preached without the doctrines of grace. Why is that? The main reason is because the absence of the preaching of the truths of man's entirely corrupt nature, God's absolutely free and sovereign choice in election, Christ's subsequent efficacious purchase of those elected by God the Father, the Holy Spirit's effectual calling of those whom Christ purchased, and the entire Godhead's preserving ability to keep the elect from falling from grace diminishes the fullness of the glory of God's grace. It puts man in the driver's seat of his own destiny. It mingles works and grace, even if the work is only a volitional act of the individual. Synergism gives man some of the role in coming to Christ, thereby giving him some sense of achievement in salvation ("I decided for Christ"). This kind of teaching will always and inevitably lead to a form of boasting, even if it only exists in the subtle form of applause after evangelical rallies or "spiritual maturity" whispered about amongst youth circles (as if maturity in the Christian walk had to do with when you "walked an aisle" rather than how much you study your Bible). Rather the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of salvation does not place the difference in the individual for the reason that some come to believe and others do not. Instead, we as Reformers believe it is the freedom of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy (Romans 9:15). In such a soteriological system, God is given all the glory for He is the one who elects (Ephesians 1:4-5), draws (John 6:44), purchases (Acts 20:28), sanctifies (Philippians 2:13) and glorifies (Romans 8:30). Therefore, man cannot exalt himself, but must put his hand on his mouth and fall before the Lord and marvel at his redeeming grace. That is why I am a Calvinist and that is why it is imperative to the preaching of the gospel!
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. - C.H. Spurgeon in "A Defense of Calvinism"
Opponents of this would say, "Well there is more to the gospel than Calvinism." Sure, Calvinism is not exhaustive of the gospel or co-extensive with the gospel. There are other equally precious and valuable doctrines that make up the gospel such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, etc. But as Spurgeon said, the pure, unadulterated gospel cannot be preached without the doctrines of grace. Why is that? The main reason is because the absence of the preaching of the truths of man's entirely corrupt nature, God's absolutely free and sovereign choice in election, Christ's subsequent efficacious purchase of those elected by God the Father, the Holy Spirit's effectual calling of those whom Christ purchased, and the entire Godhead's preserving ability to keep the elect from falling from grace diminishes the fullness of the glory of God's grace. It puts man in the driver's seat of his own destiny. It mingles works and grace, even if the work is only a volitional act of the individual. Synergism gives man some of the role in coming to Christ, thereby giving him some sense of achievement in salvation ("I decided for Christ"). This kind of teaching will always and inevitably lead to a form of boasting, even if it only exists in the subtle form of applause after evangelical rallies or "spiritual maturity" whispered about amongst youth circles (as if maturity in the Christian walk had to do with when you "walked an aisle" rather than how much you study your Bible). Rather the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of salvation does not place the difference in the individual for the reason that some come to believe and others do not. Instead, we as Reformers believe it is the freedom of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy (Romans 9:15). In such a soteriological system, God is given all the glory for He is the one who elects (Ephesians 1:4-5), draws (John 6:44), purchases (Acts 20:28), sanctifies (Philippians 2:13) and glorifies (Romans 8:30). Therefore, man cannot exalt himself, but must put his hand on his mouth and fall before the Lord and marvel at his redeeming grace. That is why I am a Calvinist and that is why it is imperative to the preaching of the gospel!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Limited Atonement and the Gospel Call
This is the third part in a series of articles examining the doctrines of grace and evangelism. In this article, I will seek to provide Biblical warrant for a definitive view of the atonement and then, in light of this truth, I will demonstrate how we are to preach the gospel.
The teaching of the atonement is one that remains cloaked in a shroud of confusion for most Christians. This is unfortunate considering that a proper understanding of the atonement lies at the heart of the faith. It is so central that a denial of it inevitably leads one away from the Christian faith altogether. While the notion of a blood offering for sin is present in many pagan religions, only Christianity teaches that one sacrifice is sufficient to expiate sin. As the writer of Hebrews says, "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9:26b)." Though modern scoffers have attempted to attack the faith's authenticity by showing notions of atonement in various world religions, these have proved largely unsuccessful on the grounds that the similarity in Christian atonement and pagan atonement is weak at best. Islam requires the continual shedding of blood on their holy days through an act known as tatbir. Hinduism demands the ritualistic slaughtering of animals to appease Durga or any other deity from its pantheon of gods. Roman Catholicism makes a mockery of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by representing it through the blasphemy of the mass several times a year. Yet all these lack the singular, definitive nature of the Christian atonement. Satan may imitate the design of God but he may not replicate it exactly (2 Cor. 11:14).
Many students of the Bible errantly assume that the full-orbed teaching of atonement that God prescribes under the Levitical priesthood is the origination of such a practice. However, we must go back further to find the first blood offering for sin. In the Garden, after Adam and Eve had rebelled and fallen from their state of grace, God seeks them out and finds them (Gen. 3:8-9). Note, that God is the initiator of restoring the severed relationship. It is God who seeks his fallen creatures not the other way around. After rebuking the parents of the human race in verse 13 and pronouncing judgment in verses 16-19, God makes clothes for them by the shedding of blood (Gen. 3:21). God kills the first living things by providing the first sacrifice. Here we have a wonderful foreshadowing of the death of Christ, whom Paul says, "God put forward as a propitiation by his blood (Rmns. 3:25a)." But are we surprised at this that we find the precedent of blood offering established so early? Otherwise, how would Abel have known to offer his sacrifice, "the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions (Gen.4:4)"? The answer is because his parents told him and no doubt told him of the future, all-sufficient sacrifice they saw in the offering through the eyes of faith. But what of his brother Cain? Did they not tell him the same experience they had in the Garden? No doubt they did, and he being the eldest heard it first but his hearing was not united with faith. That is why for his offering the Lord had "no regard": it was not a blood offering done by faith (4:5). It is correct to say that the sacrifice Cain provided was not a blood offering and thus not acceptable. But it would be wrong for us to assume that Cain's offering would have been anymore acceptable had he sacrificed an animal and done it without faith. But precisely the reason Cain did not offer a blood offering was because he did believe nor heed the word which his parents had unquestionably spoken to him. His own poor choice in offering is reflective of his lack of faith and the two cannot be separated. For this reason, he is rejected by God and made a wanderer on the earth as demonstration of his reprobation. Thus, even before Jacob and Esau, God's sovereign choice of electing the younger over the elder is established.
As we move forward in redemptive history to the nation of Israel, the Levitical priesthood is marked by atonement. In the blood sacrifices of the nation Israel, the precedent of atonement requiring a blood sacrifice is clearly established. The correct understanding of blood as representing atonement for sin is behind the logic of the Lord's prohibition of eating blood: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life (Lev. 17:11)." Clearly, a blood sacrifice is demanded for sin. In the previous chapter, the Lord clearly outlines how this blood sacrifice is to be performed. Aaron is instructed to take two goats and one bull from the people of Israel to make atonement for sin (16:5). The bull is offered up as a burnt offering for Aaron and his household (16:6) and one of the goats is the offering given for the sins of the nation Israel (16:9). But what of the other goat? The other goat is sent into the wilderness of Azazel to bear the sins of the people (16:10). This goat is the scapegoat and is a reminder to the people of Israel that the sacrificial system is only a shadow and type of the ultimate fulfillment to come. It is a reminder that, as the writer of Hebrews says, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:4)." It is a reminder that only when an Israelite looks at the sacrifice and sees it as foreshadowing a future atonement and believes the promise is there any forgiveness of sins. It is in faith that Aaron put his hands on the offering and thus, symbolically, put the sins of the people on it as well.
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. -Leviticus 16:21-22
Let us note two principles about the sacrificial system as we are informed from our reading of these two verses. 1) It is offered for the sins of the people. Note what the text tells us: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins." It may seem too obvious to point out but the sacrifice was only offered for the Israelites. It was not offered for the Gentiles. How many Hivvites or Assyrians was a sacrifice offered on behalf? I dare say not a one! This is crucial to note because the same people who want to cry injustice when Calvinists limit the scope and the intention of the atonement of the New Covenant will completely ignore the fact that it was limited in scope under the Old Administration as well. Let us note that God's intentionality in offering an atonement for sin is linked with his intentionality in choosing a people for himself. He does not choose all people who ever lived unto salvation but chooses some to save from all eternity (Eph. 1:4ff). In the same way, he does not offer up an atonement for all people who ever lived, but offers up an atonement for those whom he seeks to adopt into his family, thus wishing to remove every barrier in the way of this goal. This is the specific focus of the atonement. 2) It is offered for all the iniquities of the people. Not one sin is precluded from this offering. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins." Note the recurring emphasis that all of the sins of Israel are placed on this offering. Not one sin is omitted in the offering up of the animal. Aaron had in mind every sin of the people of Israel when he offered up the goat into the wilderness. And may we assume that every sin included the sin of unbelief? Of course we can, especially since we know that the sin of unbelief is the root of every other sin as Paul tells us (Rmns 14:23). And unbelief had been the dominant mark of the Israelites since being delivered from their bondage in Egypt and unbelief was what prevented many from entering the Promised Land and why they fell in the wilderness as the writer of Hebrews informs us (Heb. 3:19). The point to see here is that the atonement offered under the Old Covenant, which was only a shadow of the atonement to come, did not exclude the sin of unbelief, so why would the reality of the NT atonement be any different? Why would the atonement made by Christ be somehow less than the types and figures of the sacrifices of Israel? The answer is it would not and the only ones limiting the atonement in the truest sense are Arminians who claim that Christ died for all but the atonement does not have the power to cover all sins (including the sin of unbelief). The atonement of Calvinistic theology does not diminish the work Christ accomplished on the cross, it simply comes into a more specific and definite view of it.
While these two principles of the atonement are established under the Levitical priesthood, the specificity of the atonement is given greater emphasis in the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah. In Isaiah 53, we are given startlingly accurate words of prediction regarding the death of Christ. In verses 4-6, the prophet tells us that "he was wounded for our transgressions" and "he was crushed for our iniquities" and that "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Here, the Arminian will raise his hand and shout, "Aha! See! The Lord bears the iniquity of all. Christ dies for every single person!" But is that what the prophet Isaiah is saying? We have to remember who is speaking and to interpret words in their given context. This is especially true of universal terms. If I were to invite you over for dinner and once you arrived say, "All of us will be sitting in the dining room", to whom would I be referring? Would I be referring to Jack my neighbor or to the kids at the daycare down the street? Certainly not! Anyone who thought this way would be deemed preposterous! In the same way, we must understand the Biblical context when words like "all" are used. Who are the all? Well, they are precisely those who receive the benefits of the atonement-the true spiritual nation of Israel. This is unavoidable when we realize that the prophet says the "Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (v.6)." If the all in view here is every single individual who has ever lived, then we would have universalism. The ones for whom Christ bears their iniquity are many who are accounted righteous (v.11). This is a clear reference to justification. Those whom Christ died for are infallibly those who are justified. God's forensic, judicial declaration of a sinner as not guily cannot be repealed. Thus, if the Arminian still wants to insist that Christ pays for the sins of all people who ever lived then, on the basis of Isaiah 53:11, he must become a universalist, because those whom Christ died for are accounted righteous. But since most Arminians are not willing to lapse this far into heresy (and we thank God), they will say that Christ died in the same manner for the sinners who were currently in Hell and for all those who would go to Hell after his death. This is nonsensical and makes a mockery of the atonement. God cannot demand two payments for sin and if Christ paid for the sins of all people equally, then no one would appear in Hell. Furthermore, the prophet's final words to close out the Suffering Servant chapter would make little sense, considering he views the recipients of Christ's atonement in contrast to the whole world and says, "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors (53:12)."
"But that's the Old Testament," some unlearned reader of the Word might say. Unfortunately, it is still the sad state of affairs within evangelicalism that some might still use this as their rebuttal, as if the Old Testament were not inspired, holy Writ. The widespread damage of the system of dispensationalism has done much to further this thinking. However, we who heed Paul's words to Timothy that "all scripture is breathed out by God", know better (2 Tim. 3:16). But what of the New Testament? What do we find the writers of the NT saying of the scope of the atonement? Is such a particular view of the atonement advocated by them? We shall find it is.
Even from the opening of the first synoptic gospel, the intentionality of the atonement is established. One of our most beloved Christmas verses contains this focus: "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Mtthew 1:21)." Was Jesus a Perfect Savior? Did he fulfill this promise made concerning him? Did this Scripture come to pass? If Christ died for all, but all are not saved from their sins as the Arminian wants to assert, then the answer is no. However, this verse clearly says for whom Christ came for particularly. "He will save his people from their sins" demonstrates that those whom Christ came to save are the one whom God the Father had united to him in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-5). Christ is a Perfect Savior and he does fulfill the meaning behind his name because he saves his people from their sins (i.e. the elect).
