Our great God and Heavenly Father,
Forgive me, because my prayers are too often only selfish attempts to get what I want from you. I come, list in hand and little else. I justify this kind of prayer because you tell us in your word to ask, seek and knock.
My misconception of your true character robs you of your Sovereign Majesty and glory, an idolatry that is most evident in the way I pray. How dare I treat you, the Lord of the Universe, as if you were my delivery-boy: unconscious of you most of the time, summoning you when I need something, and dispatching you without so much as a “thank you.” Forgive me, Jesus, for treating you with less respect than the guards who mocked you, struck you, spit in your face, and then crucified you.
Forgive me for not praying in faith but rather out of a heart that is filled with superstition. For in truth, I believe prayer’s power lies in me or in another or even in prayer itself.
I have often gone to pastor, priest or saint, because they are “special”; they most certainly are able to get your ear, for you wouldn’t hear me. But it is my ears that are deaf to your voice calling me to come. And do not I betray you by believing that I need another mediator than the one you provide? What man could be more righteous than you Christ, and whose prayers would accomplish more? Is there any other who is continually interceding for me? I am faithless for not believing in your promises to come boldly into your presence because the way is made possible by the blood of your Son. What could you value more Father, than the blood of your Son?
I have ignored your instructions when I pray because I sound like a pagan, endless babbling and rants, trusting in my many words or getting the form right. My prayers have been long, elegant and emotional all to impress, to get your attention and win your approval; if not from you then at least from others. Sometimes I shout hoping that you will hear and answer me. If nothing else I hope that I am convincing myself and I call it faith.
Teach me again to pray as you taught your disciples to pray - so differently than I pray. For your prayer O Lord, is short, only eloquent in its simplicity, and straightforward.
Forgive me, for my prayers question your goodness and love by denying the very words my lips are confessing when I call you “My Heavenly Father.” How my prayers must break your heart because I don’t know you nor do I trust your word. Why do I not rest on your promises that guarantee with the giving up of your own Son that you will with him freely give me all things? Why do I call the bread you give me a stone and the fish a snake? If I being evil know how to give good gifts, how much more should I have confidence in you, Father.
But Lord, some days I feel like I can really pray and you hear me because I have been good or done something for you. Doesn’t that place you in my debt? Forgive me for making Christ’s death meaningless by valuing my pitiful acts as more significant than Jesus’ life and death. Why do I, Lord, desire to cover the perfect righteousness of Christ with my own filthy rags?
Father, dare I say, your sovereign rule offends me! How can you? How can you force your will on all creation, especially your children? What offends me is not the power, but that it is yours and not mine. Of course I never would admit that this is the reason I question your sovereignty. I prefer to look thoughtful and reflective, to be philosophical but if the truth were known, you hold all power, glory and all authority- and I want it. Have mercy on me Lord, for I still long for what my first parents coveted. For not being satisfied with bearing your image, I long to take your place. But this is not something you have denied me. In Christ you call me to join you, to reign with him. But Lord, Christ has chosen another direction than the one my heart is telling me; He in his glory steps down, to serve and to suffer but I want neither! Teach me Father to be like Christ and to desire a cross, that humiliation comes before exaltation, and that the glory of the resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering cannot be separated.
If I cannot have your place, then at least I can blame you for the deadness in my soul that is evident in the absence of prayer. After all Father, why should I pray if you already know and have already decided? Forgive me Lord, again like my first parents, I have believed Lucifer’s lie, the one he planted in our souls to doubt your goodness and love. Teach me to see you rightly Lord, that in all your attributes you are sovereign and your sovereignty fills all your qualities of wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Knowing you this way allows me to pray joyfully, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
Don’t let me hide my lack of love for others and my disobedient heart behind theological speculation that would leave you responsible for my sin. Show me how your plan and my actions fit together, how your will and my freedom merge so that they are one. Help me understand that your election does not exempt me from praying for the lost, sharing the gospel and pleading with people to be reconciled to you, but because of your sovereign plan I can be outrageously bold, confident, and at the same time patient when calling others to Christ.
Instruct me Father in what the older saints knew, that your sovereignty was the reason to pray, and to pray prayers filled with blessing, thanksgiving and praise. Make me understand you the way the Psalmist did, who being convinced of your sovereignty, argued and plead his case before you using your own promises as his evidence. Or to say with Job, “behold he will slay me, I have no hope, even so, I will plead my case before him.”
Reveal your majesty to me like you did to Isaiah, that in seeing you, I will see the true folly of my sin and being cleansed by a baptism of fire can then, from a cleansed heart offer myself in service to you.
Move my heart like you moved the apostle Paul’s, that as he laid out your plan of redemption for the church in Ephesus he was caught up in blessing and glorifying you, so much so that he could not take a breath for almost an entire chapter.
Let me rest in the mystery of your election, knowing that I am but clay in your hands, that you harden the heart of whom you please, love whom you please, pass over some, cut off nations and graft in others. Behold, your kindness and severity. Until like your apostle I can pray,
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
Make me to know the promises I look to and hope in, “that nothing can ever separate me from the love of God in Christ, that I am more than a conquerer,” can only comfort me if these promises are grounded in your sovereignty, “that you work out all things for the good of those who love you.” And resting in your plan, keep me Lord, from murmuring against you, manipulating and scheming to get my way.
Help me to see life like Joseph, who when he had a chance to take revenge on his brothers for their betrayal, saw himself not as the victim of their evil act but understood that his life fit into your much greater plan. And when I do not get my way or what I want, help to me see that it is not others who are obstacles, but you My Shepherd are leading me in the paths of righteous.
In the face of disaster, teach me to pray prayers that trust in your plan and Providence, wherever you lead me in life and whatever circumstances I might face. Because of your dominion, may I greet all things as gracious gifts from my Father in whom there are no shadows. Your sovereign mercy enables me to give thanks in all things so that your peace that passes all understanding will guard my heart and mind. Even in the most difficult events help me to pray a prayer of rejoicing and hope like Habakkuk prayed:
Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation. GOD, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the deer's; he makes me tread on my high places.
And when overwhelmed, Spirit, search my heart and mind giving expression to the cries of my heart with groanings too deep for words, bearing witness with my spirit that I am still your child and these cries are acts of faith that long for your kingdom to come.
Don’t let me be like Jabez Lord, who prayed for you to bless him and you graciously answered his prayer, but we are not told of any good Jabez did for you.
Most of all Lord, teach me to trust in your sovereign mercy the way Christ did. For trusting in your sovereign plan he could pray both, “Take this cup from me but not my will be done but Thine, Oh Lord.” Then give me the grace to like my Savior, who when persecuted for righteousness sake was able to say, “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.”
For it is only then Lord, that I will have learned to pray in faith, realizing that you have taken the list from my hands, and in my prayers you have mingled my desires with your will so that I have received something far greater than I could have hoped, thought or imagined. You will have given me what my heart truly desires and all that I need. You, Father.
For in trying to get what I want out of you by my prayers, you have gotten what you want out of me. For I have taken my eyes off my list and see only you and in that moment, I know why the Psalmist asked for just one thing, and sought just one thing, and that I like him pray, “may I dwell in your house Lord all the days of my life, to behold your beauty, and to meditate on you in your temple.”
Questions for Further Thought or Discussion:
Why pray if God is sovereign?
Examine how you pray, what do your words show about your understanding of the nature of God?
How would understanding the sovereignty of God affect both our prayers content and purpose?
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Q&A With Dr R.C Sproul
What do we need to know about a church before we attend, and what do we need to know before we become a member?
Before we attend a church, we should know that it is a legitimate church. Now, obviously, if the sign on the front of the church reads “Church of Satan,” we know it isn’t a legitimate body of Christian believers. But what about churches that are not legitimate for less obvious reasons? Some religious bodies claim to be Christian that, in my judgment and in the judgment of many Christians, are not Christian churches or are apostate bodies. Even attending their services may be a sin. We can’t expect a church to be perfect. But does it hold to the essentials of the faith? Does it practice a basic, sound belief in the deity of Christ and aspects of Christ that we find outlined in the New Testament? Now, we may be worshiping every day with people who profess to be Christians but aren’t; this we can’t avoid because God hasn’t given us the ability to look at another person’s heart and say exactly where he or she is spiritually. But we can inquire into the basic beliefs of a church body, and we want to unite ourselves in worship only with a group of people who are attempting to do what is proper in the sight of God. Obviously that bare minimum applies before you attend the church. Before you join a church I would think you’d look more closely. You would ask questions such as, Is this a church where the gospel is being preached, where there is fidelity to the Scriptures? Is this a fellowship to which I am prepared to commit myself, my time, my money, my devotion, where I’m going to be instructed in spiritual growth, along with my family? I think those are the kinds of questions you need to look at very carefully before you make the commitment to join. In our country we often join churches in the same spirit that we join any other organization, forgetting that when we join the church, we take a sacred vow before God to do certain things—to be present in worship, to make diligent use of the means of grace, to be an active participant in that church. Before you take a vow to do something like that, you need to know what it is you’re joining and then, having made that vow, be prepared to keep it.
A Warning & An Open Invitation By John MacArthur
Admonition
God’s universal love is revealed not only in common grace and His great compassion, but also in His admonition to repent. God is constantly warning the reprobate of their impending fate, and pleading with them to turn away from sin. Nothing demonstrates God’s love more than the various warnings throughout the pages of Scripture, urging sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
Anyone who knows anything about Scripture knows it is filled with warnings about the judgment to come, warnings about hell, and warnings about the severity of divine punishment. If God really did not love the reprobate, nothing would compel Him to warn them. He would be perfectly just to punish them for their sin and unbelief with no admonition whatsoever. But He does love and He does care and He does warn.
God evidently loves sinners enough to warn them. Sometimes the warnings of Scripture bear the marks of divine wrath. They sound severe. They reflect God’s hatred of sin. They warn of the irreversible condemnation that will befall sinners. They are unsettling, unpleasant, even terrifying.
But they are admonitions from a loving God who as we have seen weeps over the destruction of the wicked. They are necessary expressions from the heart of a compassionate Creator who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. They are further proof that God is love.
The Gospel Offer
Finally, we see proof that God’s love extends to all in the gospel offer. We saw earlier that the gospel invitation is an offer of divine mercy. Now consider the unlimited breadth of the offer. No one is excluded from the gospel invitation. Salvation in Christ is freely and indiscriminately offered to all.
Jesus told a parable in Matthew 22:2–14 about a king who was having a marriage celebration for his son. He sent his servants to invite the wedding guests. Scripture says simply, “they were unwilling to come” (v. 3). The king sent his servants again, saying, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast” (v. 4). But even after that second invitation, the invited guests remained unwilling to come. In fact, Scripture says, “They paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them” (vv. 5–6). This was outrageous, inexcusable behavior! And the king judged them severely for it.
Then Scripture says he told his servants, “The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast” (v. 9). He opened the invitation to all comers. Jesus closes with this: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (v. 14).
The parable represents God’s dealing with the nation of Israel. They were the invited guests. But they rejected the Messiah. They spurned Him and mistreated Him and crucified Him. They wouldn’t come—as Jesus said to them:
You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life. (Jn. 5:39–40)
The gospel invites many to come who are unwilling to come. Many are called who are not chosen. The invitation to come is given indiscriminately to all. Whosoever will may come—the invitation is not issued to the elect alone.
God’s love for mankind does not stop with a warning of the judgment to come. It also invites sinners to partake of divine mercy. It offers forgiveness and mercy. Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28–29). And Jesus said, “The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (Jn. 6:37).
It should be evident from these verses that the gospel is a free offer of Christ and His salvation to all who hear. Those who deny the free offer therefore alter the nature of the gospel itself. And those who deny that God’s love extends to all humanity obscure some of the most blessed truth in all Scripture about God and His lovingkindness.
God’s love extends to the whole world. It covers all humanity. We see it in common grace. We see it in His compassion. We see it in His admonitions to the lost. And we see it in the free offer of the gospel to all.
God is love, and His mercy is over all His works.
God’s universal love is revealed not only in common grace and His great compassion, but also in His admonition to repent. God is constantly warning the reprobate of their impending fate, and pleading with them to turn away from sin. Nothing demonstrates God’s love more than the various warnings throughout the pages of Scripture, urging sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
Anyone who knows anything about Scripture knows it is filled with warnings about the judgment to come, warnings about hell, and warnings about the severity of divine punishment. If God really did not love the reprobate, nothing would compel Him to warn them. He would be perfectly just to punish them for their sin and unbelief with no admonition whatsoever. But He does love and He does care and He does warn.
God evidently loves sinners enough to warn them. Sometimes the warnings of Scripture bear the marks of divine wrath. They sound severe. They reflect God’s hatred of sin. They warn of the irreversible condemnation that will befall sinners. They are unsettling, unpleasant, even terrifying.
But they are admonitions from a loving God who as we have seen weeps over the destruction of the wicked. They are necessary expressions from the heart of a compassionate Creator who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. They are further proof that God is love.
The Gospel Offer
Finally, we see proof that God’s love extends to all in the gospel offer. We saw earlier that the gospel invitation is an offer of divine mercy. Now consider the unlimited breadth of the offer. No one is excluded from the gospel invitation. Salvation in Christ is freely and indiscriminately offered to all.
Jesus told a parable in Matthew 22:2–14 about a king who was having a marriage celebration for his son. He sent his servants to invite the wedding guests. Scripture says simply, “they were unwilling to come” (v. 3). The king sent his servants again, saying, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast” (v. 4). But even after that second invitation, the invited guests remained unwilling to come. In fact, Scripture says, “They paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them” (vv. 5–6). This was outrageous, inexcusable behavior! And the king judged them severely for it.
Then Scripture says he told his servants, “The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast” (v. 9). He opened the invitation to all comers. Jesus closes with this: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (v. 14).
The parable represents God’s dealing with the nation of Israel. They were the invited guests. But they rejected the Messiah. They spurned Him and mistreated Him and crucified Him. They wouldn’t come—as Jesus said to them:
You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life. (Jn. 5:39–40)
The gospel invites many to come who are unwilling to come. Many are called who are not chosen. The invitation to come is given indiscriminately to all. Whosoever will may come—the invitation is not issued to the elect alone.
God’s love for mankind does not stop with a warning of the judgment to come. It also invites sinners to partake of divine mercy. It offers forgiveness and mercy. Jesus said, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:28–29). And Jesus said, “The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (Jn. 6:37).
It should be evident from these verses that the gospel is a free offer of Christ and His salvation to all who hear. Those who deny the free offer therefore alter the nature of the gospel itself. And those who deny that God’s love extends to all humanity obscure some of the most blessed truth in all Scripture about God and His lovingkindness.
God’s love extends to the whole world. It covers all humanity. We see it in common grace. We see it in His compassion. We see it in His admonitions to the lost. And we see it in the free offer of the gospel to all.
God is love, and His mercy is over all His works.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
St. Augustine Said..........
If you believe what you like in the gospel,and reject what you don't like,it's not the gospel you believe,but yourself.
Thank you for sharing your heart.
Kevin,
Thank you for sharing your side and more importantly your heart. I pray the ministry of Truth Matters continues to be a blessing to you and your family. Hope to hear from you in the future.
Rev.Charles J. Paul
Thank you for sharing your side and more importantly your heart. I pray the ministry of Truth Matters continues to be a blessing to you and your family. Hope to hear from you in the future.
Rev.Charles J. Paul
Emails to Truth Matters
Kevin,
Thank you for email to Truth Matters. As we do take the Truth very seriously I am glad you took the time to write to us. I am extending to you now the opportunity to write to me with your side of the article listed below.
Thank you again for your email I look forward to hearing from you.
Rev Charles Paul.
Below is a copy of the November 2007 Post
"Freak Dancing" -- When Parents Advocate Misbehavior By Dr Al Mohler
The Wall Street Journal is out with one of the those eye-opening stories that defies common moral sense. It seems that Jason Ceyanes, the 35-year-old superintendent of schools in Argyle, Texas, decided to crack down on sexually-suggestive dancing at the local high school. But, when the superintendent banned "freak dancing," he got into trouble with some of Argyle's parents.Here is how The Wall Street Journal introduced its account of the controversy:A new resolve by school officials in this booming Dallas suburb to crack down on sexually suggestive dancing -- and skimpy clothing -- has sparked a rancorous debate over what boundaries should be set for teenagers' self-expression. Argyle joins a long list of other schools around the country that have banned the hip-hop inspired dancing known as "grinding" or "freak dancing."But in Argyle, a once-sleepy farming community strained by explosive growth from an influx of well-to-do suburbanites, the controversy has gotten vicious. Some parents blame the newly installed school superintendent, Jason Ceyanes, 35, for ruining their children's October homecoming dance by enforcing a strict dress code and making provocative dancing off-limits. Disgusted, a lot of kids left, and the dance ended early.Mr. Ceyanes says he fears current cleavage-baring dress styles combined with sexually charged dancing could lead to an unsafe environment for students."This is not just shaking your booty," he said. "This is pelvis-to-pelvis physical contact in the private areas...and then moving around.""Freak dancing" is well known throughout the nation, and it involves what can only be described as "sexually charged" physical contact and movement. But many of the kids in Argyle were "disgusted" that freak dancing was banned at the homecoming dance, so they left. That might be fairly easy to understand. After all, adolescents are expected to exhibit adolescent patterns of misbehavior. What makes this story so interesting is that so many parents responded by joining their adolescents in immature response. In fact, their protest of the superintendent's policy is shocking.As the paper explained, "Many parents support Mr. Ceyanes's actions. But another vocal faction has been harshly critical of the new superintendent, creating a deep rift in the community. These parents defend the children of Argyle as 'good kids,' and say they should be trusted to dance and dress the way they want."Here is one of the moral hallmarks of our confused age. Parents defy authority and propriety and justify the misbehavior of their own children while calling them "good kids." In this case, they argue that these "good kids" should be allowed "to dance and dress the way they want" -- even if that means sexually suggestive dress and sexually charged dancing.Mr. Ceyanes held a public meeting for parents and played a video of freak dancing. "I cannot imagine that there is a father in this room who could watch this video and be all right with a young man dancing with his daughter in that fashion," he told the parents.This is further evidence of a trend long in coming. Fashion styles for adult women now mimic those of adolescent girls. Why? So many moms want to act like teenagers and dress as provocatively as their offspring. Far too many parents want to act like their teenagers' friends and peers, not like parents. Parents, after all, are expected to act like adults, and this is a society that depreciates adulthood and valorizes adolescence.When a story like this makes the front page of The Wall Street Journal, something significant has shifted on the moral landscape. When parents demand that their "good kids" be allowed to freak dance at school events, the real story shifts from the kids to the parents.The Wall Street Journal also features this video coverage of the story [go here].
Emails to Truth Matters
Dear Minister Paul,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this matter. I'm sorry to take so long to reply; this is a new email account and I'm not yet used to how it displays messages. I live in the community of Argyle Texas, and I have 2 daughters attending the Argyle High School. I was very upset by the inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal article, and felt it necessary to address them where I could. To start at the beginning, there was a homecoming dance planned. In previous years there was no specific dress code for school dances, and the chaperones were asked to use their own good judgment regarding dresses and behavior. It had resulted in some minor issues in the past, so this year it was decided that there would be a written dress code. The administration put insufficient effort into generating an appropriate dress code for a social event like a dance, and when the time arrived without a "social event dress code" the decision was made by the school administration to apply the "school day" dress code, a standard that included things like "no open backs" and "minimum 3-inch shoulder straps" on all dresses and shirts. Now there are always kids who will push the envelope of what is allowable. This doesn't mean they are bad; it means they still need adult supervision. Still, even the ones who never broke the rules were shocked to find that the knee length party dress which showed NO cleavage was rejected at the door because the shoulder straps were only 1" wide. It was obvious immediately that this standard was inappropriate, and many of the teachers and parents put a lot of effort into sewing 3-inch wide ribbons onto shoulder straps right outside the door of the auditorium and making other adjustments so that the kids could attend the dance, but ultimately the hard stand on an inappropriate standard resulted in the dance being a social flop - which is what upset so many of the parents who had taken part in extensive preparations. When the community called the superintendent to task for ruining the dance, he presented two cases; first that the absence of a social event dress code left him no choice but to use the school day dress code. Second, that the kids had left the dance because he had forbidden "freak dancing", and that was why the event was a flop. I was at that meetingAbout the issue of "freak dancing". Superintendent Ceyanes had searched the internet and found a highly salacious video which he used to demonstrate what he was speaking of. The news media attending the meeting had been looking very bored until he started that video, but then they all jumped up like they'd been stung by bees. I'm amazed they didn't hit anyone swinging their cameras around. That was what they were there for. That was ALL the media was interested in, not the truth.There was no depiction of any freak dancing that took place in Argyle; however, I don't doubt that some of the kids were doing it. Nor do I doubt that the teachers and parents chaperoning the dance told them to stop it. The lie that I found so offensive is the claim that ANY parent endorsed "freak dancing". While some of the parents were furious enough at Mr. Ceyanes that they issued a blanket condemnation of his actions, none of them endorsed freak dancing. NONE of them. One of the parents even suggested offering dance lessons, a suggestion Mr. Ceyanes later put into action and claimed as his own idea. No community is perfect, and Argyle is no different. Nevertheless, we do NOT deserve the description of "Parents advocating Misbehavior". This is a good community that my wife of 28 years and I chose to settle in 12 years ago, and it bothers me to see it slandered by media more interested in titillation than truth. Thank you for hearing my side of this issue.Sincerely, Kevin Wadekwade79@gmail.com
PS. On the evening of the dance my middle daughter, a senior, heard about what was happening at the dance, got together with 4 of her friends and went (after asking and getting my permission) to a skating rink. They had a good time and returned, all completely sober, right around midnight. The majority of Argyle teens can be trusted to behave in just such an exemplary fashion. Also, Argyle School District NOW has a dress code for social events, one which seems a bit lax to me. Perhaps it's just me being old-fashioned, or perhaps Mr. Ceyanes after messing up in one direction has done a turnabout and it about to mess up in another. Time will tell.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this matter. I'm sorry to take so long to reply; this is a new email account and I'm not yet used to how it displays messages. I live in the community of Argyle Texas, and I have 2 daughters attending the Argyle High School. I was very upset by the inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal article, and felt it necessary to address them where I could. To start at the beginning, there was a homecoming dance planned. In previous years there was no specific dress code for school dances, and the chaperones were asked to use their own good judgment regarding dresses and behavior. It had resulted in some minor issues in the past, so this year it was decided that there would be a written dress code. The administration put insufficient effort into generating an appropriate dress code for a social event like a dance, and when the time arrived without a "social event dress code" the decision was made by the school administration to apply the "school day" dress code, a standard that included things like "no open backs" and "minimum 3-inch shoulder straps" on all dresses and shirts. Now there are always kids who will push the envelope of what is allowable. This doesn't mean they are bad; it means they still need adult supervision. Still, even the ones who never broke the rules were shocked to find that the knee length party dress which showed NO cleavage was rejected at the door because the shoulder straps were only 1" wide. It was obvious immediately that this standard was inappropriate, and many of the teachers and parents put a lot of effort into sewing 3-inch wide ribbons onto shoulder straps right outside the door of the auditorium and making other adjustments so that the kids could attend the dance, but ultimately the hard stand on an inappropriate standard resulted in the dance being a social flop - which is what upset so many of the parents who had taken part in extensive preparations. When the community called the superintendent to task for ruining the dance, he presented two cases; first that the absence of a social event dress code left him no choice but to use the school day dress code. Second, that the kids had left the dance because he had forbidden "freak dancing", and that was why the event was a flop. I was at that meetingAbout the issue of "freak dancing". Superintendent Ceyanes had searched the internet and found a highly salacious video which he used to demonstrate what he was speaking of. The news media attending the meeting had been looking very bored until he started that video, but then they all jumped up like they'd been stung by bees. I'm amazed they didn't hit anyone swinging their cameras around. That was what they were there for. That was ALL the media was interested in, not the truth.There was no depiction of any freak dancing that took place in Argyle; however, I don't doubt that some of the kids were doing it. Nor do I doubt that the teachers and parents chaperoning the dance told them to stop it. The lie that I found so offensive is the claim that ANY parent endorsed "freak dancing". While some of the parents were furious enough at Mr. Ceyanes that they issued a blanket condemnation of his actions, none of them endorsed freak dancing. NONE of them. One of the parents even suggested offering dance lessons, a suggestion Mr. Ceyanes later put into action and claimed as his own idea. No community is perfect, and Argyle is no different. Nevertheless, we do NOT deserve the description of "Parents advocating Misbehavior". This is a good community that my wife of 28 years and I chose to settle in 12 years ago, and it bothers me to see it slandered by media more interested in titillation than truth. Thank you for hearing my side of this issue.Sincerely, Kevin Wadekwade79@gmail.com
PS. On the evening of the dance my middle daughter, a senior, heard about what was happening at the dance, got together with 4 of her friends and went (after asking and getting my permission) to a skating rink. They had a good time and returned, all completely sober, right around midnight. The majority of Argyle teens can be trusted to behave in just such an exemplary fashion. Also, Argyle School District NOW has a dress code for social events, one which seems a bit lax to me. Perhaps it's just me being old-fashioned, or perhaps Mr. Ceyanes after messing up in one direction has done a turnabout and it about to mess up in another. Time will tell.