Both Matthew and Mark's gospel record an instance where the mother of James and John comes to Jesus and entreats him to promise her that her sons will be able to sit at his right and left hand. These parallel passages mainly focus on the teaching of servant leadership but both of them conclude with a reference to the atonement: "Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mtthew 20:28; Mrk 10:24)." These words are an eerily accurate echo of Isaiah's words spoken nearly seven hundred years earlier. Christ did not come to be served but "to give his life as a ransom (atonement) for many (the scope)." The aim of the atonement could not be any clearer in these words: Christ died to ensure the buying back of the many.
As we continue our survey of the gospels, we find ourselves examining the words of the disciple "whom Jesus loved (Jhn. 13:23; and interestingly enough, this is another case of God's discriminating and distinguishing love)." Surely John, of all the disciples, the one who was closest to Jesus, would know for whom it was his Master came to die. We find this is precisely the case. In John chapter 10, the passage which ends with Jesus' emphatic statement that "I and the Father are one" (10:30), John records Jesus' teaching on his purpose of redemption. In verse 11, Jesus' perfunctory statement clearly addresses the matter and informs even the most unattentive reader for whom he dies.
11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. -John 10:11
After these words spoken by our Lord Jesus, can there be any doubt on the focus of the atonement? Verse 3 says that the sheep are those whom Jesus calls out by name. Verse 4 tells us that the sheep are those who know the Shepherd's voice and follow him. How many of the reprobate does Jesus call out by name? How many of the reprobate know Jesus' voice and follow him? Only those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world, at their appointed time, receive the effectual, inward call of Christ and believe. These are the same people for whom Jesus died (10:11).
Later in John's gospel, the particularity of the atonement is mentioned again. On the night of Jesus' arrest, he prays a lengthy prayer to his Father in what has come to be known as the High Priestly Prayer. These are precious words that are recorded in none of the gospels save this one Johannine passage. As we would expect on the night in which Jesus was going to make atonement for sin, the Savior's prayer has the work of redemption in mind. Let us pay close attention to his words.
6 I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. -John 17:6-9
"The people whom you gave me out of the world" refers to the ones God the Father elected in eternity past (Eph. 1:4ff) as similar phraseology exists in John chapter 6. Notice that Jesus explicitly states in verse 9: "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." Jesus specifies for whom he is praying. Then, he specifies again by clarifying for whom he is not praying. If a parent is speaking to two of his four children, he might try to emphasize whom he is addressing with similar words. "I am talking to you, John and Mary. I am not talking to Jack and Amy but to you." Thus, we should infer that Jesus is trying to make a similar sort of emphasis. It is not the world for whom Jesus prays but for those whom the Father gave him. What does Jesus pray for these people? Four things: their preservation (v. 11), their sanctification (v.17), their unity (v.22), and their glorification (v.24). These are not gifts that are available to the reprobate but to the elect only and they are gifts that Christ purchased on the cross. If the Arminian wants to make the atonement a broad, generalized, vague atonement that only makes possible salvation but never actualy purchases it, then he has no solid answer to whether or not what Jesus prays for here was answered. However, the Calvinist can with full confidence declare the efficacious nature of the atonement, that it accomplished what it meant to accomplish, that Jesus' High Priestly prayer was answered.
For the Arminian who thinks I have purposefully neglected his oft-cited and decontextualized verse, let me dispel this notion by saying I am full aware of the misuse of John 3:16 to try and overturn limited atonement. Just as the Arians tried to trouble the early church with John 14:28, so there has been in our day those who have tried to eisegete John 3:16 to disprove Calvinism. While neither time nor space would permit a full-blown exegesis of John 3, it is sufficient to say that John 3:16 stands as it is with not the slightest threat of debunking Calvinism. Arminians' use of John 3:16 is a classic example of one of the most common pitfalls of interpretation. They try to take John 3:16 and make it speak on the atonement, an issue which is clearly not being addressed by our Lord in that passage. The Arminian will no doubt cry over and over (as if repetition will make his point rather than exegesis), "For God so loved the WORLD..."; however, the Calvinist gladly acknowledges this is true in one sense. God does have a general, kind disposition towards all of his creation and this was reflected in his sending his son into the creative order. Just by having Jesus come to our sin-fallen, wretched world is an act of condescension on the part of the eternal Son of God and an act of kindness by the Father. However, this is not love in a redemptive or salvific kind of way. There is no mention of the blood offering nor the propitiation in John 3:16. Arminians read this back into the verse but it simply not there. To put it bluntly, John 3:16 is not dealing with the atonement. Ironically, the verse maintains a particular focus as it says, "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (3:16b)." The "whoever" is not in the Greek but is an English transliteration to encompass "all the believing ones", which is in the Greek. Thus, a proper translation of this verse could also read: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that all the believing ones should not perish but have eternal life." Thus, God loves the world and sends his Son into it so that the believing ones would receive eternal life. Who are the believing ones? The believing ones are those who come to Christ and those who come to Christ are the ones that the Father had given him: the elect (see Jhn 6:37ff). Christ is sent into the world then and the whole world receives the common grace of his coming into the world, because of God's purpose of giving the elect eternal life. This notion that the world receives the common grace of God only as a byproduct of God's love for his elect is consistent with Historic Calvinism and with Jesus' parable of the wheat and weeds (Mtthw 13:24-30). So it is true that in a sense God loves all of his creation, just as it was true for the Arians who were harassing the early church that in a sense the Father is greater than Christ (Jhn 14:28). The question is just: in what sense? For the Arians, they were taking this verse out of its context and trying to make it contradict the entirety of John's teaching on the nature of Christ. They failed to recognize that, in its context, Jesus was speaking of his return to the Father and by stating that the Father was greater, he was merely referring to the humiliation and condescension he had to undergo to assume the office of Mediator. In the same way, Arminians try to make John 3:16 teach a universal atonement when really it is only referring to God's general goodwill or kind disposition to all of his creation as we have seen.
Though I have not presented an exhaustive defense of the doctrine of limited atonement, the passages we have already examined are adequate to make a clear case for it. Other cases for this doctrine can be seen in passages like 1 Peter 2:24 which says, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." Peter's epistle was written towards the elect, so with that in view, this statement becomes a clear case of Christ specifically bearing the sins of His chosen people. Acts 20:28 declares that the church was obtained by the blood of Christ. Again, it is imperative to note the specific, accomplishing nature of the atonement that is witnessed to by every NT writer. These passages amongst several others indicate that the apostles saw Christ's death not as making salvation a possibility but as actually accomplishing it.
Therefore, with a sufficient, Scriptural case for limited atonement established, let us now turn to reflecting on how this should effect our evangelism. This, I think, should prove to be most interesting. While Total Depravity alters how we present the condition of man and Unconditional Election ensures that we rely on God's sovereign choice of individuals and not our own abilities, Limited Atonement dictates to whom we should direct the message of the gospel. With this in mind, let us turn to its application for evangelism. There are three ways in which we must preach the gospel with regards to the doctrine of Limited atonement:
1. We must preach the gospel with a corporate application and not an individualistic one.
Far too often in the church's gospel presentations today, preachers make statements like, "Christ died for you to save you from your sins" or worse, "If you were the only person on earth, Christ still would have died for you." At times, the whole gospel is reduced to a "God has a plan for your life and loves you" statement! The gospel is the good news message about what God has accomplished in Christ to redeem sinners. However, in the wake of individualism, modern evangelicals want to make our gospel presentations centered around the individual. While it is not wrong to say "Christ died for you" in a gospel presentation, since in all gospel preaching you assume you are preaching to the elect, it is not necessary. None of the apostles ever preached the gospel this way. Instead, Peter called all those who were in the audience at Pentecost to repent and believe on Christ without ever taking the atoning work of Christ and applying it in an individualistic sort of way (Acts 2:37-39). If we keep the application of the gospel corporately focused, then we can spend more time calling for all men, everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). For the focus of the gospel is not on individuals but on a corporate body, specifically the church (Acts 20:28). The gospel is directed toward a body of sinners rather than to individuals, as Paul told Timothy, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost (1 Tim. 1:15)." Thus, let us not venture to speak where the Bible is silent. For who knows if there had been one person in existence if Christ would have came or if God would have destroyed him like Sodom and Gommorah (Gen.19:24). To say that Christ would have come to die for one person wrongly assumes that the reason for Christ's coming to die was based on the intrinsic worth of sinners rather than the worth of the glory of God. We must not commit this error.
2. We must preach the gospel as having the capacity to save not as just making salvation possible.
The gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rmns 1:16)." One glaring weakness of most gospel presentations today is that preachers present a gospel that has no capacity to save anyone. How many times have we heard these statements, "God has done half the work, now he just expects you to do your half" or "God has done all he can to save you, now you must use your free will and come"? The fact is that most evangelicals today present a gospel that is partially done by God and partially done by man. God has already done all he can to save you and now he is trying to woo you to come to him and accept him of your own free will. This kind of presupposition inevitably comes out in preachers' presentations when they try to use their eloquence to "win people to the Lord." However, Paul says this is precisely what he did not do, "lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power (1 Cor. 1:17)." The nature of the atonement is already such that it has the capacity to effect a change in a sinner. If we preach the pure gospel, then Christ will draw his elect, because he has purchased for them everything necessary for their salvation: including the ability to come!
3. We must preach the gospel with the merits of Christ in view, not the response of sinners.
The gospel itself is the presentation of Christ's work in his active obedience to his heavenly Father and his vicarious death on behalf of sinners on the cross. If we turn the gospel into a synergistic effort of man's will and God's wooing, we inevitably take the focus of what Christ has done on the cross. The response of sinners is not where we want to put our focus, for apart from Christ there is only one response: rejection and hatred for the gospel (Rmns 3:10, 8:7; 1 Cor. 1:18). As Stephen said of the perpetual response of all natural men: "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51)." The positive response of some sinners is only guaranteed by the enabling work of the Father (Jhn 6:44) and this was a grace purchased by Christ on the cross as well. Thus, instead of focusing on dead men who cannot even dispose themselves to salvation (Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13), we need to focus on Christ and his merits. Most people in today's postmodern culture do not even have the framework to grasp who Jesus is anyway--the Biblical Jesus that is. Therefore, it is vital that we preach the Person of Christ along with the work that he performed. These two are linked closely and cannot be separated. Christ's deity and divine nature are joined to the all-sufficient work that he performed on behalf of sinners. And Christ's humanity is joined to his actual suffering and death that he experienced as man's representative. This ought to be the primary subject of our gospel preaching and not impotent man! Only then will our gospel preaching really be God-centered.
Having examined the truth of the efficacious, particular view of the atonement then, let us preach the gospel knowing it has the capacity to save sinners. Let us remain Biblically faithful and keep the application of the gospel corporately focused and not individualistically focused. Let us make it our aim to exalt the merits of Christ and not the ability of man to come to Christ--for he has none. And let us preach the unadulterated Word so that in all things Christ may be shown excellent! Soli deo gloria!
The teaching of the atonement is one that remains cloaked in a shroud of confusion for most Christians. This is unfortunate considering that a proper understanding of the atonement lies at the heart of the faith. It is so central that a denial of it inevitably leads one away from the Christian faith altogether. While the notion of a blood offering for sin is present in many pagan religions, only Christianity teaches that one sacrifice is sufficient to expiate sin. As the writer of Hebrews says, "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9:26b)." Though modern scoffers have attempted to attack the faith's authenticity by showing notions of atonement in various world religions, these have proved largely unsuccessful on the grounds that the similarity in Christian atonement and pagan atonement is weak at best. Islam requires the continual shedding of blood on their holy days through an act known as tatbir. Hinduism demands the ritualistic slaughtering of animals to appease Durga or any other deity from its pantheon of gods. Roman Catholicism makes a mockery of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by representing it through the blasphemy of the mass several times a year. Yet all these lack the singular, definitive nature of the Christian atonement. Satan may imitate the design of God but he may not replicate it exactly (2 Cor. 11:14).