The Power of a Holy Life (Part 2) By John MacArthur
Holy Living Makes the Gospel Attractive
Paul states his third reason for holy living in Titus 2:10, “That they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.” “Adorn” is from the Greek word kosmeō and refers to making something beautiful.
What is our primary message to this world about God? Do we want the world to know that God is omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Immutable? Sovereign? Eternal? The Creator and the Sustainer of the universe? Yes, we do. But by far the main attribute of God we want the unsaved to understand is that He is a Savior.
How will we ever make the good news about God as Savior beautiful in every respect if we don’t look like we’ve been saved? When we live in obedience to God, that in itself will be a testimony against wrong. When those around us see us helping rather than exploiting, hear us talking with purity instead of profanity, and observe us speaking truthfully rather than deceitfully, our example will itself be a rebuke of selfishness, unwholesome talk, and falsehood. Simply refusing to participate in a dishonest business or social practice will sometimes be such a strong rebuke that it costs us our job or friendship. Dishonesty is terribly uncomfortable in the presence of honesty, even when there is no verbal or other direct opposition.
Often, of course, open rebuke is necessary. Silent testimony will go only so far. Failure to speak out against and to oppose evil things in practical ways is a failure to obey God. Believers are to expose them in whatever legitimate, biblical ways are necessary.
Unfortunately, many Christians are barely able to keep their own spiritual and moral houses in order. Thus they lack the discernment, inclination, or power to confront evil in the church or in society at large. That’s why it is imperative that we be so mature in biblical truth, and in obedience, holiness, and love, that the natural course of our lives will be to expose, rebuke, and offer remedy for every kind of evil.
Making salvation attractive is a high calling, and we will fail in that endeavor unless we can demonstrate that we have indeed been delivered from sin. Rebuking sin in others without an accompanying lifestyle of righteousness is the greatest hypocrisy. But lives characterized by purity, power, and joy reflect the order, beauty, and power of a saving God. When we make salvation beautiful, we make God attractive.
To convince a man God can save, I need to show him a man He saved. To convince a man that God can give hope, I need to show him a man with hope. To convince a man that God can give peace, joy, and love, I need to show him a man with peace, joy, and love. To convince a man that God can give complete, total, and utter satisfaction, I need to show him a satisfied man. When the world sees people who are holy, righteous, peaceful, joyful, and fulfilled, they see the evidence of God’s transforming power.
At stake is the eternal destiny of unredeemed souls. Christians who are unholy lead unbelievers to slander God; those who are holy lead them to glorify God. The central issue in evangelism is holy living. A powerful church is not built on its strategy, but on the virtue and holiness of its people. What we believe is linked to how we live, and how we live is directly linked to the effectiveness of our gospel proclamation. So, Christian, it’s imperative that you be “blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15).
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Power of a Holy Life (Part 1) By John MacArthur
Despite many technological advancements, the twenty-first century has entered frighteningly dark waters. Look at the headlines—the threat of global terrorism, the chaos of unthinkable criminal activity, the defilement of pornography, the confusion of gender roles, the future of the economy, the “lostness” of our children, etc., etc. People are helplessly buckled up, strapped in, and holding on to a world careening out of control into a future of even greater fear, confusion, frustration, uncertainty, and isolation.
As a Christian, a true Christians, you are quite a contrast. Anchored in Jesus Christ, you are immoveable, steadfast, and strong. Your eyes are fixed on the Word of God, a beacon that stands out like a “lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). As you move toward that light, God changes your life by the power of the Holy Spirit. The message you proclaim and the life you live guarantees you will stand out in the culture.
Holy, righteous lives are the backbone of the gospel we preach. The apostle Paul understood that. In the midst of a pagan society that did all it could to persecute Christians and discredit the Christian faith, he wrote to Titus telling him how to instruct the Cretans “to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12).
As I’ve reflected on what Paul told Titus, I can see three compelling reasons we ought to live holy lives. And each reason has little to do with benefits that come from godly living, though there are benefits (cf. 1 Timothy 6:6). Rather, Paul sets forth evangelism as the motive for holy living.
Holy Living Honors God’s Word
In chapter two, Paul instructs Titus regarding different age groups in the church. The young women, he says, are to act in such a way “so that the word of God may not be dishonored” (Titus 2:5). The Greek word translated “dishonored” literally means “blasphemed.” We can’t allow unbelievers to mock, ignore, or totally reject God’s Word. Yet, how we live will directly affect how people feel about it.
No matter what their station in life, Christian men and women who are not what they ought to be will give people reason to blaspheme God’s Word. The world doesn’t judge us by our theology; it judges us by our behavior. The validity of Scripture in the world’s view is determined by how it affects us. If unbelievers see that our lives are truly transformed, separate and distinct from the world, they might conclude that Scripture is true, powerful, and life-changing.
The credibility of the Christian gospel is inseparably linked to the integrity of the lives of those who proclaim it. That’s why it is so devastating when well-known evangelists or Christian leaders are caught in some gross sin or immorality. How do you think unbelievers react when they see such hypocrisy? They laugh at it, thus blaspheming God’s Word and short-circuiting any opportunity we have to tell them about its power to transform their lives. The impact of the lives of men and women who bear the Lord’s name is vital to the credibility of the faith and the effectiveness of personal witness and preaching. That’s ultimately what is at stake in the way we live.
Holy Living Silences the Opposition
Paul’s second reason for living holy lives gives us the heart of what he wants to communicate: “so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us” (Titus 2:8). The Greek word translated “put to shame” literally means “to blush,” emphasizing the opponent’s utter embarrassment over having no just criticism.
Opponents of Christianity love to gloat when Christians cause a scandal. Don’t you think some of the unbelievers in your sphere of influence would love to see you fail significantly so they can justify their unbelief? They don’t want to see God transform your life—that would stand as a rebuke to their sinful lifestyles. But that’s exactly what you want to do—you want to embarrass them when they criticize you because there is nothing for them to justifiably criticize.
The issue is evangelism. The proper strategy for our evangelization is not methodological. We reach the world through epitomizing virtue, godliness, holiness, and a purity of life that makes our faith and God’s Word believable.
The apostle Peter understood the way believers have impact on the godless world. He wrote, “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage ware against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the [pagans], so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12).
Do you see how imperative it is that we live godly lives? We want unbelievers to examine us. They come initially to criticize, but if our behavior is excellent, the criticism of some might turn to curiosity. And if that curiosity turns to conversion, they’ll glorify God because of their salvation. Thus we’ve done our part in bringing God glory. You lead people to the credibility of Christianity and ultimately to conversion by the virtue of your life. So stay away from fleshly lusts and maintain excellent behavior.
(To Be Concluded Tomorrow)
As a Christian, a true Christians, you are quite a contrast. Anchored in Jesus Christ, you are immoveable, steadfast, and strong. Your eyes are fixed on the Word of God, a beacon that stands out like a “lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). As you move toward that light, God changes your life by the power of the Holy Spirit. The message you proclaim and the life you live guarantees you will stand out in the culture.
Holy, righteous lives are the backbone of the gospel we preach. The apostle Paul understood that. In the midst of a pagan society that did all it could to persecute Christians and discredit the Christian faith, he wrote to Titus telling him how to instruct the Cretans “to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12).
As I’ve reflected on what Paul told Titus, I can see three compelling reasons we ought to live holy lives. And each reason has little to do with benefits that come from godly living, though there are benefits (cf. 1 Timothy 6:6). Rather, Paul sets forth evangelism as the motive for holy living.
Holy Living Honors God’s Word
In chapter two, Paul instructs Titus regarding different age groups in the church. The young women, he says, are to act in such a way “so that the word of God may not be dishonored” (Titus 2:5). The Greek word translated “dishonored” literally means “blasphemed.” We can’t allow unbelievers to mock, ignore, or totally reject God’s Word. Yet, how we live will directly affect how people feel about it.
No matter what their station in life, Christian men and women who are not what they ought to be will give people reason to blaspheme God’s Word. The world doesn’t judge us by our theology; it judges us by our behavior. The validity of Scripture in the world’s view is determined by how it affects us. If unbelievers see that our lives are truly transformed, separate and distinct from the world, they might conclude that Scripture is true, powerful, and life-changing.
The credibility of the Christian gospel is inseparably linked to the integrity of the lives of those who proclaim it. That’s why it is so devastating when well-known evangelists or Christian leaders are caught in some gross sin or immorality. How do you think unbelievers react when they see such hypocrisy? They laugh at it, thus blaspheming God’s Word and short-circuiting any opportunity we have to tell them about its power to transform their lives. The impact of the lives of men and women who bear the Lord’s name is vital to the credibility of the faith and the effectiveness of personal witness and preaching. That’s ultimately what is at stake in the way we live.
Holy Living Silences the Opposition
Paul’s second reason for living holy lives gives us the heart of what he wants to communicate: “so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us” (Titus 2:8). The Greek word translated “put to shame” literally means “to blush,” emphasizing the opponent’s utter embarrassment over having no just criticism.
Opponents of Christianity love to gloat when Christians cause a scandal. Don’t you think some of the unbelievers in your sphere of influence would love to see you fail significantly so they can justify their unbelief? They don’t want to see God transform your life—that would stand as a rebuke to their sinful lifestyles. But that’s exactly what you want to do—you want to embarrass them when they criticize you because there is nothing for them to justifiably criticize.
The issue is evangelism. The proper strategy for our evangelization is not methodological. We reach the world through epitomizing virtue, godliness, holiness, and a purity of life that makes our faith and God’s Word believable.
The apostle Peter understood the way believers have impact on the godless world. He wrote, “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage ware against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the [pagans], so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12).
Do you see how imperative it is that we live godly lives? We want unbelievers to examine us. They come initially to criticize, but if our behavior is excellent, the criticism of some might turn to curiosity. And if that curiosity turns to conversion, they’ll glorify God because of their salvation. Thus we’ve done our part in bringing God glory. You lead people to the credibility of Christianity and ultimately to conversion by the virtue of your life. So stay away from fleshly lusts and maintain excellent behavior.
(To Be Concluded Tomorrow)
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The Heidelberg Catechism, This Lord's Day week 9
Q26: What do you believe when you say: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth"?
A26: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing made heaven and earth with all that in them is,[1] who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence,[2] is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father,[3] in whom I so trust as to have no doubt that He will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul;[4] and further, that whatever evil He sends upon me in this troubled life, He will turn to my good;[5] for He is able to do it, being Almighty God,[6] and willing also, being a faithful Father.[7]
1. Gen. 1:31; Psa. 33:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:32. Psa. 104:2-5; 115:3; Matt. 10:30; Heb. 1:3; Acts 17:24-25
3. John 1:12; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5-7; Eph. 1:5; 3:14-16; Matt. 6:84. Psa. 55:22; 90:1-2; Matt. 6:25-26; Luke 12:22-245. Rom. 8:28; Acts 17:27-286. Rom. 10:127. Matt. 7:9-11; Num. 23:19
A26: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing made heaven and earth with all that in them is,[1] who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence,[2] is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father,[3] in whom I so trust as to have no doubt that He will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul;[4] and further, that whatever evil He sends upon me in this troubled life, He will turn to my good;[5] for He is able to do it, being Almighty God,[6] and willing also, being a faithful Father.[7]
1. Gen. 1:31; Psa. 33:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:32. Psa. 104:2-5; 115:3; Matt. 10:30; Heb. 1:3; Acts 17:24-25
3. John 1:12; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5-7; Eph. 1:5; 3:14-16; Matt. 6:84. Psa. 55:22; 90:1-2; Matt. 6:25-26; Luke 12:22-245. Rom. 8:28; Acts 17:27-286. Rom. 10:127. Matt. 7:9-11; Num. 23:19
Saturday, March 01, 2008
1st Mark of a Healthy Church MEMBER: Expositional LISTENING By Thabiti Anyabwile
Every local church is a collection of individual church members. Therefore, fostering healthy churches depends in some measure on fostering healthy church members who understand the centrality of living and working together as one body for the glory of God. This series of articles aims to stir some thinking about what a healthy church member looks like. We take each of the nine marks of a healthy church and apply them to the individual Christian in order to color in a picture of what it means to be a healthy church member. In other words, we want to answer the question, “How can each member of a local congregation contribute to the collective and functional health of their local church?” We pray that these short studies are useful to pastors and members as they labor and serve together in the gospel for the glory of God our Father and Jesus Christ our Savior.
Mark #1: “Expositional Listening”
What is “expositional listening”?The first and most important mark of a healthy church is expositional preaching. “Expositional preaching is not simply producing a verbal commentary on some passage of Scripture. Rather, expositional preaching is that preaching which takes for the main point of a sermon the point of a particular passage of Scripture.”1 If churches are to be healthy then pastors and teachers must be committed to discovering the meaning of Scripture and allowing that meaning to drive their agenda with their congregations.
There is an important corollary for every member of a local church. Just as the pastor’s preaching agenda is to be determined by the meaning of Scripture, so too must the listening agenda of the Christian be driven by the meaning of Scripture. What we are listening for when the Word is preached is not primarily “practical how-to advice,” though Scripture teaches us much about everyday matters. Nor should we listen for messages and ideas that bolster our self-esteem or that rouse us for political and social causes. Rather, as members of Christian churches we are listening for the voice and message of God as revealed in His word. We are listening to hear God speak to us the things He has in His omniscient love written for His glory and our blessing. Listening for the meaning of a passage of Scripture, and accepting that meaning as the main idea to be grasped for our personal and corporate lives as Christians, is what we mean by “expositional listening.”
What are the benefits of expositional listening?The first benefit of expositional listening is that it cultivates a hunger for God’s word. As we tune our ears to the style of preaching that takes as its main points the primary meaning of a particular passage of Scripture, we grow accustomed to listening to God. We become fluent in the language of Zion and conversant with its themes. His word/voice becomes sweet to us (Psalm 119:103-104); and as it does, we are better able to push to the background the many voices that would rival God’s voice for control over our lives. Expositional listening gives us a clear ear with which to hear God.
The second benefit of expositional listening follows from the first. Expositional listening helps us to focus on God’s will and to follow Him. Our agenda becomes secondary. The preacher’s agenda becomes secondary. God’s agenda for His people takes center stage, reorders our priorities, and directs us in the course that most honors Him. The Lord himself proclaimed, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Listening to the voice of Jesus as it is heard in His word is critical to following Him.
Third, expositional listening protects the gospel and our lives from corruption. The Scripture tells us “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (II Tim. 4:3-4). The failure to listen expositionally has disastrous effects. False teachers enter the church and hinder the gospel, and ultimately, the truth is displaced by myths and falsehoods. Where members cultivate the habit of expositional listening they guard themselves against “itching ears” and they protect the gospel from corruption.
The fourth benefit, then, is that expositional listening encourages faithful pastors. Those men who serve faithfully in the ministry of the word are worthy of double honor (I Tim. 5:17). Little could be more discouraging or dishonoring to such men than a congregation inattentive to the word of God. Faithful men flourish at the fertile reception of the preached word. They are made all the more bold when their people give ear to the Lord’s voice and give evidence of being shaped by it. As church members, we can care for our pastors and teachers and help to prevent unnecessary discouragement and fatigue by cultivating the habit of expositional listening.
Fifth, expositional listening has benefits for the gathered congregation. Repeatedly, the New Testament writers exhort local churches to be unified, to be of one mind. “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (I Cor. 1:10; see also Rom. 12:16; II Cor. 13:11; I Pet. 3:8). As we gather together in our local churches, as we together give ourselves to hearing the voice of God through His preached word, we are shaped into one body. We are united in understanding and purpose. And that unity testifies to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 17:21). But if we listen with our own interests and agendas in mind, if we develop “private interpretations” and idiosyncrasies, we risk shattering that unity, provoking disputes over doubtful matters, and weakening our corporate gospel witness.How can church members cultivate the habit of expositional listening?Well, if expositional listening is so vital to the health of individual church members and the church as a whole, how does a person form such a habit? At least six practical ideas can foster more attentive listening to God’s word.
1. Meditate on the sermon passage during your quiet time. Several days before the sermon is preached, ask the pastor what passage of Scripture he plans to preach the following Sunday. Encourage the preacher by letting him know that you’ll be praying for his preparation and preparing to listen to the sermon. Throughout the week, outline the text in your own quiet time and use it to inform your prayer life. Learning to outline Scripture is a wonderful way of digging out and exposing the meaning of a passage. You can then use your outline as a listening aid; compare it to the preacher’s outline for new insights you missed in your own study.
2. Invest in a good set of commentaries. Add to your quiet times some of the greatest minds in Christian history. Study the Bible with John Calvin or Augustine or Martin Lloyd-Jones by purchasing commentaries on books of the Bible as you read and study through them. If your pastor is preaching through John’s Gospel, pick up D.A. Carson’s or James Montgomery Boice’s commentary on John. Let these scholars and pastors help you hear God’s word with a clear ear and discover its rich meaning. The Bible Speaks Today commentary series is an excellent starting place for those wanting to build a library of good commentaries. Also, you might want to purchase an Old Testament and New Testament commentary survey to help you sort through the range of commentary options available. Tremper Longman’s Old Testament Commentary Survey and D.A. Carson’s New Testament Commentary Survey (both co-published by Baker and IVP) are excellent resources. 3. Talk and pray with friends about the sermon after church. Instead of rushing off after the service is over, or talking about the latest news or sporting event, develop the habit of talking about the sermon with people after church. Start spiritual conversations by asking, “How did the Scripture challenge or speak to you today?” Or, “What about God’s character most surprised or encouraged you?” Encourage others by sharing things you learned about God and His word during the sermon. Make particular note of how your thinking has changed because of the meaning of Scripture itself. And pray with others that God would keep the congregation from becoming “dull of hearing,” that He would bless the congregation with an increasingly strong desire for the “solid food” of His word (Isaiah 6:9,10; Heb. 5:11-14).
4. Listen to and act on the sermon throughout the week. We can cultivate the habit of expositional listening by listening to the sermon throughout the week and then acting upon it. Don’t let the Sunday sermon become a one-time event that fades from memory as soon as it is over (James 1:22-25). Choose one or two particular applications from the Scripture and prayerfully put it into practice over the coming week. If your church has an audio ministry or a website that posts recent summaries, take advantage of these opportunities to feed your soul at the push of a button or the click of a mouse. With your pastor’s support, establish small groups that review and apply the sermons. Or, use the sermons and your notes as a resource in one-on-one discipleship relationships. I know of several families that have a regular sermon review time as their Sunday evening family devotional. There are a hundred ways to keep the sermon alive in your spiritual life by reviewing God’s word throughout the week. Be creative. It is well worth the planning.5. Develop the habit of addressing any questions about the text itself. Jonathan Edwards resolved that he would never let a day end before he had answered any questions that troubled him or sprang to mind while he was studying the Scripture.2 How healthy would our churches be if members dedicated themselves to studying the Scripture with that kind of intentional effort and resolve? One way to begin is to follow up with your pastor, elders, or other teachers in the church about questions triggered by the text. Moreover, don’t be passive in your private study; seek answers by searching the Scripture yourself and by talking with accountability partners or small groups. But don’t forget that the pastor has likely spent more time thinking about that passage than most and is there to feed you God’s word. Follow up the sermon with questions and comments that would be an encouragement to your pastor and a blessing to your soul.
6. Cultivate humility. As you dig into God’s word, listening for His voice, you will no doubt begin to grow and discover many wonderful treasures. But as you grow, do not become a “professional sermon listener” who is always hearing but never learning. Beware of false knowledge that “puffs up” (I Cor. 1:8; Col. 2:18) and tends to cause strife and dissension. Mortify any tendencies toward pride, condemning others, and critical nit-picking. Instead, seek to meet Jesus each time you come to the Scripture; gather from the Word fuel for all-of-life worship. Instead of exalting ourselves, let us remember the Apostle Peter’s words: “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that He may lift you up in due time” (I Pet. 5:6).
It is hearing the message and the word of God that leads to saving faith (Rom. 10:17). Church members are healthy when they give themselves to hearing this message as a regular discipline. Expositional listening promotes such health for individual members and entire churches.
What is “expositional listening”?The first and most important mark of a healthy church is expositional preaching. “Expositional preaching is not simply producing a verbal commentary on some passage of Scripture. Rather, expositional preaching is that preaching which takes for the main point of a sermon the point of a particular passage of Scripture.”1 If churches are to be healthy then pastors and teachers must be committed to discovering the meaning of Scripture and allowing that meaning to drive their agenda with their congregations.