Many students of the Bible errantly assume that the full-orbed teaching of atonement that God prescribes under the Levitical priesthood is the origination of such a practice. However, we must go back further to find the first blood offering for sin. In the Garden, after Adam and Eve had rebelled and fallen from their state of grace, God seeks them out and finds them (Gen. 3:8-9). Note, that God is the initiator of restoring the severed relationship. It is God who seeks his fallen creatures not the other way around. After rebuking the parents of the human race in verse 13 and pronouncing judgment in verses 16-19, God makes clothes for them by the shedding of blood (Gen. 3:21). God kills the first living things by providing the first sacrifice. Here we have a wonderful foreshadowing of the death of Christ, whom Paul says, "God put forward as a propitiation by his blood (Rmns. 3:25a)." But are we surprised at this that we find the precedent of blood offering established so early? Otherwise, how would Abel have known to offer his sacrifice, "the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions (Gen.4:4)"? The answer is because his parents told him and no doubt told him of the future, all-sufficient sacrifice they saw in the offering through the eyes of faith. But what of his brother Cain? Did they not tell him the same experience they had in the Garden? No doubt they did, and he being the eldest heard it first but his hearing was not united with faith. That is why for his offering the Lord had "no regard": it was not a blood offering done by faith (4:5). It is correct to say that the sacrifice Cain provided was not a blood offering and thus not acceptable. But it would be wrong for us to assume that Cain's offering would have been anymore acceptable had he sacrificed an animal and done it without faith. But precisely the reason Cain did not offer a blood offering was because he did believe nor heed the word which his parents had unquestionably spoken to him. His own poor choice in offering is reflective of his lack of faith and the two cannot be separated. For this reason, he is rejected by God and made a wanderer on the earth as demonstration of his reprobation. Thus, even before Jacob and Esau, God's sovereign choice of electing the younger over the elder is established.
As we move forward in redemptive history to the nation of Israel, the Levitical priesthood is marked by atonement. In the blood sacrifices of the nation Israel, the precedent of atonement requiring a blood sacrifice is clearly established. The correct understanding of blood as representing atonement for sin is behind the logic of the Lord's prohibition of eating blood: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life (Lev. 17:11)." Clearly, a blood sacrifice is demanded for sin. In the previous chapter, the Lord clearly outlines how this blood sacrifice is to be performed. Aaron is instructed to take two goats and one bull from the people of Israel to make atonement for sin (16:5). The bull is offered up as a burnt offering for Aaron and his household (16:6) and one of the goats is the offering given for the sins of the nation Israel (16:9). But what of the other goat? The other goat is sent into the wilderness of Azazel to bear the sins of the people (16:10). This goat is the scapegoat and is a reminder to the people of Israel that the sacrificial system is only a shadow and type of the ultimate fulfillment to come. It is a reminder that, as the writer of Hebrews says, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:4)." It is a reminder that only when an Israelite looks at the sacrifice and sees it as foreshadowing a future atonement and believes the promise is there any forgiveness of sins. It is in faith that Aaron put his hands on the offering and thus, symbolically, put the sins of the people on it as well.
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. -Leviticus 16:21-22
Let us note two principles about the sacrificial system as we are informed from our reading of these two verses. 1) It is offered for the sins of the people. Note what the text tells us: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins." It may seem too obvious to point out but the sacrifice was only offered for the Israelites. It was not offered for the Gentiles. How many Hivvites or Assyrians was a sacrifice offered on behalf? I dare say not a one! This is crucial to note because the same people who want to cry injustice when Calvinists limit the scope and the intention of the atonement of the New Covenant will completely ignore the fact that it was limited in scope under the Old Administration as well. Let us note that God's intentionality in offering an atonement for sin is linked with his intentionality in choosing a people for himself. He does not choose all people who ever lived unto salvation but chooses some to save from all eternity (Eph. 1:4ff). In the same way, he does not offer up an atonement for all people who ever lived, but offers up an atonement for those whom he seeks to adopt into his family, thus wishing to remove every barrier in the way of this goal. This is the specific focus of the atonement. 2) It is offered for all the iniquities of the people. Not one sin is precluded from this offering. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins." Note the recurring emphasis that all of the sins of Israel are placed on this offering. Not one sin is omitted in the offering up of the animal. Aaron had in mind every sin of the people of Israel when he offered up the goat into the wilderness. And may we assume that every sin included the sin of unbelief? Of course we can, especially since we know that the sin of unbelief is the root of every other sin as Paul tells us (Rmns 14:23). And unbelief had been the dominant mark of the Israelites since being delivered from their bondage in Egypt and unbelief was what prevented many from entering the Promised Land and why they fell in the wilderness as the writer of Hebrews informs us (Heb. 3:19). The point to see here is that the atonement offered under the Old Covenant, which was only a shadow of the atonement to come, did not exclude the sin of unbelief, so why would the reality of the NT atonement be any different? Why would the atonement made by Christ be somehow less than the types and figures of the sacrifices of Israel? The answer is it would not and the only ones limiting the atonement in the truest sense are Arminians who claim that Christ died for all but the atonement does not have the power to cover all sins (including the sin of unbelief). The atonement of Calvinistic theology does not diminish the work Christ accomplished on the cross, it simply comes into a more specific and definite view of it.
While these two principles of the atonement are established under the Levitical priesthood, the specificity of the atonement is given greater emphasis in the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah. In Isaiah 53, we are given startlingly accurate words of prediction regarding the death of Christ. In verses 4-6, the prophet tells us that "he was wounded for our transgressions" and "he was crushed for our iniquities" and that "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Here, the Arminian will raise his hand and shout, "Aha! See! The Lord bears the iniquity of all. Christ dies for every single person!" But is that what the prophet Isaiah is saying? We have to remember who is speaking and to interpret words in their given context. This is especially true of universal terms. If I were to invite you over for dinner and once you arrived say, "All of us will be sitting in the dining room", to whom would I be referring? Would I be referring to Jack my neighbor or to the kids at the daycare down the street? Certainly not! Anyone who thought this way would be deemed preposterous! In the same way, we must understand the Biblical context when words like "all" are used. Who are the all? Well, they are precisely those who receive the benefits of the atonement-the true spiritual nation of Israel. This is unavoidable when we realize that the prophet says the "Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (v.6)." If the all in view here is every single individual who has ever lived, then we would have universalism. The ones for whom Christ bears their iniquity are many who are accounted righteous (v.11). This is a clear reference to justification. Those whom Christ died for are infallibly those who are justified. God's forensic, judicial declaration of a sinner as not guily cannot be repealed. Thus, if the Arminian still wants to insist that Christ pays for the sins of all people who ever lived then, on the basis of Isaiah 53:11, he must become a universalist, because those whom Christ died for are accounted righteous. But since most Arminians are not willing to lapse this far into heresy (and we thank God), they will say that Christ died in the same manner for the sinners who were currently in Hell and for all those who would go to Hell after his death. This is nonsensical and makes a mockery of the atonement. God cannot demand two payments for sin and if Christ paid for the sins of all people equally, then no one would appear in Hell. Furthermore, the prophet's final words to close out the Suffering Servant chapter would make little sense, considering he views the recipients of Christ's atonement in contrast to the whole world and says, "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors (53:12)."
"But that's the Old Testament," some unlearned reader of the Word might say. Unfortunately, it is still the sad state of affairs within evangelicalism that some might still use this as their rebuttal, as if the Old Testament were not inspired, holy Writ. The widespread damage of the system of dispensationalism has done much to further this thinking. However, we who heed Paul's words to Timothy that "all scripture is breathed out by God", know better (2 Tim. 3:16). But what of the New Testament? What do we find the writers of the NT saying of the scope of the atonement? Is such a particular view of the atonement advocated by them? We shall find it is.
Even from the opening of the first synoptic gospel, the intentionality of the atonement is established. One of our most beloved Christmas verses contains this focus: "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Mtthew 1:21)." Was Jesus a Perfect Savior? Did he fulfill this promise made concerning him? Did this Scripture come to pass? If Christ died for all, but all are not saved from their sins as the Arminian wants to assert, then the answer is no. However, this verse clearly says for whom Christ came for particularly. "He will save his people from their sins" demonstrates that those whom Christ came to save are the one whom God the Father had united to him in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-5). Christ is a Perfect Savior and he does fulfill the meaning behind his name because he saves his people from their sins (i.e. the elect).
Both Matthew and Mark's gospel record an instance where the mother of James and John comes to Jesus and entreats him to promise her that her sons will be able to sit at his right and left hand. These parallel passages mainly focus on the teaching of servant leadership but both of them conclude with a reference to the atonement: "Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mtthew 20:28; Mrk 10:24)." These words are an eerily accurate echo of Isaiah's words spoken nearly seven hundred years earlier. Christ did not come to be served but "to give his life as a ransom (atonement) for many (the scope)." The aim of the atonement could not be any clearer in these words: Christ died to ensure the buying back of the many.
As we continue our survey of the gospels, we find ourselves examining the words of the disciple "whom Jesus loved (Jhn. 13:23; and interestingly enough, this is another case of God's discriminating and distinguishing love)." Surely John, of all the disciples, the one who was closest to Jesus, would know for whom it was his Master came to die. We find this is precisely the case. In John chapter 10, the passage which ends with Jesus' emphatic statement that "I and the Father are one" (10:30), John records Jesus' teaching on his purpose of redemption. In verse 11, Jesus' perfunctory statement clearly addresses the matter and informs even the most unattentive reader for whom he dies.
11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. -John 10:11
After these words spoken by our Lord Jesus, can there be any doubt on the focus of the atonement? Verse 3 says that the sheep are those whom Jesus calls out by name. Verse 4 tells us that the sheep are those who know the Shepherd's voice and follow him. How many of the reprobate does Jesus call out by name? How many of the reprobate know Jesus' voice and follow him? Only those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world, at their appointed time, receive the effectual, inward call of Christ and believe. These are the same people for whom Jesus died (10:11).
Later in John's gospel, the particularity of the atonement is mentioned again. On the night of Jesus' arrest, he prays a lengthy prayer to his Father in what has come to be known as the High Priestly Prayer. These are precious words that are recorded in none of the gospels save this one Johannine passage. As we would expect on the night in which Jesus was going to make atonement for sin, the Savior's prayer has the work of redemption in mind. Let us pay close attention to his words.
6 I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. -John 17:6-9
"The people whom you gave me out of the world" refers to the ones God the Father elected in eternity past (Eph. 1:4ff) as similar phraseology exists in John chapter 6. Notice that Jesus explicitly states in verse 9: "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." Jesus specifies for whom he is praying. Then, he specifies again by clarifying for whom he is not praying. If a parent is speaking to two of his four children, he might try to emphasize whom he is addressing with similar words. "I am talking to you, John and Mary. I am not talking to Jack and Amy but to you." Thus, we should infer that Jesus is trying to make a similar sort of emphasis. It is not the world for whom Jesus prays but for those whom the Father gave him. What does Jesus pray for these people? Four things: their preservation (v. 11), their sanctification (v.17), their unity (v.22), and their glorification (v.24). These are not gifts that are available to the reprobate but to the elect only and they are gifts that Christ purchased on the cross. If the Arminian wants to make the atonement a broad, generalized, vague atonement that only makes possible salvation but never actualy purchases it, then he has no solid answer to whether or not what Jesus prays for here was answered. However, the Calvinist can with full confidence declare the efficacious nature of the atonement, that it accomplished what it meant to accomplish, that Jesus' High Priestly prayer was answered.
For the Arminian who thinks I have purposefully neglected his oft-cited and decontextualized verse, let me dispel this notion by saying I am full aware of the misuse of John 3:16 to try and overturn limited atonement. Just as the Arians tried to trouble the early church with John 14:28, so there has been in our day those who have tried to eisegete John 3:16 to disprove Calvinism. While neither time nor space would permit a full-blown exegesis of John 3, it is sufficient to say that John 3:16 stands as it is with not the slightest threat of debunking Calvinism. Arminians' use of John 3:16 is a classic example of one of the most common pitfalls of interpretation. They try to take John 3:16 and make it speak on the atonement, an issue which is clearly not being addressed by our Lord in that passage. The Arminian will no doubt cry over and over (as if repetition will make his point rather than exegesis), "For God so loved the WORLD..."; however, the Calvinist gladly acknowledges this is true in one sense. God does have a general, kind disposition towards all of his creation and this was reflected in his sending his son into the creative order. Just by having Jesus come to our sin-fallen, wretched world is an act of condescension on the part of the eternal Son of God and an act of kindness by the Father. However, this is not love in a redemptive or salvific kind of way. There is no mention of the blood offering nor the propitiation in John 3:16. Arminians read this back into the verse but it simply not there. To put it bluntly, John 3:16 is not dealing with the atonement. Ironically, the verse maintains a particular focus as it says, "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (3:16b)." The "whoever" is not in the Greek but is an English transliteration to encompass "all the believing ones", which is in the Greek. Thus, a proper translation of this verse could also read: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that all the believing ones should not perish but have eternal life." Thus, God loves the world and sends his Son into it so that the believing ones would receive eternal life. Who are the believing ones? The believing ones are those who come to Christ and those who come to Christ are the ones that the Father had given him: the elect (see Jhn 6:37ff). Christ is sent into the world then and the whole world receives the common grace of his coming into the world, because of God's purpose of giving the elect eternal life. This notion that the world receives the common grace of God only as a byproduct of God's love for his elect is consistent with Historic Calvinism and with Jesus' parable of the wheat and weeds (Mtthw 13:24-30). So it is true that in a sense God loves all of his creation, just as it was true for the Arians who were harassing the early church that in a sense the Father is greater than Christ (Jhn 14:28). The question is just: in what sense? For the Arians, they were taking this verse out of its context and trying to make it contradict the entirety of John's teaching on the nature of Christ. They failed to recognize that, in its context, Jesus was speaking of his return to the Father and by stating that the Father was greater, he was merely referring to the humiliation and condescension he had to undergo to assume the office of Mediator. In the same way, Arminians try to make John 3:16 teach a universal atonement when really it is only referring to God's general goodwill or kind disposition to all of his creation as we have seen.