There is an important corollary for every member of a local church. Just as the pastor’s preaching agenda is to be determined by the meaning of Scripture, so too must the listening agenda of the Christian be driven by the meaning of Scripture. What we are listening for when the Word is preached is not primarily “practical how-to advice,” though Scripture teaches us much about everyday matters. Nor should we listen for messages and ideas that bolster our self-esteem or that rouse us for political and social causes. Rather, as members of Christian churches we are listening for the voice and message of God as revealed in His word. We are listening to hear God speak to us the things He has in His omniscient love written for His glory and our blessing. Listening for the meaning of a passage of Scripture, and accepting that meaning as the main idea to be grasped for our personal and corporate lives as Christians, is what we mean by “expositional listening.”
What are the benefits of expositional listening?The first benefit of expositional listening is that it cultivates a hunger for God’s word. As we tune our ears to the style of preaching that takes as its main points the primary meaning of a particular passage of Scripture, we grow accustomed to listening to God. We become fluent in the language of Zion and conversant with its themes. His word/voice becomes sweet to us (Psalm 119:103-104); and as it does, we are better able to push to the background the many voices that would rival God’s voice for control over our lives. Expositional listening gives us a clear ear with which to hear God.
The second benefit of expositional listening follows from the first. Expositional listening helps us to focus on God’s will and to follow Him. Our agenda becomes secondary. The preacher’s agenda becomes secondary. God’s agenda for His people takes center stage, reorders our priorities, and directs us in the course that most honors Him. The Lord himself proclaimed, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Listening to the voice of Jesus as it is heard in His word is critical to following Him.
Third, expositional listening protects the gospel and our lives from corruption. The Scripture tells us “the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (II Tim. 4:3-4). The failure to listen expositionally has disastrous effects. False teachers enter the church and hinder the gospel, and ultimately, the truth is displaced by myths and falsehoods. Where members cultivate the habit of expositional listening they guard themselves against “itching ears” and they protect the gospel from corruption.
The fourth benefit, then, is that expositional listening encourages faithful pastors. Those men who serve faithfully in the ministry of the word are worthy of double honor (I Tim. 5:17). Little could be more discouraging or dishonoring to such men than a congregation inattentive to the word of God. Faithful men flourish at the fertile reception of the preached word. They are made all the more bold when their people give ear to the Lord’s voice and give evidence of being shaped by it. As church members, we can care for our pastors and teachers and help to prevent unnecessary discouragement and fatigue by cultivating the habit of expositional listening.
Fifth, expositional listening has benefits for the gathered congregation. Repeatedly, the New Testament writers exhort local churches to be unified, to be of one mind. “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (I Cor. 1:10; see also Rom. 12:16; II Cor. 13:11; I Pet. 3:8). As we gather together in our local churches, as we together give ourselves to hearing the voice of God through His preached word, we are shaped into one body. We are united in understanding and purpose. And that unity testifies to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 17:21). But if we listen with our own interests and agendas in mind, if we develop “private interpretations” and idiosyncrasies, we risk shattering that unity, provoking disputes over doubtful matters, and weakening our corporate gospel witness.How can church members cultivate the habit of expositional listening?Well, if expositional listening is so vital to the health of individual church members and the church as a whole, how does a person form such a habit? At least six practical ideas can foster more attentive listening to God’s word.
1. Meditate on the sermon passage during your quiet time. Several days before the sermon is preached, ask the pastor what passage of Scripture he plans to preach the following Sunday. Encourage the preacher by letting him know that you’ll be praying for his preparation and preparing to listen to the sermon. Throughout the week, outline the text in your own quiet time and use it to inform your prayer life. Learning to outline Scripture is a wonderful way of digging out and exposing the meaning of a passage. You can then use your outline as a listening aid; compare it to the preacher’s outline for new insights you missed in your own study.
2. Invest in a good set of commentaries. Add to your quiet times some of the greatest minds in Christian history. Study the Bible with John Calvin or Augustine or Martin Lloyd-Jones by purchasing commentaries on books of the Bible as you read and study through them. If your pastor is preaching through John’s Gospel, pick up D.A. Carson’s or James Montgomery Boice’s commentary on John. Let these scholars and pastors help you hear God’s word with a clear ear and discover its rich meaning. The Bible Speaks Today commentary series is an excellent starting place for those wanting to build a library of good commentaries. Also, you might want to purchase an Old Testament and New Testament commentary survey to help you sort through the range of commentary options available. Tremper Longman’s Old Testament Commentary Survey and D.A. Carson’s New Testament Commentary Survey (both co-published by Baker and IVP) are excellent resources. 3. Talk and pray with friends about the sermon after church. Instead of rushing off after the service is over, or talking about the latest news or sporting event, develop the habit of talking about the sermon with people after church. Start spiritual conversations by asking, “How did the Scripture challenge or speak to you today?” Or, “What about God’s character most surprised or encouraged you?” Encourage others by sharing things you learned about God and His word during the sermon. Make particular note of how your thinking has changed because of the meaning of Scripture itself. And pray with others that God would keep the congregation from becoming “dull of hearing,” that He would bless the congregation with an increasingly strong desire for the “solid food” of His word (Isaiah 6:9,10; Heb. 5:11-14).
4. Listen to and act on the sermon throughout the week. We can cultivate the habit of expositional listening by listening to the sermon throughout the week and then acting upon it. Don’t let the Sunday sermon become a one-time event that fades from memory as soon as it is over (James 1:22-25). Choose one or two particular applications from the Scripture and prayerfully put it into practice over the coming week. If your church has an audio ministry or a website that posts recent summaries, take advantage of these opportunities to feed your soul at the push of a button or the click of a mouse. With your pastor’s support, establish small groups that review and apply the sermons. Or, use the sermons and your notes as a resource in one-on-one discipleship relationships. I know of several families that have a regular sermon review time as their Sunday evening family devotional. There are a hundred ways to keep the sermon alive in your spiritual life by reviewing God’s word throughout the week. Be creative. It is well worth the planning.5. Develop the habit of addressing any questions about the text itself. Jonathan Edwards resolved that he would never let a day end before he had answered any questions that troubled him or sprang to mind while he was studying the Scripture.2 How healthy would our churches be if members dedicated themselves to studying the Scripture with that kind of intentional effort and resolve? One way to begin is to follow up with your pastor, elders, or other teachers in the church about questions triggered by the text. Moreover, don’t be passive in your private study; seek answers by searching the Scripture yourself and by talking with accountability partners or small groups. But don’t forget that the pastor has likely spent more time thinking about that passage than most and is there to feed you God’s word. Follow up the sermon with questions and comments that would be an encouragement to your pastor and a blessing to your soul.
6. Cultivate humility. As you dig into God’s word, listening for His voice, you will no doubt begin to grow and discover many wonderful treasures. But as you grow, do not become a “professional sermon listener” who is always hearing but never learning. Beware of false knowledge that “puffs up” (I Cor. 1:8; Col. 2:18) and tends to cause strife and dissension. Mortify any tendencies toward pride, condemning others, and critical nit-picking. Instead, seek to meet Jesus each time you come to the Scripture; gather from the Word fuel for all-of-life worship. Instead of exalting ourselves, let us remember the Apostle Peter’s words: “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that He may lift you up in due time” (I Pet. 5:6).
It is hearing the message and the word of God that leads to saving faith (Rom. 10:17). Church members are healthy when they give themselves to hearing this message as a regular discipline. Expositional listening promotes such health for individual members and entire churches.
When, Why & Where To Draw Boundaries By Wayne Grudem
Christian groups usually have doctrinal statements that define the "boundaries" of their organizations. How can they know whether to add new topics to their doctrinal statements from time to time? This is the question of drawing new boundaries. Four questions come to mind:
WHY DRAW BOUNDARIES AT ALL?
Why should Christian organizations draw boundaries at all? There are several reasons.
1. False Teaching Harms the Church
False teaching harms the church. In a day marked by much pluralism and subjectivism, the destructiveness of false teaching needs to be remembered. In the epistles of the New Testament, sound doctrine is taught again and again, and error is corrected (Gal 1:12; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 6:4-5). Do any of us have the same sober apprehension of the destructiveness of false doctrine that the New Testament apostles had?
2. False Teaching Spreads
If false teaching is not stopped, it spreads and does more damage. In 2 Timothy 2:17-18, Paul pictures false teachers quietly working their influence among unsuspecting church members, spreading silently and invisibly like "gangrene." Once a church or Christian organization allows some vocal advocate of a false teaching to have a position of influence, those people become precedents by which others can be allowed in.
3. False Teaching Causes Controversy and Distracts
If false teaching is not stopped, we will waste time and energy in endless controversies rather than doing valuable kingdom work. When Paul urged his readers to "avoid controversies," he meant the fruitless, endless controversies that hinder us from doing more productive ministry. There comes a point when it is no longer wise for a church to continue arguing over certain controversies. They should come to a decision and go on to productive kingdom work.
4. Jesus Holds Us Responsible
Jesus and the New Testament authors hold church leaders responsible for silencing false teaching within the church, and they expect that those in authority will remove the platform that these false teachers have (See Tit. 1:10-11; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Most sobering are Jesus’ rebukes against churches that tolerated the presence of false teachers. He rebuked the church at Pergamum merely for having among them people who held to certain false teachings. (Rev 2.14)
WHY DRAW NEW BOUNDARIES?
Why should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries? When I speak of "new boundaries," I do not mean boundaries that would make an organization fundamentally different from what it was from its beginning. Rather, I mean boundaries that for the first time state explicitly what was already believed by the vast majority of the members for many years. "New boundaries" are put into place to keep the organization from becoming something significantly different from what it has been.
This process may be summarized in the following principle: False teaching changes, so old boundaries do not protect against new problems.
In every age, the church has faced new challenges which it was forced to address. In recent years within the evangelical world, several new problems of false doctrine have arisen, and therefore old doctrinal formulations that do not address these questions are inadequate. I am convinced that Christian organizations and denominations will soon need to add new boundaries to protect against these new forms of false teaching.
WHEN SHOULD WE DRAW NEW BOUNDARIES?
When should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries? Evangelical organizations should draw new boundaries after a false teaching has become a significant problem, but before the false teaching does great harm, and before it has a large following entrenched in the organization.
It is impractical and impossible to rule out doctrinal errors before they appear. Problems must be dealt with after they arise, and after they have become a significant problem for the church. Yet we cannot wait too long to exclude a false teaching, for if we do, it will gain influence and may soon become entrenched in the church or organization.
HOW DO WE DISCERN WHEN NEW BOUNDARIES ARE NEEDED?
How do churches and evangelical organizations discern when new boundaries are needed in doctrinal and ethical matters? This question requires wisdom, judgment, prayer, and discussion on the part of leaders and members in churches and organizations. Here are some questions each church or organization should ask when considering whether to draw a new boundary:
1. Certainty
How sure are we that the teaching is wrong? Have the advocates of this teaching been given a fair hearing? Has there been enough time to reflect on the matter carefully? And is there a growing consensus among God’s people generally that this new teaching cannot be right? I believe God gives to His people a generally reliable "spiritual instinct" about when a particular teaching simply cannot be consistent with Scripture.
2. Effect on Other Doctrines
Will this teaching likely lead to significant erosion in other doctrines? Some doctrines are absolutely important to maintain because of their effect on other doctrines. If we abandon the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, or the deity and humanity of Christ in one person, or the inerrancy of Scripture, or justification by faith alone, many other doctrines will be lost as well.
3. Effect on Personal and Church Life
Will this false teaching bring significant harm to people’s Christian lives, or to the work of the church? The advocacy of homosexuality, for instance, brings significant destructive consequences to people’s lives. Or, to take another example, inclusivism tends quickly to destroy the motivation for evangelism and missions.