Though I have not presented an exhaustive defense of the doctrine of limited atonement, the passages we have already examined are adequate to make a clear case for it. Other cases for this doctrine can be seen in passages like 1 Peter 2:24 which says, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." Peter's epistle was written towards the elect, so with that in view, this statement becomes a clear case of Christ specifically bearing the sins of His chosen people. Acts 20:28 declares that the church was obtained by the blood of Christ. Again, it is imperative to note the specific, accomplishing nature of the atonement that is witnessed to by every NT writer. These passages amongst several others indicate that the apostles saw Christ's death not as making salvation a possibility but as actually accomplishing it.
Therefore, with a sufficient, Scriptural case for limited atonement established, let us now turn to reflecting on how this should effect our evangelism. This, I think, should prove to be most interesting. While Total Depravity alters how we present the condition of man and Unconditional Election ensures that we rely on God's sovereign choice of individuals and not our own abilities, Limited Atonement dictates to whom we should direct the message of the gospel. With this in mind, let us turn to its application for evangelism. There are three ways in which we must preach the gospel with regards to the doctrine of Limited atonement:
1. We must preach the gospel with a corporate application and not an individualistic one.
Far too often in the church's gospel presentations today, preachers make statements like, "Christ died for you to save you from your sins" or worse, "If you were the only person on earth, Christ still would have died for you." At times, the whole gospel is reduced to a "God has a plan for your life and loves you" statement! The gospel is the good news message about what God has accomplished in Christ to redeem sinners. However, in the wake of individualism, modern evangelicals want to make our gospel presentations centered around the individual. While it is not wrong to say "Christ died for you" in a gospel presentation, since in all gospel preaching you assume you are preaching to the elect, it is not necessary. None of the apostles ever preached the gospel this way. Instead, Peter called all those who were in the audience at Pentecost to repent and believe on Christ without ever taking the atoning work of Christ and applying it in an individualistic sort of way (Acts 2:37-39). If we keep the application of the gospel corporately focused, then we can spend more time calling for all men, everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). For the focus of the gospel is not on individuals but on a corporate body, specifically the church (Acts 20:28). The gospel is directed toward a body of sinners rather than to individuals, as Paul told Timothy, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost (1 Tim. 1:15)." Thus, let us not venture to speak where the Bible is silent. For who knows if there had been one person in existence if Christ would have came or if God would have destroyed him like Sodom and Gommorah (Gen.19:24). To say that Christ would have come to die for one person wrongly assumes that the reason for Christ's coming to die was based on the intrinsic worth of sinners rather than the worth of the glory of God. We must not commit this error.
2. We must preach the gospel as having the capacity to save not as just making salvation possible.
The gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rmns 1:16)." One glaring weakness of most gospel presentations today is that preachers present a gospel that has no capacity to save anyone. How many times have we heard these statements, "God has done half the work, now he just expects you to do your half" or "God has done all he can to save you, now you must use your free will and come"? The fact is that most evangelicals today present a gospel that is partially done by God and partially done by man. God has already done all he can to save you and now he is trying to woo you to come to him and accept him of your own free will. This kind of presupposition inevitably comes out in preachers' presentations when they try to use their eloquence to "win people to the Lord." However, Paul says this is precisely what he did not do, "lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power (1 Cor. 1:17)." The nature of the atonement is already such that it has the capacity to effect a change in a sinner. If we preach the pure gospel, then Christ will draw his elect, because he has purchased for them everything necessary for their salvation: including the ability to come!
3. We must preach the gospel with the merits of Christ in view, not the response of sinners.
The gospel itself is the presentation of Christ's work in his active obedience to his heavenly Father and his vicarious death on behalf of sinners on the cross. If we turn the gospel into a synergistic effort of man's will and God's wooing, we inevitably take the focus of what Christ has done on the cross. The response of sinners is not where we want to put our focus, for apart from Christ there is only one response: rejection and hatred for the gospel (Rmns 3:10, 8:7; 1 Cor. 1:18). As Stephen said of the perpetual response of all natural men: "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51)." The positive response of some sinners is only guaranteed by the enabling work of the Father (Jhn 6:44) and this was a grace purchased by Christ on the cross as well. Thus, instead of focusing on dead men who cannot even dispose themselves to salvation (Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13), we need to focus on Christ and his merits. Most people in today's postmodern culture do not even have the framework to grasp who Jesus is anyway--the Biblical Jesus that is. Therefore, it is vital that we preach the Person of Christ along with the work that he performed. These two are linked closely and cannot be separated. Christ's deity and divine nature are joined to the all-sufficient work that he performed on behalf of sinners. And Christ's humanity is joined to his actual suffering and death that he experienced as man's representative. This ought to be the primary subject of our gospel preaching and not impotent man! Only then will our gospel preaching really be God-centered.
Having examined the truth of the efficacious, particular view of the atonement then, let us preach the gospel knowing it has the capacity to save sinners. Let us remain Biblically faithful and keep the application of the gospel corporately focused and not individualistically focused. Let us make it our aim to exalt the merits of Christ and not the ability of man to come to Christ--for he has none. And let us preach the unadulterated Word so that in all things Christ may be shown excellent! Soli deo gloria!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Unconditional Election, Brokenness, and the Success of the Gospel
This is the second part in my five part series on the doctrines of grace and evangelism. It is my earnest hope that through these articles the Holy Spirit might awaken a deep and abiding passion for the truth of God's electing love and a hunger to teach the untaught peoples this doctrine. One objection to Historic Calvinism that I could never understand was, "Calvinism destroys evangelism!" Perhaps the main reason I struggled to see this as a legitimate concern was because I saw how clearly the lofty doctrine of election was wedded to the very, this-worldly command to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-19). It is quite clear that without the electing love of God the Father in eternity past, there would be no Christians and evangelism itself would be futile. And without the effectual, irresistible call of the Holy Spirit to those beloved of the Father, no one would come to faith in Christ (John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1). There is no antagonism between election and evangelism because one cannot exist without the other. If there was no election, the goal of evangelism would be impossible (Matthew 19:26). And precisely because God has elected a people from eternity past, the means by which God will bring those people into his kingdom, evangelism, must happen. God only has sheep and those sheep are either lost or found. God cannot lose any of His people (John 10:29) so therefore He must bring all of them to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). As Jesus said of his sheep, "I must bring them also" (John 10:16) and the way Jesus brings his sheep is through the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:17). Therefore, the foundation of evangelism is the sovereign, electing purpose of God.
That God has forever joined a people to Himself is evident from Scripture (Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 9:6). However, the theme of distinguishing, electing love is even prominent in the discussion of God's selection of Israel. As Yahweh told His people:
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)
Here, the Lord clearly explains why he chose the nation Israel. It was "not because you were more in number" but because "the Lord set his love on you (v.7). " This is the doctrine of unconditional election. Surely there were other nations larger in number, more prosperous, and more famous than the nation of Israel! Why not the Egyptians? Or the Assyrians? Even the Canaanites would have seemed a more likely pick. Yet, God did not choose based upon anything good or bad in Israel. But he chose unconditionally and because he is free and sovereign. It is precisely because Israel was an obscure, weak nation on the face of the earth that the Lord's glory would be manifested most radiantly. For to choose a lowly, desperate people and provide to them "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises" (Romans 9:4b) would demonstrate the power and the mercy of God much more than if he had chosen a more prosperous nation and enhanced their prosperity. This is God's aim in election: to shame the proud and the elite by choosing that which is spurned and rejected by the world. As Paul notes:
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, [2] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 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; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being [3] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him [4] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:26-31)
What a marvelous concept indeed! God has chosen that which is "weak in the world to shame the strong" (v.27), "so that no human being might boast in the presence of God"(v. 29). How then should this impact the way we share the gospel? This is the matter to which we turn.
1. We must preach the gospel with brokenness and humility.
The doctrine of unconditional election ought never to breed in the people of God a feeling of superiority. In fact, it should do just the opposite. It should bring man down to the dust. Brothers, when we preach the truth of God's sovereign, distinguishing love let us reflect lives of humility and brokenness. Remember that the condition of the people to whom we preach is the same condition that each of us were in before God effectually called us (Eph. 2:1, Rmns 1:30, Col. 2:13). Just as Israel was not chosen because of its large number (Deut. 7:7), neither were we, who have come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, chosen based on some merit in us. But rather, we were chosen before we were born, before we had done anything good or evil (Rmns 9:11). The doctrine of unconditional of election is a very humbling and pride crushing doctrine. Therefore, let us avoid the error of self-righteousness and preach the unconditional, electing love of Christ knowing that we ourselves were once "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). Let us be meek and humble when speak of vast and solemn truths like election and testify that God is free to have mercy on whomever He chooses (Rmns 9:15). Let us preach the freedom and sovereignty of God in such a way that it does not preclude a person, no matter how heinous their sin, from being a recipient of such grace. God is not bound to have mercy by our laws of who should receive it. He is free to do just as He pleases (Psalm 115:3). And when we consider ourselves and how far off we were, then we will do as Paul did and say, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us (2 Corinthians 4:7)."
2. We must preach the gospel boldly.
The doctrine of unconditional election not only gives meaning to evangelism but it also ensures its success. Jesus has other sheep that he means to rescue (John 10:16) and he will only save them through the gospel (Romans 10:17). Therefore, if Christ makes his absolutely certain ends (i.e. to save his sheep) conditioned upon certain means (i.e. the preaching of the gospel), he will make those means absolutely certain. God will raise up men to preach the gospel and nothing less than the gospel. Let us not fear if the gospel is an offense. Why should we? For the Lord himself has promised it would be (Matthew 5:11, John 15:18). However, though "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing", it is the "power of God" to those who are "being saved" (1 Cor. 1:18). Therefore, we must know that though we are "killed all day long" (Ps. 44:11, Rmns 8:36), yet still "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Habbakuk 2:14)." Just as the Lord Jesus said to Paul, "for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people (Acts 18:10)." Undergirding all the promises in Scripture that God will save his people and that he will do it through the means of the gospel is the promise that Christ will not leave us orphans (John 14:18). This promise was made in reference to the Holy Spirit, the Comforter and Advocate who will abide with us forever (Jhn 14:16-17). How then can we shrink back from such a monumentous task of the gospel when we know that the deputy of our Lord Jesus Christ is inside of us, controlling us and working in us both to desire and actually work to accomplish his great mission (Phil. 2:13)? The objector may reply, "It is too great. The risks are too much." Yes the risks are great. You may lose your life. But Christ says, "whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it (Mark 8:35)." The task indeed is great, impossible even. But all the commands in Scripture are impossible apart from God. However, we have God living inside of us in the person of the Holy Spirit, so we can say, as Christ did, "with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26)."
3. We must preach the gospel mercifully.
Though we preach boldly, we mock the doctrine of election if we preach the gospel unaccompanied with mercy and love. As James mentions the futility of telling someone to "be warmed and filled" and not give them the things needed for the body (James 2:16), so we must adorn our preaching of the gospel with a "faith working through love (Galatians 5:6)." Just as the meaning of evangelism is wedded to the doctrine of election, so too are our acts of mercy united to the teaching that we were recipients of the greatest mercy. Apart from this understanding, all acts of mercy are pure moralism and worthless in the sight of God, because they proceed not from faith (Rmns 14:23). Therefore, let us preach the gospel not only with brokenness and humility, but also with mercy knowing that we have been loved by our Father before the world began on no basis other than his free love (Ephesians 1:4-5, note the phrase "in love"). When we truly grasp the grace and mercy we have been shown, then we will have the heart of Paul when he said, "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10)."
Let us marvel then at the wonders of electing love, not for the mere purpose of speculations on God's eternal decree but so that we overflow with love to others. Let us preach as those who hold treasure in jars of clay so that the glory goes to God alone! And may we always preach the gospel boldly knowing it will be efficacious because it is the power of God (Rmns 1:16)! Soli deo gloria!
That God has forever joined a people to Himself is evident from Scripture (Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 9:6). However, the theme of distinguishing, electing love is even prominent in the discussion of God's selection of Israel. As Yahweh told His people:
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)
Here, the Lord clearly explains why he chose the nation Israel. It was "not because you were more in number" but because "the Lord set his love on you (v.7). " This is the doctrine of unconditional election. Surely there were other nations larger in number, more prosperous, and more famous than the nation of Israel! Why not the Egyptians? Or the Assyrians? Even the Canaanites would have seemed a more likely pick. Yet, God did not choose based upon anything good or bad in Israel. But he chose unconditionally and because he is free and sovereign. It is precisely because Israel was an obscure, weak nation on the face of the earth that the Lord's glory would be manifested most radiantly. For to choose a lowly, desperate people and provide to them "the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises" (Romans 9:4b) would demonstrate the power and the mercy of God much more than if he had chosen a more prosperous nation and enhanced their prosperity. This is God's aim in election: to shame the proud and the elite by choosing that which is spurned and rejected by the world. As Paul notes:
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, [2] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 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; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being [3] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him [4] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:26-31)
What a marvelous concept indeed! God has chosen that which is "weak in the world to shame the strong" (v.27), "so that no human being might boast in the presence of God"(v. 29). How then should this impact the way we share the gospel? This is the matter to which we turn.
1. We must preach the gospel with brokenness and humility.
The doctrine of unconditional election ought never to breed in the people of God a feeling of superiority. In fact, it should do just the opposite. It should bring man down to the dust. Brothers, when we preach the truth of God's sovereign, distinguishing love let us reflect lives of humility and brokenness. Remember that the condition of the people to whom we preach is the same condition that each of us were in before God effectually called us (Eph. 2:1, Rmns 1:30, Col. 2:13). Just as Israel was not chosen because of its large number (Deut. 7:7), neither were we, who have come to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, chosen based on some merit in us. But rather, we were chosen before we were born, before we had done anything good or evil (Rmns 9:11). The doctrine of unconditional of election is a very humbling and pride crushing doctrine. Therefore, let us avoid the error of self-righteousness and preach the unconditional, electing love of Christ knowing that we ourselves were once "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). Let us be meek and humble when speak of vast and solemn truths like election and testify that God is free to have mercy on whomever He chooses (Rmns 9:15). Let us preach the freedom and sovereignty of God in such a way that it does not preclude a person, no matter how heinous their sin, from being a recipient of such grace. God is not bound to have mercy by our laws of who should receive it. He is free to do just as He pleases (Psalm 115:3). And when we consider ourselves and how far off we were, then we will do as Paul did and say, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us (2 Corinthians 4:7)."
2. We must preach the gospel boldly.
The doctrine of unconditional election not only gives meaning to evangelism but it also ensures its success. Jesus has other sheep that he means to rescue (John 10:16) and he will only save them through the gospel (Romans 10:17). Therefore, if Christ makes his absolutely certain ends (i.e. to save his sheep) conditioned upon certain means (i.e. the preaching of the gospel), he will make those means absolutely certain. God will raise up men to preach the gospel and nothing less than the gospel. Let us not fear if the gospel is an offense. Why should we? For the Lord himself has promised it would be (Matthew 5:11, John 15:18). However, though "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing", it is the "power of God" to those who are "being saved" (1 Cor. 1:18). Therefore, we must know that though we are "killed all day long" (Ps. 44:11, Rmns 8:36), yet still "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Habbakuk 2:14)." Just as the Lord Jesus said to Paul, "for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people (Acts 18:10)." Undergirding all the promises in Scripture that God will save his people and that he will do it through the means of the gospel is the promise that Christ will not leave us orphans (John 14:18). This promise was made in reference to the Holy Spirit, the Comforter and Advocate who will abide with us forever (Jhn 14:16-17). How then can we shrink back from such a monumentous task of the gospel when we know that the deputy of our Lord Jesus Christ is inside of us, controlling us and working in us both to desire and actually work to accomplish his great mission (Phil. 2:13)? The objector may reply, "It is too great. The risks are too much." Yes the risks are great. You may lose your life. But Christ says, "whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it (Mark 8:35)." The task indeed is great, impossible even. But all the commands in Scripture are impossible apart from God. However, we have God living inside of us in the person of the Holy Spirit, so we can say, as Christ did, "with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26)."
3. We must preach the gospel mercifully.
Though we preach boldly, we mock the doctrine of election if we preach the gospel unaccompanied with mercy and love. As James mentions the futility of telling someone to "be warmed and filled" and not give them the things needed for the body (James 2:16), so we must adorn our preaching of the gospel with a "faith working through love (Galatians 5:6)." Just as the meaning of evangelism is wedded to the doctrine of election, so too are our acts of mercy united to the teaching that we were recipients of the greatest mercy. Apart from this understanding, all acts of mercy are pure moralism and worthless in the sight of God, because they proceed not from faith (Rmns 14:23). Therefore, let us preach the gospel not only with brokenness and humility, but also with mercy knowing that we have been loved by our Father before the world began on no basis other than his free love (Ephesians 1:4-5, note the phrase "in love"). When we truly grasp the grace and mercy we have been shown, then we will have the heart of Paul when he said, "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10)."
Let us marvel then at the wonders of electing love, not for the mere purpose of speculations on God's eternal decree but so that we overflow with love to others. Let us preach as those who hold treasure in jars of clay so that the glory goes to God alone! And may we always preach the gospel boldly knowing it will be efficacious because it is the power of God (Rmns 1:16)! Soli deo gloria!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Radical Depravity and Evangelism
This will be my first post in an ongoing series examining the doctrines of grace and how each one particularly effects evangelism. Perhaps attempting to achieve what the second disc of Amazing Grace didn't, I want to look exegetically at how the Reformed view of God and man ultimately impacts our sotieriology and thus our evangelism. I want to begin by looking at what may be called the Bible's anthropology. But before I do that, a word about interpretation.
The Reformed hermeneutic (and thus the Protestant hermeneutic) is one that takes all the necessary rules of exegesis into consideration: grammar, syntax, lexicography, historical context and literary context. Thus, my aim will not be so much to ponder philosophically the validity of each doctrine or how it relates to evangelism (though philosophy will play a role) but rather to exposit the Word of God and let it speak for itself. Hence a major presupposition of Reformed theology being that the Spirit only operates and speaks when wedded contextually with the Word. And my aim will not be to try and "prooftext", as so many Arminian ninnies like to accuse, the case for each doctrine. But rather I will be seeking to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture and in its entirety, which is another acknowledged Reformed presupposition: tota scriptura. Always I will make it my every endeavor to honor the Word of God and, at all costs, to avoid the deadly error of eisegesis. With that said, let us plunge into the Bible. The case that man is presented as dead in sin, unable to respond to the offer of the gospel, and an enemy of God is the theme undergirding much of the Lord Jesus' ministry. Perhaps the most famous illustration of this is found in the oft-cited sixth chapter of John, when our Lord is in Capernaum. It is here that Jesus makes the perfunctory statement: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (v.44a)." Let us look at the surrounding context however:
24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall 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 whoever comes to me I will never 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 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered 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.
Since this text is often cited again and again in Calvinist-Arminian debates, most people are well familiar with verses 35-44. Because of this, however, discussions usually begin with those verses and the majority of readers leap over the preceding context. When one careful student of the Bible does look at the context however, the discovery is just startling. What occurs prior to Jesus' eventual statements regarding the total inability of man makes Jesus' words all the more shocking. I think what most of us forget when looking at this text is that Jesus does not make these statements about the Pharisees (though he makes plenty like these elsewhere, see John 7:40-44). It is not the cruel Romans who nailed him to the cross that our Lord makes his most harrowing denunciation concerning. No, the ones that the Lord Jesus decries are "followers"! "Seekers" as verse 24 would put it. We forget that the very ones to whom Jesus said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" are the same who hailed our Lord in verse 14 saying, "This is indeed the Prophet who is come into the world!" This is significant to note because often people's first objection to the doctrine of total depravity is from an experiential point of view. How often has one said, "I know a lost person who is genuinely interested in the things of God" or "Everyone seeks God." And the Reformed teaching of man does not deny that everyone seeks God. However, it is here we must draw a distinction: some seek him truly and some seek him falsely. Then we must ask the question: who are they that seek him truly? And the answer that most attributes all praise to God is clearly that the ones who seek him truly are they that have been drawn effectually by God's grace (v.44). Therefore, it may properly be said as Paul says in Romans 3:10 that no one seeks God. For apart from God's grace, no one seeks him. Sure, they may seek him falsely as the crowds did here in verse 24. But they only seek the god of their vain imaginations, in this case, the crowds' god was the bread, which Jesus identified in verse 26.
These same people then who approach Jesus in verse 25 are told in verse 26 to be seeking Jesus not because they saw the signs (and hence believed in him) but because they ate their "fill of the loaves." Jesus commands them to labor not for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to eternal life. This is a statement that the crowds misinterpret which further illustrates the total depravity of man because Christ speaks one language and the crowds cannot begin to fathom it. They say to themselves "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness" (v. 31) when they do not realize that Jesus speaks of the true heavenly bread. The crowds only understand the material, the physical, the earthly language while the whole time Jesus is speaking the language of eternal life. Even when Jesus gives the true exposition to his own metaphorical language (v. 33), the crowds still demonstrate their ignorance by demanding, "Sir give us this bread always (v.34)."
In response, Jesus declares His life-giving authority (v.35). This is not only clear evidence for the full deity of Jesus Christ but also the groundwork on which Jesus will begin to unravel how it is men come to know God through the fountainhead of salvation. I want the close readers of Scripture to notice this: verse 36 signifies a key shift in the subject of the Lord's speech. He says, "But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe (v.36)." Jesus will then go on to unpack why it is some believe and others do not. This is very important, especially in light of how many people will try to take the following statements and interpret them with regards to an eisegetical understanding of John 12:32, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself." In essence, they want to do their "exegesis" backwards. However, if we want to truly understand the meaning behind the Lord Jesus' words, we will interpret them in the given context. What is the basis then for why some believe and others do not? The Lord gives the answer in verse 37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." "All that the Father gives me" is the reason assigned to those who come to the Lord Jesus Christ. "All that the Father gives me" are those Jews and Gentiles whom the Father chose unconditionally before the foundation of the world (see Eph. 1:4-11, 2 Thess. 2:13). Therefore, Jesus' own words confirm that the basis for coming to the Son depends upon an act of the Father in eternity past and not on human ability. But the skeptic will retort, "Whosoever is willing may come!" To which I must reply, "Yes, whosoever is willing may come but the problem is no one is willing." This is what Jesus notices by the crowds' seeking from verse 24. They were seeking bread but not the Lord Jesus because they did not will or wish to seek Christ. No Reformed Christian says that any who genuinely seek Christ will be turned away. The Lord Jesus refutes such a notion here by saying, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out (v.37b)." Whoever comes to the Lord Jesus (i.e. by faith) will be accepted. However, no one can come to the Lord Jesus authentically unless elected by the Father in eternity past and handed over to the Son. Therefore, the foundation for man's coming to Christ rests outside of man and rests entirely on God's sovereign choice. That this foundation is the basis for the preservation of the saints is seen in verses 38-40 when Jesus explains His purpose in redemption: "to lose nothing of all that he has given me (v.39)."
With such a careful depiction of redemption, one would think the crowds would finally be illumined to the Lord Jesus' teachings. But while they showed their inability to understand in their first response, here they show their unwillingness to believe Christ came down from heaven (v.42). Instead, "They said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?' (v.42)." The crowds again are unable to perceive spiritual reality. How does our Lord Jesus respond to these objections? Does he respond by saying, "Oh, if only you would exercise your innate ability to come to me then you would understand!" No, but rather he confirms their impotency by declaring, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (v.44a)." Here is where lexicography and grammar play a crucial role. Let us first play the role of a grammarian and note that "can" is a word of ability. Every schoolchild knows this because it is instilled in him from an early age when the teacher reminds him to ask "May I go to the bathroom" as opposed to "Can I." The first request has to do with permission. Christ permits all to come to him, in fact, He commands it. But "can" denotes ability and Christ clearly and unequivocably declares that "No one can come" meaning that no one has the ability to come. Coming to Christ, believing on Jesus, trusting in him is impossible (as are the rest of commands in Scripture) unless God grants the ability to perform such an act of the will. It is just as Augustine prayed, "Lord, grant what thou commandst and command what thou will." Thus, the only natural understanding of Jesus' words here are that no one has the ability to come to him unless some prior condition has been met. The prior condition is that they are drawn by the Father (v.44a). Often, those who wish to avoid the obvious monergistic emphasis of this passage have tried to explain the term "draw" as a kind of wooing. This of course would reduce the passage to meaning that no one can come to Christ unless they have received a persuasive calling upon which they would still have the free will to follow or turn away. However, this is problematic because it still leaves man as the final determiner in his own salvation and it is not a fitting response to the crowd and why they cannot understand spiritual truth. Furthermore, the Greek term used here for "draw", ελκυσω, is the same term used in James 2:6: Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?" I seriously doubt if anyone believes James' meaning here is that the rich are persuasively pleading or wooing with the poor to come to court. In much the same way, how is a serious student of the Bible to believe that Jesus' meaning is anything less than that the Father must first sovereignly and effectually draw the sinner? By proclaiming "no one can come to me" the Lord Jesus is nullifying any attempts to see any ability within man to come to the Son apart from the enabling work of the Father. This is what we mean when we say man is radically depraved.