4. Historical Precedent
Is this teaching contrary to what the vast majority of the Bible-believing church has held throughout history? Those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture were in the difficult position of saying that the vast majority of God’s people throughout the history of the church were wrong. Open theists have a similarly huge burden, for probably 99.9% of Christian believers throughout history have believed that God knows all future events.
5. Perception of Importance Among God’s People
Is there increasing consensus that this matter is important enough that the false teaching should be explicitly denied in a doctrinal statement? This consideration takes into account the deep spiritual instincts of God’s people, not just regarding the rightness or wrongness of a doctrine, but regarding its importance. Often God’s people will say, "Something fundamental is at stake here. The God this teaching describes is simply not the God of the Bible."
6. Purposes of the Organization
Is the teaching a significant threat to the nature and purposes of the organization? Here I am attempting to take into account the fact that God raises up different organizations for different purposes. Each evangelical organization must ask itself, what things are fundamental to preserving our purpose and identity?
7. Motivations of Advocates
Does it seem that the advocates of this teaching hold it because of a fundamental refusal to be subject to the authority of God’s Word, rather than because of sincerely-held differences of interpretation based on accepted hermeneutical standards? With regard to some specific type of false teaching, after some interaction with one of its responsible advocates, we might ask ourselves, "Deep down inside, is he (or she) just embarrassed by the offense of the cross?" Or we might ask, "Deep down inside, is he embarrassed by the exclusive claims of Christ to be the only way to God?"
On the other hand, to take an example where I think the motivations are good on both sides, we could think about differences among evangelicals over the length of the days of creation in Genesis 1. I do not think that people on either side of this question have any deep refusal in their hearts to be subject to Scripture. Rather, I think people are just weighing various factors and coming to different conclusions on a complex question.
8. Methods of Advocates
Do the advocates of this teaching frequently manifest arrogance, deception, unrighteous anger, slander, and falsehood rather than humility, openness to correction and reason, kindness, and absolute truthfulness? If so, then we have a further indication that what they teach is not the "wisdom from above" that James speaks about (James 3:17-18).
SOME WRONG QUESTIONS TO ASK
There are some questions that should not be part of our consideration in deciding which doctrinal matters to exclude with new boundaries. For example:
"Are the advocates my friends?""Are they nice people?""Will we lose money or members if we exclude them?"
Such questions are grounded in a wrongful fear of man, not in a fear of God and trust in God.
CONCLUSION
We look back with admiration and thanksgiving on those from previous generations who defended many important doctrines of our faith, but with disappointment and shame on those who failed to take a clear stand. Now God has entrusted us with a stewardship in this generation. Now the choice of whether to do something or nothing about false doctrine is up to us.
Why should Christian organizations draw boundaries at all? There are several reasons.
1. False Teaching Harms the Church
False teaching harms the church. In a day marked by much pluralism and subjectivism, the destructiveness of false teaching needs to be remembered. In the epistles of the New Testament, sound doctrine is taught again and again, and error is corrected (Gal 1:12; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 6:4-5). Do any of us have the same sober apprehension of the destructiveness of false doctrine that the New Testament apostles had?
2. False Teaching Spreads
If false teaching is not stopped, it spreads and does more damage. In 2 Timothy 2:17-18, Paul pictures false teachers quietly working their influence among unsuspecting church members, spreading silently and invisibly like "gangrene." Once a church or Christian organization allows some vocal advocate of a false teaching to have a position of influence, those people become precedents by which others can be allowed in.
3. False Teaching Causes Controversy and Distracts
If false teaching is not stopped, we will waste time and energy in endless controversies rather than doing valuable kingdom work. When Paul urged his readers to "avoid controversies," he meant the fruitless, endless controversies that hinder us from doing more productive ministry. There comes a point when it is no longer wise for a church to continue arguing over certain controversies. They should come to a decision and go on to productive kingdom work.
4. Jesus Holds Us Responsible
Jesus and the New Testament authors hold church leaders responsible for silencing false teaching within the church, and they expect that those in authority will remove the platform that these false teachers have (See Tit. 1:10-11; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Most sobering are Jesus’ rebukes against churches that tolerated the presence of false teachers. He rebuked the church at Pergamum merely for having among them people who held to certain false teachings. (Rev 2.14)
WHY DRAW NEW BOUNDARIES?
Why should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries? When I speak of "new boundaries," I do not mean boundaries that would make an organization fundamentally different from what it was from its beginning. Rather, I mean boundaries that for the first time state explicitly what was already believed by the vast majority of the members for many years. "New boundaries" are put into place to keep the organization from becoming something significantly different from what it has been.
This process may be summarized in the following principle: False teaching changes, so old boundaries do not protect against new problems.
In every age, the church has faced new challenges which it was forced to address. In recent years within the evangelical world, several new problems of false doctrine have arisen, and therefore old doctrinal formulations that do not address these questions are inadequate. I am convinced that Christian organizations and denominations will soon need to add new boundaries to protect against these new forms of false teaching.
WHEN SHOULD WE DRAW NEW BOUNDARIES?
When should evangelical organizations draw new boundaries? Evangelical organizations should draw new boundaries after a false teaching has become a significant problem, but before the false teaching does great harm, and before it has a large following entrenched in the organization.
It is impractical and impossible to rule out doctrinal errors before they appear. Problems must be dealt with after they arise, and after they have become a significant problem for the church. Yet we cannot wait too long to exclude a false teaching, for if we do, it will gain influence and may soon become entrenched in the church or organization.
HOW DO WE DISCERN WHEN NEW BOUNDARIES ARE NEEDED?
How do churches and evangelical organizations discern when new boundaries are needed in doctrinal and ethical matters? This question requires wisdom, judgment, prayer, and discussion on the part of leaders and members in churches and organizations. Here are some questions each church or organization should ask when considering whether to draw a new boundary:
1. Certainty
How sure are we that the teaching is wrong? Have the advocates of this teaching been given a fair hearing? Has there been enough time to reflect on the matter carefully? And is there a growing consensus among God’s people generally that this new teaching cannot be right? I believe God gives to His people a generally reliable "spiritual instinct" about when a particular teaching simply cannot be consistent with Scripture.
2. Effect on Other Doctrines
Will this teaching likely lead to significant erosion in other doctrines? Some doctrines are absolutely important to maintain because of their effect on other doctrines. If we abandon the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, or the deity and humanity of Christ in one person, or the inerrancy of Scripture, or justification by faith alone, many other doctrines will be lost as well.
3. Effect on Personal and Church Life
Will this false teaching bring significant harm to people’s Christian lives, or to the work of the church? The advocacy of homosexuality, for instance, brings significant destructive consequences to people’s lives. Or, to take another example, inclusivism tends quickly to destroy the motivation for evangelism and missions.
4. Historical Precedent
Is this teaching contrary to what the vast majority of the Bible-believing church has held throughout history? Those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture were in the difficult position of saying that the vast majority of God’s people throughout the history of the church were wrong. Open theists have a similarly huge burden, for probably 99.9% of Christian believers throughout history have believed that God knows all future events.
5. Perception of Importance Among God’s People
Is there increasing consensus that this matter is important enough that the false teaching should be explicitly denied in a doctrinal statement? This consideration takes into account the deep spiritual instincts of God’s people, not just regarding the rightness or wrongness of a doctrine, but regarding its importance. Often God’s people will say, "Something fundamental is at stake here. The God this teaching describes is simply not the God of the Bible."
6. Purposes of the Organization
Is the teaching a significant threat to the nature and purposes of the organization? Here I am attempting to take into account the fact that God raises up different organizations for different purposes. Each evangelical organization must ask itself, what things are fundamental to preserving our purpose and identity?
7. Motivations of Advocates
Does it seem that the advocates of this teaching hold it because of a fundamental refusal to be subject to the authority of God’s Word, rather than because of sincerely-held differences of interpretation based on accepted hermeneutical standards? With regard to some specific type of false teaching, after some interaction with one of its responsible advocates, we might ask ourselves, "Deep down inside, is he (or she) just embarrassed by the offense of the cross?" Or we might ask, "Deep down inside, is he embarrassed by the exclusive claims of Christ to be the only way to God?"
On the other hand, to take an example where I think the motivations are good on both sides, we could think about differences among evangelicals over the length of the days of creation in Genesis 1. I do not think that people on either side of this question have any deep refusal in their hearts to be subject to Scripture. Rather, I think people are just weighing various factors and coming to different conclusions on a complex question.
8. Methods of Advocates
Do the advocates of this teaching frequently manifest arrogance, deception, unrighteous anger, slander, and falsehood rather than humility, openness to correction and reason, kindness, and absolute truthfulness? If so, then we have a further indication that what they teach is not the "wisdom from above" that James speaks about (James 3:17-18).
SOME WRONG QUESTIONS TO ASK
There are some questions that should not be part of our consideration in deciding which doctrinal matters to exclude with new boundaries. For example:
"Are the advocates my friends?""Are they nice people?""Will we lose money or members if we exclude them?"
Such questions are grounded in a wrongful fear of man, not in a fear of God and trust in God.
CONCLUSION
We look back with admiration and thanksgiving on those from previous generations who defended many important doctrines of our faith, but with disappointment and shame on those who failed to take a clear stand. Now God has entrusted us with a stewardship in this generation. Now the choice of whether to do something or nothing about false doctrine is up to us.
Free Will or the Bondage of the Will: Definitions are Critical by Bob DeWaay
“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16)
“Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.” (Psalm 135:6)
Questions from readers prompt the writing of many CIC articles. The most frequently asked question that I have not addressed until now concerns free will. I thoroughly researched this topic nearly ten years ago. The reason for the delay is the complexity of the topic. Given, however, that the question continues to be asked, I shall address it now.
Dear readers, be warned in advance that the irreducible complexity of the topic will make this article difficult for many to follow. If you are a new reader, please be patient, this is not standard fare on these pages. To help those who have difficulty digesting philosophical arguments, I have provided summary statements at the end of sections. Feel free to skip forward to those summary statements if you see fit.
Please realize that free will is more of a philosophical concept than a theological one, though it has theological implications. However, I often see well meaning Christians misled by certain teachers who make their own understanding of free will a test for orthodoxy. I think this is unfortunate and confusing. If the following discussion does nothing else, it will show you that free will is not the simple solution to many important theological issues that many people think it is.
Two Definitions
I will be discussing two alternative definitions of free will. The first is the typical definition demanded by Arminians (those who believe that a free will choice to believe brings about salvation): “The ability to choose between options, either of which could be actualized by the act of choosing.” The second definition was proposed by Jonathan Edwards: “The ability to choose as one pleases.” I will explain these in the pages that follow and defend the second one. In so doing I will discuss several problems that arise in seeking to understand free will.
Key Problems with Free will
Problem 1 – The Bible Does Not Directly Address Free will
Free will is assumed from passages that teach human responsibility.
As we begin our discussion we confront our most important problem: free will is never directly addressed in the Bible. Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed. The answer was never that God was committed to the principle of free will and determined that allowing evil was a necessary by-product of free will.1 The will of humans is discussed in the Bible and the New Testament has a Greek word for it, but its relative freedom of choice is not directly discussed. To derive our understanding we have to go by implications from other Scriptures.
One lady wrote a long letter rebuking me for not teaching free will to her satisfaction. I asked her to provide scriptures that teach free will so I could discuss the concept with her. She sent a long list of scriptures on human responsibility. Her assumption was that if we are responsible we must have free choice in the matter. 2 Many people think the same way.