There is more to be seen in this wonderfully rich passage concerning the depravity of man but room would not allow for a full-blown exegesis or of passages like it: (Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 13:23, Romans 3:10-18, 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, Ephesians 2:1-3, Colossians 2:13). Let us turn our attention now to three ways (this is in no way meant to be exhaustive) this vital doctrine impacts our presentation of the gospel.
1. More emphasis given to what man is apart from Christ rather than what he has done.
The average gospel persentation often begins with a statement like this, "You've sinned and you need Jesus." And, unfortunately, most evangelicals' understanding of "sin" is simply "mistake" or error" which the natural man has little trouble admitting ("Hey, no one is perfect, right?"). However, when we understand man's condition in light of the Biblical truth that he is radically depraved we will emphasize more of what he IS rather than what he has DONE. Less attention will be given to actual sin and more attention will be given to original sin. Yes man does commit many actual sins but that is only because he is first dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), darkened in understanding and alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18), a hater of God (Romans 1:30), a child of the Devil (1 John 3:10) and an enemy of God (James 4:4, Romans 8:7). Actions proceed and flow forth from nature. We make choices according to nature so to only look at behavior is not to probe deep enough. We must get to the root of man's sinning which is his rebellious nature, his self-deifying disposition. Depravity is a good word for it, while the Bible at times simply uses the word sin to encompass the entire Adamic disposition (see Romans 7:8 where Paul says "sin...produced in me all kinds of covetousness"). We must convey the sense that man's nature is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt so that the sinner recognizes that any remedy must lie entirely outside himself. The presentation of man as evil in his essential nature is the groundwork for the propagation of a monergistic gospel.
2. Rely solely on the preaching of the unadulterated gospel.
It never ceases to amaze me the kind of buffoonery that America's church is willing to try in the name of leading someone to Christ. In almost every evangelical church today (with the exception of a select few, those who actually believe in the primacy of preaching), there is an endless menu of gimmicks, shenanigans, and performances to try to persuade people to "say a prayer (which ends up being a meaningless formula in and of itself)." This tactic to try to manipulate people into the kingdom, though tragic in itself, is reflective of a mindset that is rampant in the modern, evangelical church. Techniques such as these rely on the assumption that man is seeking God. The philosophy goes like this: if man is seeking God, then he just needs a little persuasion and he can make the right decision. Therefore, they try to mix the things of the world with the things of God to try to appeal to natural man's "tastebuds" while still getting enough Christ in there to be safe. In essence, this is a form of syncretism. While not as obvious as the pagan African tribes who mix their Shamanism with Christian elements once converted, its subtlty is precisely what makes it most dangerous. Fusing Biblical truth with worldly wisdom, whether it be pagan mysticism or pragmatism, is disgraceful to the gospel of Christ for we know that "the wisdom of the world is folly with God" (1 Cor. 3:19). The church must repent of her foolish attempts to rely on man's persuasive abilities, as if faith could be manufactured when instead it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). No one can truly believe on Christ unless first drawn by the Father (John 6:44) and any "faith" that can be mustered up apart from the enabling work of the Father is futile (John 6:63). Instead, of preaching to lost sinners the pure, undefiled Word of God we deliver psychological pep talks devoid of any real content and material that amounts to nothing more than moralism. We want to make them pretty sinners. We get them involved in a host of church programs that can cater to every man-centered need. However, this does nothing to remedy the cancer that is spreading through their bones. Sure, these new converts may look like decent people on the outside but they are whitewashed tombs. We may brag about them even, how they are our upstanding members, our recreational leaders, Sunday School teachers, organists, "Christian" yoga instructors, our deacons. However, we have done nothing more than "make them twice a child of Hell" (Matthew 23:15). We have not evangelized them. Evangel in the most historical sense means someone who brings the gospel. To which the objector may reply, "That is what we are doing! We are all about the gospel." In the wake of such postmodern babble, it seems that, sadly, this kind of thinking is given far too much credence. In our modern "churchianity", the gospel has lost all specificity. In reply to the objector we must say, "Sure you say you are all about the gospel. But wherein is the gospel contained?" I will tell you it is not in the menu of programs these megachurches have. There is no substitute for the preaching of the Word of God to enliven dead sinners! Let us recognize that there is one God-ordained means by which faith comes. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)." To think that anything other than the gospel of Christ has the capacity to bring man out of his utterly powerless and dreadful condition is foolish. As the Prince of Preachers C.H. Spurgeon said most eloquently:
To try to win a soul for Christ by keeping that soul in ignorance of any truth,is contrary to the mind of the Spirit; and to endeavor to save men by mereclaptrap, or excitement, or oratorical display, is as foolish as to hope to holdan angel with bird-lime, or lure a star with music. The best attraction is thegospel in its purity. The weapon with which the Lord conquers men is the truthas it is in Jesus. The gospel will be found equal to every emergency; an arrowwhich can pierce the hardest heart, a balm which will heal the deadliest wound. Preach it and preach nothing else. Rely implicitly upon the old, old gospel. You need no other nets when you fish for men; those your Master has given youare strong enough for the great fishes, and have meshes fine enough to hold thelittle ones. Spread these nets and no others, and you need not fear thefulfillment of His Word, 'I will make you fishers of men' (The Soul-Winner,p.4).
3. Preach the gospel indiscriminately
One error that we, as Calvinists, wish to avoid is the teaching that we only preach to those who show some level of interest in our message. In actuality, this is a Hyper-Calvinistic idea and is based on the false assumption that we know who the elect are. This clearly contradicts Scripture that exhorts us to preach the gospel to everyone (Matthew 22:9-14, Acts 17:30). It is a misconception to believe that the doctrine of total depravity causes one to preach the gospel discriminately. It does not. The doctrine of total depravity places all of mankind under the same diagnosis: we are all, apart from Christ, dead in sin (Eph. 2:1). Therefore, because the condition is true of all of Adam's posterity, we preach this message to every man trusting God will save his sheep. It is precisely because man has no ability that we preach the gospel indiscriminately because we know that no natural man is more likely or more "capable" of responding than another. How ironic then is it that those who give lip service to the doctrine of radical depravity would say this doctrine causes them to prequalify their hearers! We preach the gospel and we preach it to every man and know that Christ has other sheep which he must and will bring (John 10:16).
In light of this humbling, pride-crushing, self-abasing doctrine of radical depravity, let us preach the gospel then and nothing less. Let us not avoid preaching the truth of man's condition even when offensive. And let us preach to all people with the conviction that the Lord has people he will call out of every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 5:9). To God be the glory!
The Reformed hermeneutic (and thus the Protestant hermeneutic) is one that takes all the necessary rules of exegesis into consideration: grammar, syntax, lexicography, historical context and literary context. Thus, my aim will not be so much to ponder philosophically the validity of each doctrine or how it relates to evangelism (though philosophy will play a role) but rather to exposit the Word of God and let it speak for itself. Hence a major presupposition of Reformed theology being that the Spirit only operates and speaks when wedded contextually with the Word. And my aim will not be to try and "prooftext", as so many Arminian ninnies like to accuse, the case for each doctrine. But rather I will be seeking to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture and in its entirety, which is another acknowledged Reformed presupposition: tota scriptura. Always I will make it my every endeavor to honor the Word of God and, at all costs, to avoid the deadly error of eisegesis. With that said, let us plunge into the Bible. The case that man is presented as dead in sin, unable to respond to the offer of the gospel, and an enemy of God is the theme undergirding much of the Lord Jesus' ministry. Perhaps the most famous illustration of this is found in the oft-cited sixth chapter of John, when our Lord is in Capernaum. It is here that Jesus makes the perfunctory statement: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (v.44a)." Let us look at the surrounding context however:
24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall 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 whoever comes to me I will never 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 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered 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.
Since this text is often cited again and again in Calvinist-Arminian debates, most people are well familiar with verses 35-44. Because of this, however, discussions usually begin with those verses and the majority of readers leap over the preceding context. When one careful student of the Bible does look at the context however, the discovery is just startling. What occurs prior to Jesus' eventual statements regarding the total inability of man makes Jesus' words all the more shocking. I think what most of us forget when looking at this text is that Jesus does not make these statements about the Pharisees (though he makes plenty like these elsewhere, see John 7:40-44). It is not the cruel Romans who nailed him to the cross that our Lord makes his most harrowing denunciation concerning. No, the ones that the Lord Jesus decries are "followers"! "Seekers" as verse 24 would put it. We forget that the very ones to whom Jesus said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" are the same who hailed our Lord in verse 14 saying, "This is indeed the Prophet who is come into the world!" This is significant to note because often people's first objection to the doctrine of total depravity is from an experiential point of view. How often has one said, "I know a lost person who is genuinely interested in the things of God" or "Everyone seeks God." And the Reformed teaching of man does not deny that everyone seeks God. However, it is here we must draw a distinction: some seek him truly and some seek him falsely. Then we must ask the question: who are they that seek him truly? And the answer that most attributes all praise to God is clearly that the ones who seek him truly are they that have been drawn effectually by God's grace (v.44). Therefore, it may properly be said as Paul says in Romans 3:10 that no one seeks God. For apart from God's grace, no one seeks him. Sure, they may seek him falsely as the crowds did here in verse 24. But they only seek the god of their vain imaginations, in this case, the crowds' god was the bread, which Jesus identified in verse 26.
These same people then who approach Jesus in verse 25 are told in verse 26 to be seeking Jesus not because they saw the signs (and hence believed in him) but because they ate their "fill of the loaves." Jesus commands them to labor not for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to eternal life. This is a statement that the crowds misinterpret which further illustrates the total depravity of man because Christ speaks one language and the crowds cannot begin to fathom it. They say to themselves "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness" (v. 31) when they do not realize that Jesus speaks of the true heavenly bread. The crowds only understand the material, the physical, the earthly language while the whole time Jesus is speaking the language of eternal life. Even when Jesus gives the true exposition to his own metaphorical language (v. 33), the crowds still demonstrate their ignorance by demanding, "Sir give us this bread always (v.34)."
In response, Jesus declares His life-giving authority (v.35). This is not only clear evidence for the full deity of Jesus Christ but also the groundwork on which Jesus will begin to unravel how it is men come to know God through the fountainhead of salvation. I want the close readers of Scripture to notice this: verse 36 signifies a key shift in the subject of the Lord's speech. He says, "But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe (v.36)." Jesus will then go on to unpack why it is some believe and others do not. This is very important, especially in light of how many people will try to take the following statements and interpret them with regards to an eisegetical understanding of John 12:32, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself." In essence, they want to do their "exegesis" backwards. However, if we want to truly understand the meaning behind the Lord Jesus' words, we will interpret them in the given context. What is the basis then for why some believe and others do not? The Lord gives the answer in verse 37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." "All that the Father gives me" is the reason assigned to those who come to the Lord Jesus Christ. "All that the Father gives me" are those Jews and Gentiles whom the Father chose unconditionally before the foundation of the world (see Eph. 1:4-11, 2 Thess. 2:13). Therefore, Jesus' own words confirm that the basis for coming to the Son depends upon an act of the Father in eternity past and not on human ability. But the skeptic will retort, "Whosoever is willing may come!" To which I must reply, "Yes, whosoever is willing may come but the problem is no one is willing." This is what Jesus notices by the crowds' seeking from verse 24. They were seeking bread but not the Lord Jesus because they did not will or wish to seek Christ. No Reformed Christian says that any who genuinely seek Christ will be turned away. The Lord Jesus refutes such a notion here by saying, "whoever comes to me I will never cast out (v.37b)." Whoever comes to the Lord Jesus (i.e. by faith) will be accepted. However, no one can come to the Lord Jesus authentically unless elected by the Father in eternity past and handed over to the Son. Therefore, the foundation for man's coming to Christ rests outside of man and rests entirely on God's sovereign choice. That this foundation is the basis for the preservation of the saints is seen in verses 38-40 when Jesus explains His purpose in redemption: "to lose nothing of all that he has given me (v.39)."
With such a careful depiction of redemption, one would think the crowds would finally be illumined to the Lord Jesus' teachings. But while they showed their inability to understand in their first response, here they show their unwillingness to believe Christ came down from heaven (v.42). Instead, "They said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?' (v.42)." The crowds again are unable to perceive spiritual reality. How does our Lord Jesus respond to these objections? Does he respond by saying, "Oh, if only you would exercise your innate ability to come to me then you would understand!" No, but rather he confirms their impotency by declaring, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him (v.44a)." Here is where lexicography and grammar play a crucial role. Let us first play the role of a grammarian and note that "can" is a word of ability. Every schoolchild knows this because it is instilled in him from an early age when the teacher reminds him to ask "May I go to the bathroom" as opposed to "Can I." The first request has to do with permission. Christ permits all to come to him, in fact, He commands it. But "can" denotes ability and Christ clearly and unequivocably declares that "No one can come" meaning that no one has the ability to come. Coming to Christ, believing on Jesus, trusting in him is impossible (as are the rest of commands in Scripture) unless God grants the ability to perform such an act of the will. It is just as Augustine prayed, "Lord, grant what thou commandst and command what thou will." Thus, the only natural understanding of Jesus' words here are that no one has the ability to come to him unless some prior condition has been met. The prior condition is that they are drawn by the Father (v.44a). Often, those who wish to avoid the obvious monergistic emphasis of this passage have tried to explain the term "draw" as a kind of wooing. This of course would reduce the passage to meaning that no one can come to Christ unless they have received a persuasive calling upon which they would still have the free will to follow or turn away. However, this is problematic because it still leaves man as the final determiner in his own salvation and it is not a fitting response to the crowd and why they cannot understand spiritual truth. Furthermore, the Greek term used here for "draw", ελκυσω, is the same term used in James 2:6: Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?" I seriously doubt if anyone believes James' meaning here is that the rich are persuasively pleading or wooing with the poor to come to court. In much the same way, how is a serious student of the Bible to believe that Jesus' meaning is anything less than that the Father must first sovereignly and effectually draw the sinner? By proclaiming "no one can come to me" the Lord Jesus is nullifying any attempts to see any ability within man to come to the Son apart from the enabling work of the Father. This is what we mean when we say man is radically depraved.
There is more to be seen in this wonderfully rich passage concerning the depravity of man but room would not allow for a full-blown exegesis or of passages like it: (Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 13:23, Romans 3:10-18, 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, Ephesians 2:1-3, Colossians 2:13). Let us turn our attention now to three ways (this is in no way meant to be exhaustive) this vital doctrine impacts our presentation of the gospel.
1. More emphasis given to what man is apart from Christ rather than what he has done.
The average gospel persentation often begins with a statement like this, "You've sinned and you need Jesus." And, unfortunately, most evangelicals' understanding of "sin" is simply "mistake" or error" which the natural man has little trouble admitting ("Hey, no one is perfect, right?"). However, when we understand man's condition in light of the Biblical truth that he is radically depraved we will emphasize more of what he IS rather than what he has DONE. Less attention will be given to actual sin and more attention will be given to original sin. Yes man does commit many actual sins but that is only because he is first dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), darkened in understanding and alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4:18), a hater of God (Romans 1:30), a child of the Devil (1 John 3:10) and an enemy of God (James 4:4, Romans 8:7). Actions proceed and flow forth from nature. We make choices according to nature so to only look at behavior is not to probe deep enough. We must get to the root of man's sinning which is his rebellious nature, his self-deifying disposition. Depravity is a good word for it, while the Bible at times simply uses the word sin to encompass the entire Adamic disposition (see Romans 7:8 where Paul says "sin...produced in me all kinds of covetousness"). We must convey the sense that man's nature is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt so that the sinner recognizes that any remedy must lie entirely outside himself. The presentation of man as evil in his essential nature is the groundwork for the propagation of a monergistic gospel.
2. Rely solely on the preaching of the unadulterated gospel.
It never ceases to amaze me the kind of buffoonery that America's church is willing to try in the name of leading someone to Christ. In almost every evangelical church today (with the exception of a select few, those who actually believe in the primacy of preaching), there is an endless menu of gimmicks, shenanigans, and performances to try to persuade people to "say a prayer (which ends up being a meaningless formula in and of itself)." This tactic to try to manipulate people into the kingdom, though tragic in itself, is reflective of a mindset that is rampant in the modern, evangelical church. Techniques such as these rely on the assumption that man is seeking God. The philosophy goes like this: if man is seeking God, then he just needs a little persuasion and he can make the right decision. Therefore, they try to mix the things of the world with the things of God to try to appeal to natural man's "tastebuds" while still getting enough Christ in there to be safe. In essence, this is a form of syncretism. While not as obvious as the pagan African tribes who mix their Shamanism with Christian elements once converted, its subtlty is precisely what makes it most dangerous. Fusing Biblical truth with worldly wisdom, whether it be pagan mysticism or pragmatism, is disgraceful to the gospel of Christ for we know that "the wisdom of the world is folly with God" (1 Cor. 3:19). The church must repent of her foolish attempts to rely on man's persuasive abilities, as if faith could be manufactured when instead it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). No one can truly believe on Christ unless first drawn by the Father (John 6:44) and any "faith" that can be mustered up apart from the enabling work of the Father is futile (John 6:63). Instead, of preaching to lost sinners the pure, undefiled Word of God we deliver psychological pep talks devoid of any real content and material that amounts to nothing more than moralism. We want to make them pretty sinners. We get them involved in a host of church programs that can cater to every man-centered need. However, this does nothing to remedy the cancer that is spreading through their bones. Sure, these new converts may look like decent people on the outside but they are whitewashed tombs. We may brag about them even, how they are our upstanding members, our recreational leaders, Sunday School teachers, organists, "Christian" yoga instructors, our deacons. However, we have done nothing more than "make them twice a child of Hell" (Matthew 23:15). We have not evangelized them. Evangel in the most historical sense means someone who brings the gospel. To which the objector may reply, "That is what we are doing! We are all about the gospel." In the wake of such postmodern babble, it seems that, sadly, this kind of thinking is given far too much credence. In our modern "churchianity", the gospel has lost all specificity. In reply to the objector we must say, "Sure you say you are all about the gospel. But wherein is the gospel contained?" I will tell you it is not in the menu of programs these megachurches have. There is no substitute for the preaching of the Word of God to enliven dead sinners! Let us recognize that there is one God-ordained means by which faith comes. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)." To think that anything other than the gospel of Christ has the capacity to bring man out of his utterly powerless and dreadful condition is foolish. As the Prince of Preachers C.H. Spurgeon said most eloquently:
To try to win a soul for Christ by keeping that soul in ignorance of any truth,is contrary to the mind of the Spirit; and to endeavor to save men by mereclaptrap, or excitement, or oratorical display, is as foolish as to hope to holdan angel with bird-lime, or lure a star with music. The best attraction is thegospel in its purity. The weapon with which the Lord conquers men is the truthas it is in Jesus. The gospel will be found equal to every emergency; an arrowwhich can pierce the hardest heart, a balm which will heal the deadliest wound. Preach it and preach nothing else. Rely implicitly upon the old, old gospel. You need no other nets when you fish for men; those your Master has given youare strong enough for the great fishes, and have meshes fine enough to hold thelittle ones. Spread these nets and no others, and you need not fear thefulfillment of His Word, 'I will make you fishers of men' (The Soul-Winner,p.4).
3. Preach the gospel indiscriminately
One error that we, as Calvinists, wish to avoid is the teaching that we only preach to those who show some level of interest in our message. In actuality, this is a Hyper-Calvinistic idea and is based on the false assumption that we know who the elect are. This clearly contradicts Scripture that exhorts us to preach the gospel to everyone (Matthew 22:9-14, Acts 17:30). It is a misconception to believe that the doctrine of total depravity causes one to preach the gospel discriminately. It does not. The doctrine of total depravity places all of mankind under the same diagnosis: we are all, apart from Christ, dead in sin (Eph. 2:1). Therefore, because the condition is true of all of Adam's posterity, we preach this message to every man trusting God will save his sheep. It is precisely because man has no ability that we preach the gospel indiscriminately because we know that no natural man is more likely or more "capable" of responding than another. How ironic then is it that those who give lip service to the doctrine of radical depravity would say this doctrine causes them to prequalify their hearers! We preach the gospel and we preach it to every man and know that Christ has other sheep which he must and will bring (John 10:16).
In light of this humbling, pride-crushing, self-abasing doctrine of radical depravity, let us preach the gospel then and nothing less. Let us not avoid preaching the truth of man's condition even when offensive. And let us preach to all people with the conviction that the Lord has people he will call out of every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 5:9). To God be the glory!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Does God Love Everyone Equally?
A prevalent misconception in the evangelical church today is the teaching that God loves all people in the same way. Proponents of this view often quote the ever popular John 3:16, placing added emphasis on the universal term: "For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." However, does the term "world" or kosmos in the Greek mean "every single individual who ever lived, without exception" as most evangelicals claim? Let it first be noted that the term "kosmos" has at least seven distinguishable definitions within the New Testament. With that in mind, consider the words of the late scholar and teacher A.W. Pink:
Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read carefully the various passages in which the term "world" (as a translation of "kosmos") occurs, he will quickly perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of, the word "world" in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is popularly supposed. The word "kosmos," and its English equivalent "world," is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. -"The Meaning of 'KOSMOS' in John 3:16", A.W. Pink
Pink then proceeds to unpack those seven different meanings. Unlike most evangelicals today, Pink is actually concerned with being lexically faithful to the Greek in John 3:16. The problem with preachers in the church today is not so much that they are propagating straightforward lies (though in some cases they are), but that they are presenting an assortment of "half-truths." They are not preaching the "whole counsel of God" as Paul did in Ephesus (see Acts 20:27ff). God does have a general good will towards all his creation (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:27-36). This is called common grace. However, God has a special, distinguishing love for the church (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 9:6ff). This is God's special grace. God has a salvific love for the ones he foreknew in eternity past. The distinction between this love and his general goodwill to all of creation is that it guarantees and secures the salvation of all the elect (Romans 8:29).
To which an objector may reply, "That's not fair! God cannot go about loving some and not loving others!" First, I will answer with a short, but needed response. God is obligated to no man but does whatever pleases him (Psalm 115:3, 135:6; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:21, 11:34-36). The main problem with this kind of objection is that it presupposes that God is obligated to save sinners. However, God is not bound by any such stipulation. Instead, Ephesians tells us that it is because of God's rich mercy and unconstrained love that he chooses to save some (Eph. 2:4). Therefore, God has every right to love some and not others. This is the very logic behind Paul's analogy of the potter and the clay in Romans 9. A potter has every right to make some vessels for destruction and others for life, and so in the same way, God has every right to make some humans to be recipients of his saving love and others to be recipients of his damning wrath. Though some reject the notion that God has hatred towards any human, the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise (Psalm 5:5; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13).
It is interesting to note that the same evangelicals who object to God having a distinguishing love for his people whom he foreknew from eternity past (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 8:29, 9:6ff) have no objection to this kind of love existing among humans. After all, which of these evangelicals would ever claim to love criminals, strangers, or even their most friendly neighbors in the same manner that they love their own children? Such a practice if ever performed would be deemed neurotic, demented even and rightly so. Yet, if we are truly to be imitators of God as Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:1, then such a view of God as having only one kind of universal love would lead us to conclude that we should do the same. The thought itself borders on absurdity.
Praise God that he is no less than his creatures and he is capable of having a particular, distinguishing love for his own! Soli deo gloria!
Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read carefully the various passages in which the term "world" (as a translation of "kosmos") occurs, he will quickly perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of, the word "world" in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is popularly supposed. The word "kosmos," and its English equivalent "world," is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. -"The Meaning of 'KOSMOS' in John 3:16", A.W. Pink
Pink then proceeds to unpack those seven different meanings. Unlike most evangelicals today, Pink is actually concerned with being lexically faithful to the Greek in John 3:16. The problem with preachers in the church today is not so much that they are propagating straightforward lies (though in some cases they are), but that they are presenting an assortment of "half-truths." They are not preaching the "whole counsel of God" as Paul did in Ephesus (see Acts 20:27ff). God does have a general good will towards all his creation (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:27-36). This is called common grace. However, God has a special, distinguishing love for the church (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 9:6ff). This is God's special grace. God has a salvific love for the ones he foreknew in eternity past. The distinction between this love and his general goodwill to all of creation is that it guarantees and secures the salvation of all the elect (Romans 8:29).