If we say that in order for a person to be responsible, that person must be perfectly able to make correct choices to obey God—it is the same as rejecting the teaching of the Bible. The Bible teaches that humans are both responsible for their sin and in bondage to their sin. It teaches that God’s grace is necessary to deliver us from sin. If man were free to perfectly choose obedience, then someone other than Christ could have lived a sinless life and escape judgment based on human merit. That idea denies Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:9-18. Also, Paul teaches in Galatians 3 that the command to obey all of the Law or be cursed proves that those who are under the Law are cursed. Logically, if people had the ability to obey the Law perfectly, then it would not follow that being under the Law insured that they would be cursed. But Paul said that it did. This provides a fatal counterexample to any universal claim that responsibility implies ability.
Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist championed the idea that Biblical passages about man’s moral responsibility imply complete ability to perfectly obey God. Finney taught perfectionism and created a heretical system of theology called “moral government.” The following citation shows Finney’s belief in human ability as a “first truth” of reason:
Moral agency implies the possession of free will. By free-will is intended the power of choosing, or refusing to choose, in every instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free-will implies the power of originating and deciding our own choices, and of exercising our own sovereignty, in every instance of choice upon moral questions of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral obligation. That man cannot be under a moral obligation to perform an absolute impossibility is a first truth of reason. But man’s causality, his whole power of causality to perform or do anything, lies in his will. 3
This sounds logical to the unregenerate mind; but it is not Biblical. Finney’s position is a reiteration of the Pelagian heresy. It goes so far in the direction of human ability that even Rome anathematized it at Trent: “If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty: let him be anathema.”4 Rome also anathematized Luther’s opposite position on this, the bondage of the will: “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan: let him be anathema.”5 Roman Catholic theology is semi-Pelagian, which it viewed as middle ground. That means Rome taught “prevenient grace”: “If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.”6
Summary StatementLet me summarize the three basic positions on the will of man in relationship to ability to choose to obey God: 1) Pelagianism like that of Finney teaches that humans are fully able to obey God without any special work of grace. The mere presence of a command from God, they say, requires the reality of free will ability to comply. 2) Semi-Pelagians teach that without prevenient grace, man would not be able to respond freely to the call to believe; but that God has already provided such grace to all humans. “Prevenient” is an old English term that means “to go before.” The semi-Pelagian view is also synergistic—meaning that salvation and sanctification are a cooperative effort between God and man. 3) Luther and the other reformers taught the bondage of the will. This position, anathematized by Rome in several canons on justification, was that all fallen sinners are in bondage to their own sin so much so that they will not submit to God without a prior sovereign work of God’s grace. This became the Reformation doctrine of “grace alone,” also called “monergism.” By this thinking salvation is an act of God alone. I agree with Luther on this matter.
This Topic is Complex
Why is this topic so complex? It is complex because the relative freedom or bondage of the will is different for different types of people addressed in the Bible. For example, the freedom of will that Adam and Eve had before the Fall is surely different from the freedom or lack thereof experienced by people born with a sin nature after the Fall.7 Also, the relative freedom of will experienced by a regenerate person differs from an unregenerate sinner. Furthermore, consider the uniqueness of freedom for the redeemed in heaven. Clearly these differences are important to any discussion of the freedom or bondage of the will as the case may be. Whatever definition of free will we defend should account for these cases.
Most free will theology is based on philosophical considerations that are imported to the discussion from outside the Bible. Since the Bible does not directly discuss the meaning of “free will,” the concept must be derived from passages about human bondage to sin and human responsibility and culpability before the Law of God. You will see this as we examine literature on the topic. This complexity is why I find simplistic demands for belief in “free will” inappropriate. Those who make these demands have not provided enough information to explain what we are required to believe to be considered orthodox in their eyes.
Problem #2 Defining Free will
It might be surprising to many that defining free will is controversial. Jonathan Edwards wrote a profound work on this subject called: A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame.”8 Though very laborious reading, it is the best material I have found on this issue. While in seminary I spent a lot of time digesting Edward’s arguments so that I might understand the issue of the relative freedom of the human will. What follows contains some of the fruits of that effort.
I will provide an overview of Edward’s reasoning and describe the process he used to define free will. He begins by defining an act of the will: “The faculty of the will is that faculty or power, or principle of minds, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.”9 Edward’s key premise is this: “A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will.”10 These desires are determined by a man’s nature. After contemplating Edwards’ writings on this, I decided that I agree with him.
This brings us to Edward’s next consideration, the cause of acts of the will. Are acts of the human will caused or uncaused? Philosophers often discuss this topic. The short answer is that the only uncaused being or thing in the universe is God. Everything else has a previous cause. To argue that acts of the will are uncaused, says Edwards, is absurd. Then he deals with the challenge that acts of the will are self-caused—which some have asserted. In reality the soul determines acts of the will.11 However, when one introduces the idea of self-determined acts of the will, one just pushes the problem further back. Previous acts of the will determine the conditions for future acts of the will. This creates an infinite regress that must go back to some initial uncaused cause. Writes Edwards, “But if that first volition is not determined by a preceding act of the will, then that act is not determined by the will and is not free in the Arminian notion of freedom, which consists in the will’s self-determination.”12 Edwards concludes, “Thus, this Arminian notion of liberty of the will, consisting in the will’s self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shouts itself wholly out of the world.”13 Infinite regresses are always problematic.
Summary StatementTo summarize, those who assert absolute self-determining freedom of the will have serious problems. Dependent human beings, coming into the world with their own desires and inclinations, will not choose contrary to their own natures. For example, a person who utterly loathes beef liver (for whatever reason) will not choose to eat it. Whatever it is about that person’s nature that makes him hate liver, also causes him to choose not to eat it. The human will does not show up out of nowhere, uncaused, sovereign (to use Finney’s term for it) and fully capable of self-determination. Whatever makes a person the way he is causes him to choose as he does.
To further summarize, asserting that acts of the will are self-caused creates an infinite regress to some uncaused beginning. When Edwards says that this uncaused beginning defeats the Arminian definition, he means that their definition requires that all acts of the will are self-caused. But in reality, there is a chain of causes that has to start somewhere and that beginning would be somewhere other than in the will itself. This shows that their definition does not work. Edwards demolishes the idea of self-caused acts of the will and to my thinking does so validly.
Further Discussion of Self-determination
Norman Geisler argues for self-determination when he states: “Sooner or later those proposing this argument will have to admit that a free act is a self-determined act that is not caused by another.”14 Geisler claims to resolve the problem by saying a person is the cause of his acts of the will. This view grants sinners who are dependent of something outside of themselves (God) for their own existence the power of self-determination through choices that are somehow disconnected from their own nature and their previous choices. Geisler includes in his doctrine of self-determination, “the ability to choose the opposite.”15 This ability is essential to the typical Arminian definition of free will and was refuted by Edwards. Later we will show that this definition does not fit God, the holy angels, or the redeemed in heaven; all of whom we know to be free.
Edwards fully anticipated what he called “evasions” such as those offered by Geisler.16 Having established that acts of the will are choices, and these choices arise from the human soul, Edwards argues that they are still caused, not uncaused. Edwards wrote, “To say it is caused, influenced and determined by something and yet not determined by any thing antecedent, either in order of time or nature, is a contradiction.”17 Pushing the cause back from the will to the moral agent does not resolve the problem. What causes the moral agent to choose as he does? Geisler asserts full self-determination—the person is the sole cause of his own choices. This would mean that humans have the ability to escape from their own natures, desires, consequences of previous choices, and every other influence that causes them to choose as they do and with sovereign will-power make self-determined choices.
In my opinion, Geisler is using a semantic slight of hand to try to assert at one and the same time that human choices are caused and uncaused. Edwards refuted those who did the same in his day.18 Geisler claimed that the human soul being the cause of free choices was the only cause necessary; so did a writer in Edward’s day. Here is Edward’s rebuttal: “The activity of the soul may enable it to be the cause of effects; but it does not at all enable or help it be the subject of effects that have no cause, which is the thing this author supposes concerning acts of the will.”19 The soul making a choice is not pristine (sovereignly free to choose any option whatsoever without bias, reason or motivation) and unaffected previous causes.
Luther also argued strongly against the type of philosophy espoused by Geisler in our day and others in Luther’s day:
[T]hat is, a man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it.20
Luther’s view was central to the Reformation and the very view anathematized by Trent. Geisler’s apparently semi-Pelagian view is very much like Rome’s. Geisler also asserts synergism (that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man).21 This is also a rejection of a key doctrine of the Reformation and certainly is a rejection of “grace alone.” Luther wrote, “And hence it follows, that ‘Free-will,’ without the grace of God is, absolutely, not FREE; but, immutably, the servant and bond-slave of evil; because, it cannot turn itself unto good.”22 I agree with Luther and Edwards that choices are caused by the nature and desires of the person choosing. Only God’s grace can change that, not some supposed principle of self-determination.
Summary StatementThe soul of the person determines what the person chooses. A person chooses according to what appears the most desirable. What appears most desirable is determined by the nature of the person holding the desires. When Norman Geisler and other Arminians23 claim that choices are self-determined and need no other cause, they are dissociating the choice from the nature of the person making it. However, the “self” that chooses is not sovereign and self-caused, only God is that. The reason Arminians argue for self-determination and choices that are self-caused is that they want to argue that fallen sinners are free to choose to obey God in spite of their sin nature. Luther and Edwards show that the sinner chooses sin because it is his nature to do so.
More on Defining Free will
We still need further discussion about the definition of free will. Edwards next dealt with the Arminian objection that there can be a state of indifference in the soul out of which the will is able to sovereignly choose. Edwards dealt with that by pointing out that if the will does make a choice, at that point of choice it cannot be called “indifferent.” Edwards wrote, “Choice and preference can no more be in a state of indifference, than motion can be in a state of rest, or than the preponderation of the scale of a balance can be in a state of equilibrium.”24 He called a choice made out of total indifference a “contradiction” and “absurdity,” thus rejecting a definition proposed by some Arminians in his day.25
Edwards, after lengthy argumentation, offers a definition of an act of the will: “[E]very act of the will is some way connected with the understanding, and is as the greatest apparent good is, in the manner which has already been explained; namely, that the soul always wills or chooses that which, in the present view of the mind, considered in the whole of that view, and all that belongs to it, appears most agreeable.”26 Citing Arminian objections to this principle which seek to disassociate acts of the will from the understanding in order to make them fully “free,” Edwards charges them with inconsistency:
And if so, in vain are all the applications to the understanding, in order to induce to any free virtuous act; and so in vain are all instructions, counsels, invitations, expostulations, and all arguments and persuasives whatsoever; for these are but applications to the understanding, and a clear and lively exhibition of the objects of choice to the mind’s view. But if, after all, the will must be self-determined, and independent on the understanding, to what purpose are things thus represented to the understanding, in order to determine the choice.27
So if total, undetermined, sovereign freedom of choice, disconnected from previous causes or states of the soul is the great good of the universe as asserted by some Arminians -- then why try to convince people to change their minds and make different choices? Doing so shows a belief that the state of a person’s mind or soul determines their choices, which is the very doctrine that Edwards asserted and Arminians reject.
Having established that an uncaused act of the will is impossible and that pushing the cause back to the human soul does not alleviate the problem, Edwards concludes: “And as it is in a manner self-evident, that there can be no act of will, choice, or preference of the mind, without some motive or inducement, something in the mind’s view, which it aims at, seeks, inclines to, and goes after; so it is most manifest, there is no such liberty in the universe as Arminians insist on; nor any such thing possible or conceivable.”28
Summary StatementTo summarize Edward’s argument thus far: 1) All acts of the will have causes. 2) Acts of the will arise from the human soul according to its own desires and nature. 3) Acts of the will are determined by whatever appears most desirous at the moment by the person choosing.