To which an objector may reply, "That's not fair! God cannot go about loving some and not loving others!" First, I will answer with a short, but needed response. God is obligated to no man but does whatever pleases him (Psalm 115:3, 135:6; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:21, 11:34-36). The main problem with this kind of objection is that it presupposes that God is obligated to save sinners. However, God is not bound by any such stipulation. Instead, Ephesians tells us that it is because of God's rich mercy and unconstrained love that he chooses to save some (Eph. 2:4). Therefore, God has every right to love some and not others. This is the very logic behind Paul's analogy of the potter and the clay in Romans 9. A potter has every right to make some vessels for destruction and others for life, and so in the same way, God has every right to make some humans to be recipients of his saving love and others to be recipients of his damning wrath. Though some reject the notion that God has hatred towards any human, the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise (Psalm 5:5; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13).
It is interesting to note that the same evangelicals who object to God having a distinguishing love for his people whom he foreknew from eternity past (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 8:29, 9:6ff) have no objection to this kind of love existing among humans. After all, which of these evangelicals would ever claim to love criminals, strangers, or even their most friendly neighbors in the same manner that they love their own children? Such a practice if ever performed would be deemed neurotic, demented even and rightly so. Yet, if we are truly to be imitators of God as Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:1, then such a view of God as having only one kind of universal love would lead us to conclude that we should do the same. The thought itself borders on absurdity.
Praise God that he is no less than his creatures and he is capable of having a particular, distinguishing love for his own! Soli deo gloria!
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Ignominy of the John 3:16 Conference
On November 6th and 7th, Jerry Vines hosted the "John 3:16 Conference" from First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia. The lineup was a veritable "who's who" of Southern Baptist speakers including: Johnny Hunt, Paige Patterson, Richard Land, David Allen, Steve Lemke, Ken Keathley, and Charles Stanley. Though a disclaimer was issued that the conference would not be a "Calvinist bashing" event, that is precisely what transpired. While I have had to rely on secondhand sources to learn what was said, it is quite apparent that no positive position was put forth at the conference. Most of the sessions denigrated to ad hominim attacks. Dr. David Allen accused James White of being a "Hyper-Calvinist" based on Phil Johnson's definition. Read Phil Johnson's response here . After all the material I have read, I have found no serious interaction with the Biblical text. Mostly the same old, strawmen arguments ("Calvinism kills evangelism", etc.) were employed but, alas, I guess such is the case when you define your conference by what you are against rather than what you are for.
Some of you may wonder why I did not consult firsthand resources. My response to that is that I would have loved to listen to the messages themselves if they had not had been fifty dollars to purchase! One blogger remarked that the fact that no Calvinist presence was represented (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders' Ministries were both turned down booths without justification) and that the materials were so costly stood in complete contrast to the free materials and welcoming format of such conferences like Together for the Gospel. Perhaps the John 3:16 conference should be more aptly titled, "Against the Gospel."
If you have the patience, you can read some live blogging from the conference at Tim Challies' site. For a critique of the conference, James White has provided several responses as well. Soli deo gloria!
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Glory of the Triune God in the Gracious Work of Redemption
Here is a sermon I preached at Maranatha Baptist Church in Lilburn, GA:
The Glory of the Triune God in the Gracious Work of Redemption
The Glory of the Triune God in the Gracious Work of Redemption
Monday, November 24, 2008
Charles Spurgeon and Modern Day Evangelicals
While many modern evangelicals abhor Reformed theology, those who do so also unwittingly revere many godly men who embraced the doctrines of grace (i.e. Calvinism). It is interesting to note that those who are the most strident in their opposition against Calvinism are also those who think fondly of men who held firmly to the Reformed faith. One such example of this is the Prince of Preachers, C.H. Spurgeon. Many, particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, laud this man with the highest accolades but are ignorant of what he believed. Was C.H. Spurgeon a five-point Calvinist? Did he teach limited atonement? Let's examine a few quotes:
Spurgeon taught that Calvin's gospel was Paul's gospel:
The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again. -"A Defense of Calvinism"
Spurgeon taught Limited Atonement, contrary to what naysayers have alleged:
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good! -"A Defense of Calvinism"
Spurgeon said that there was "no soul living" who held more firmly to Calvinism than he:
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. -"A Defense of Calvinism"
Spurgeon called Calvinism a nickname for the gospel:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. -"A Defense of Calvinism"
Spurgeon claimed that the doctrines of grace had been affirmed by the godly since the apostolic age:
We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is that vein of free-grace, running through the sermonizing of Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination. Were it not for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?" -"A Defense of Calvinism"
It is clear then that what fueled C.H. Spurgeon's burning, evangelistic zeal was a deeply entrenched belief in the doctrines of grace. Spurgeon's robust theology of grace would be abhorrent to most evangelicals today. The same men who laud him would be the ones who drove him out of their church for exalting the electing, sovereign love of God! So if you are a Southern Baptist who hates Calvinism and believes it to be a smear on the church, do not claim to love C.H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon understood that the doctrine of salvation that most extolled the grace and glory of God was Calvinism. He would have reproved the man-centered gospel presentations that plague the church today. He would have reminded Southern Baptists that the lost men are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), unable to understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), unable to submit to the law of God or please him (Romans 8:7-8), and unable to change his sinful nature (Jeremiah 13:23). How then can a dead, unregenerate man make a "decision for Christ?"
Spurgeon loved grace and he loved evangelism. If you are antagonistic to Calvinism, then do not claim to love Spurgeon. If you hate Reformed theology, do not succumb to using the weak, straw men argument that Calvinism destroys evangelism. Most men who make this claim are not half the evangelist Spurgeon (or other famous Calvinists throughout church history, for that matter) was. To oppose Calvinism is one thing, to use dishonest argumentation is another. As Christians, we should have a high alleigance to the truth. Let us continue to honor Christ by being truthful in representing the opposition even when we believe them to be in error. Soli deo gloria!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is Election Arbitrary?
One of the most prevalent objections to Historic Calvinism is this notion that election is arbitrary. When this subject is discussed for any length of time, the argument is often raised that if God chooses sinners before the foundation of the world without regard to any foreseen faith or works, then this makes God's sovereign choice arbitrary. God is reduced to a cosmic team captain, reminiscent of pick up games from our school days where a child would pick and choose based on a whim who would be on his side. But dare we commit such blasphemy and equate God's sovereign purposes with a childish pickup game? Does the Bible tell us why God chooses some and not others? If the Bible does tell us clearly why he does NOT choose the elect (i.e. not because of anything good in them), then does it offer us insight on why he DOES choose the elect?
To answer this question, we must delineate between two kinds of questions that the objector might be asking at this point. The objector may still be asking the first question, which is the cry of every natural man's heart: "How could God only choose some?" This is a question of fairness or justice. If this is the question the individual is asking, then they still don't understand Paul's theodicy in Romans 9. We dare not ask for God to be fair or just with us. That is in an entirely different category. If God is fair or just, then all we get is Hell. Sinners must never plead justice, if they are hoping for salvation. They must plead for mercy. And the whole human race will only ever receive either of the two categories: mercy or justice. Injustice is not a category in which God operates.
But the second kind of question the objector might be asking is, "Why does God only choose some", which is a different question altogether. The first question was one of defiance; the second is one of inquiry. The first is characteristic of the rebellious, natural man who raises his fist in mutiny at God's sovereign rule. The second is indicative of one who may submit to God's sovereignty but seeks understanding. Still, a caveat must be issued here. The question we ought to be asking is not: "God why did you only choose some" but "God why did you choose any?" When we ask the latter, we allow the full weight of God's unmerited grace towards sinners to fall on us. That being said, there is an appropriate place to inquire why God only chooses some.
Eph 1:5 tells us that God predestined us in love "according to the purpose of his will." The purpose of his will indicates that God does everything for His own divine prerogative. He acts in accodance with his free and sovereign good pleasure. We do not know why God chooses to save some and not all. We do not know why God chooses to save any. We do know that He does it in accordance with his desire and we must trust the goodness and benevolence of God's desire. Soli deo gloria!
To answer this question, we must delineate between two kinds of questions that the objector might be asking at this point. The objector may still be asking the first question, which is the cry of every natural man's heart: "How could God only choose some?" This is a question of fairness or justice. If this is the question the individual is asking, then they still don't understand Paul's theodicy in Romans 9. We dare not ask for God to be fair or just with us. That is in an entirely different category. If God is fair or just, then all we get is Hell. Sinners must never plead justice, if they are hoping for salvation. They must plead for mercy. And the whole human race will only ever receive either of the two categories: mercy or justice. Injustice is not a category in which God operates.
But the second kind of question the objector might be asking is, "Why does God only choose some", which is a different question altogether. The first question was one of defiance; the second is one of inquiry. The first is characteristic of the rebellious, natural man who raises his fist in mutiny at God's sovereign rule. The second is indicative of one who may submit to God's sovereignty but seeks understanding. Still, a caveat must be issued here. The question we ought to be asking is not: "God why did you only choose some" but "God why did you choose any?" When we ask the latter, we allow the full weight of God's unmerited grace towards sinners to fall on us. That being said, there is an appropriate place to inquire why God only chooses some.
Eph 1:5 tells us that God predestined us in love "according to the purpose of his will." The purpose of his will indicates that God does everything for His own divine prerogative. He acts in accodance with his free and sovereign good pleasure. We do not know why God chooses to save some and not all. We do not know why God chooses to save any. We do know that He does it in accordance with his desire and we must trust the goodness and benevolence of God's desire. Soli deo gloria!
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Election and Predestination
Much confusion abounds regarding these two Biblical terms: election and predestination. Though similar and related, these two terms refer to two different aspects of God's eternal decree. Election refers to God's choice of certain individuals before the foundation of the world. Predestination, on the other hand, concerns God's determination of these same individuals to a particular end. In fact, the Greek proorizo, means just that: to mark out for a certain destination beforehand.
Many times opponents of Historic Calvinism will use these terms interchangably. However, fidelity to the Scriptures dictates that we exercise precision in distinguishing these two terms. Romans 8:29 states the relationship between election and predestination well when it says,
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (ESV; emphasis mine)."
God foreknew a certain set of individuals, and those whom he foreknew he determined to become like His Son, Jesus Christ. Notice that the pronoun "whom" indicates that God foreknew individuals, not just facts about individuals (though this is true, it is not what this passage is teaching). "Foreknew" in the Greek also means to foreordain. When the Bible speaks of God knowing people, it is referring to an affectional, relational knowing. This is true, for example, of God's relationship to the nation of Israel (cf. Amos 3:2).
Another misunderstanding people have with these two terms is in regards to the term predestination. In the Bible, predestination is always used in terms of predestination to salvation. In this sense, predestination can never be spoken of as double. Yes, God passively withholds his regenerating grace from the reprobate, but this is not how he operates in the elect. In the elect, God actively works faith in their hearts and intervenes in their lives to bring about their ultimate salvation. In the reprobate, God does not actively work in their hearts unbelief. Nevertheless, there is an equal ultimacy in predestination and reprobation as God's eternal decree results in the salvation of some and the damnation of the rest.
With this sharp distinction in mind, let us be clear and balanced in our espousal of the truth of God's absolute freedom in regards to the dispensation of his grace. Soli deo gloria!
Many times opponents of Historic Calvinism will use these terms interchangably. However, fidelity to the Scriptures dictates that we exercise precision in distinguishing these two terms. Romans 8:29 states the relationship between election and predestination well when it says,
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (ESV; emphasis mine)."
God foreknew a certain set of individuals, and those whom he foreknew he determined to become like His Son, Jesus Christ. Notice that the pronoun "whom" indicates that God foreknew individuals, not just facts about individuals (though this is true, it is not what this passage is teaching). "Foreknew" in the Greek also means to foreordain. When the Bible speaks of God knowing people, it is referring to an affectional, relational knowing. This is true, for example, of God's relationship to the nation of Israel (cf. Amos 3:2).
Another misunderstanding people have with these two terms is in regards to the term predestination. In the Bible, predestination is always used in terms of predestination to salvation. In this sense, predestination can never be spoken of as double. Yes, God passively withholds his regenerating grace from the reprobate, but this is not how he operates in the elect. In the elect, God actively works faith in their hearts and intervenes in their lives to bring about their ultimate salvation. In the reprobate, God does not actively work in their hearts unbelief. Nevertheless, there is an equal ultimacy in predestination and reprobation as God's eternal decree results in the salvation of some and the damnation of the rest.
With this sharp distinction in mind, let us be clear and balanced in our espousal of the truth of God's absolute freedom in regards to the dispensation of his grace. Soli deo gloria!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