By the Arminian Definition of Freedom, God Would Not Be Free
A key problem with the type of definition of freedom espoused by theologians like Norm Geisler in our day, and others in Edwards’ day, is that it cannot apply to God Himself and other moral agents such as holy angels and the redeemed in heaven. This is a problem because the definition they propose demands the ability to choose the contrary—when there is such a choice between options, either one could be actualized. They argue for this definition on this basis: it is the only definition that makes moral agents praiseworthy or blameworthy (remember that Edwards used the terms “praise and blame” in his long title). Why do they make this claim? They assume that if a moral agent had no option but to do good or to do evil, that agent could not be praised or blamed for what exists as a matter of necessity. They would consider that as foolish as blaming a leopard for having spots.
Again, Edwards takes on this argument in a full and compelling manner. The simple form of Edwards’ rebuttal is that God Himself, because of His own perfect, holy and virtuous nature, cannot be anything but holy and just. The Bible says “God cannot lie.”29 Since the Arminian definition of freedom requires the real option of choosing the contrary, God is not “free” because His nature determines that He must be truthful. Likewise, if this definition were to hold, God would not be praiseworthy for His holy virtues because the real possibility of choosing and actualizing the contrary does not exist for God.
I cannot resist the opportunity to share with my readers some vintage Edwards, including his aversion to periods:
So that, putting these things together, the infinitely holy God, who always used to be esteemed by God’s people not only virtuous, but a Being in whom is all possible virtue, and every virtue in the most absolute purity and perfection, and in infinitely greater brightness and amiableness than in any creature: the most perfect pattern of virtue, and the fountain from whom all others, virtue is but as beams from the sun; and who has been supposed to be, on the account of his virtue and holiness, infinitely more worthy to be esteemed, loved, honored, admired, commended, extolled, and praised, than any creature: and he who is thus every where represented in Scripture; I say, this Being, according to this notion of Dr. Whithy, and other Arminians, has no virtue at all: virtue, when ascribed to him, is but an empty name; and he is deserving of no commendation or praise; because he is under necessity, he cannot avoid being holy and good as he is; therefore no thanks to him for it.30
Since this common Arminian definition of freedom logically leads to an absurdity (according to Edwards) it must be rejected.
It could be argued that the term “freedom” when predicated of God is not the same as when predicated of a human being. This, of course, is true of other attributes of God. When it is said that God is holy, it is not univocally the same as saying an angel is holy, or a person who is saved is holy. But there is a valid analogical relationship that still holds. God as being God, is holy according to his order of being; holy angels, though created and deriving their holiness from God, nevertheless are holy as is fitting for their order of being.
Therefore, freedom that a person has is analogically related to freedom that God has. For example, consider the redeemed in heaven. We know that the redeemed in heaven are free from sin. Let us apply the Arminian definition of freedom of the will to the redeemed in heaven. Are they fully able to choose between options, either of which could be actualized in reality? Being informed by the Bible that the redeemed shall have the type of holiness necessary for living perfectly in God’s presence for all eternity, we have to answer that they will not have the freedom to choose the contrary. There is no real chance the redeemed in heaven will ever choose to sin. This being the case, the aforementioned definition of freedom would not apply to the redeemed in heaven either.
Edwards also argued that if it is countered that God is indeed worthy of praise though He is necessarily holy and upright, but that humans have to make themselves praiseworthy through free choices, then man has a greater claim to esteem and commendation than God does.31 This too is absurd. Edwards puts forth many similar examples and arguments, including the holiness of Christ in His incarnation, to show that the Arminian definition of free will is untenable and fails to account for what we know to be true from the Scriptures. He also deals with the obverse of this: that sinners must be able to choose not to sin if they are to be blamed for their own evil. He gives many examples from the Scripture that sinners such as Judas who are given over to sin through the judgment of reprobation, are nevertheless blameworthy for their sinful condition.32
Luther argued that the only truly free being in the universe is God. Wrote Luther, “It now then follows, that free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone ‘doth, (as the Psalm sings), what He will in Heaven and earth.’”33 Most certainly we need a definition of free will that applies to the one truly free being in the universe!
D. A. Carson claims that a definition of free will that includes the ability to actualize the contrary possibility is not compatible with God’s sovereignty. Carson writes, “If its [free will’s] essence is the absolute power to contrary, a logical contradiction is entailed when this absolute power to contrary is coupled with a divine providence which in some sense foreordains all things with certainty.”34 Carson concludes that the definition that requires the “absolute power to the contrary” cannot be maintained in light of the Biblical material he discusses.35
Summary StatementI will not labor any longer over this point that Edwards makes so well. The definition of freedom of the will that requires the real ability to choose the contrary and the possibility of that contrary choice being actualized fails to account for what is stated in the Bible. If a reprobate sinner is powerless to choose holiness and virtue, his sin is still blameworthy. If the righteous in heaven have no desire or opportunity to choose sin and evil, their holy estate is still praiseworthy. The same goes for God Himself and the holy angels. If Satan has neither desire, opportunity, nor ability to choose good and virtue, Satan is still blameworthy for his evil. If humans born after the nature of Adam had no opportunity to choose to be born sinless, they are nevertheless blameworthy for their sin. I make these statements in light of what we know the Bible teaches. Since the definition of freedom that Arminians typically assert fails to account for these realities, the definition must be rejected.
A Simple Alternative
Edward’s proposed a most simple solution to this debate. He proposed a simple definition of freedom: “the ability to do as one pleases.” He states this fact: “The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom and liberty, in common speech, is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases.” He pointed out the obvious fact that “freedom” is something a person who has a will has, not something the will itself has: “That which has the power of volition or choice, is the man or the soul, and not the power of volition itself.” So if a person has the opportunity to choose whatever seems best to him, he is thereby freely exercising his volition.
Summary StatementEdwards’ simple definition of freedom of the will is the ability to choose as one pleases. This definition, along with the definition that a person chooses according to his greatest desire at the moment, resolves the many problems that the Arminian definition created. Now, God is free because He freely chooses all that is holy and virtuous from His perfectly holy nature. The same goes for holy angels and the redeemed in heaven. Likewise all other moral agents are free to choose as they see fit, including the wicked.
The Underlying Concern
Why would anyone reject this simple solution? The answer lies in certain theological priorities. If this definition is accepted, then it would follow that no sinner would ever choose to come to God on His terms: “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7, 8). If this be true, then Luther’s position against Rome that salvation is fully an act of God is true because the dead sinner is not about to cooperate in his own salvation. This idea is as repulsive to many evangelicals today as it was to the Roman Catholic Church when Luther first taught it. But what really matters is what the Bible says.
Implications
Free will is not the simple answer to important theological questions that people think it is. It raises more questions and complications than it answers. I set about to study this matter in great detail over ten years ago. I read the best material I could find, much of it sited in this article. The bottom line for me is that we need to accept what the Bible teaches and not try to escape from clear Biblical passages through philosophical speculation. I am not minimizing the sincere desire people have to answer the difficult question about God’s relationship to time, evil, and human choices. But I am saying that outside of Divine revelation in Scripture there are true mysteries.
People, for example, want to know why Adam and Eve sinned. The doctrine of free will that many cherish is deemed the obvious answer. I would affirm that Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel against God. Some suggest that this proves God’s ultimate commitment to the principle of self-determination. But the Bible does not teach that God is committed to a principle of creaturely self-determination that explains the whole history of sin and redemption. If God left all sinners the full power of self-determination, then all would be damned. We need to be delivered by God out of our self-determined course on the road to hell.
But, back to the question, why did Adam and Eve sin? Let’s push the question back further. Why did God allow the Serpent into the Garden? Why did not God utterly destroy Satan when he first rebelled? The Bible does not say. Whatever is not revealed is a mystery, and the answers to the last two of these questions are mysteries.
How could it be that Adam and Eve, being created good by a good God, chose to do evil? Doesn’t that violate Edward’s definition of choosing what one desires? The real question from Edwards’ perspective would be: Where did Adam and Eve get such a desire, being innocent? They obviously had the desire or they would not have acted on it. Since the Bible only explains this in terms of the Serpent enticing Eve to question God’s word, we must accept that answer. What is not revealed is rightly described as “mystery.”
Some argue that if God could have kept Adam and Eve from sinning He would be morally obligated to do so. He did not, so obviously God was incapable of keeping Adam and Eve from sinning because if He did He would have violated the right of self-determination of the creature. Do you realize how many unbiblical presumptions this thinking involves? Where does the Bible say God is morally obligated to keep His creatures from sinning if He has the power to do so? That is a philosophical premise that is not taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible teach that God has obligated Himself to the principle of the creature’s right to self-determination? That is a philosophical premise that is not taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible assert that evil is due to some inability in God to prevent it? It does not; that is philosophical speculation not taught in Scripture.
I am not saying that it is wrong to ask philosophical questions and to seek their answers. I am saying that it is wrong to demand that other Christians believe what one teaches under pains of being declared heretical or unbiblical based on philosophical questions not raised or answered in Scripture. That is precisely what prompted me to write this article. At the very least, consider what the Bible teaches:
Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Would it not be kind and charitable to allow Christians to literarily believe what this says without being forced to redefine it based on someone’s philosophical speculations?
Conclusion
I share this discussion to further demonstrate how exceedingly complex the discussion of free will is when engaged in from a philosophical perspective. I want to emphasize again, this is a philosophical discussion about matters that the Biblical writers appeared to be unconcerned about. Secular writers and philosophers often address the issue of free will. For example, consider the following from Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist who wrote A Brief History of Time:
Of course, you could say that free will is an illusion anyway. If there really is a complete theory of physics that governs everything, it presumably also determines your actions. . . . So one way to look at it is that we say humans have free will because we cannot predict what they do. However, if a human goes off in a rocket ship and comes back before he set off, we will be able to predict what he will do because it will be part of recorded history. Thus in that situation, the time traveler would not in any sense have free will.38
Philosophers advance a similar argument only concerning God’s foreknowledge. If God foreknows all things, then all things have been certain since before the foundation of the world. Somewhere we have to leave off philosophical speculation and accept the testimony of Scripture. I appreciate D. A. Carson’s appeal to Scripture and suggestion that it teaches both Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
I am bemused when I hear Arminians suggesting that so-called “Calvinists” are always bringing philosophical considerations to the table. What they do not realize is that their free will idea is philosophical. Philosophers with no interest in theology discuss it constantly. Conversely, monergism and synergism are purely theological issues. Secular philosophers have no concern whether salvation is an act of God alone, or a cooperative effort between man and God.
Edwards’ simple definition of free will gives us a great starting point to discuss the matter of God’s grace in salvation. If everyone is free to choose according to his or her own desires and nature, then how does a sinner choose to come to God on His terms? The answer has to do with God’s sovereign grace.
We need to decide between the Roman Catholic doctrine of synergism, and the doctrine of “grace alone” taught by the Reformation. This debate centers on the issue of human ability or human inability as the case may be. The next CIC article will explore issues about salvation and whether it is an act of God, or a cooperative effort. I will further defend the idea that the whole human being, including the faculty of the will, is in bondage to sin and death and is incapable of extracting himself out of it. Salvation is an act of God alone.
Considering Election (Not Politics) By John MacArthur
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16).
This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let’s look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin — spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever “is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God’s work. In Acts 13:48 we read, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
Romans 8:29-30 states, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”
Occasionally someone will suggest that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” and Romans 8:29 says, “whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” And if divine foreknowledge simply means God’s knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of “foreknowledge.” When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge, it refers to God’s establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word “know,” in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God “foreknew” (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them — He loved them — before the foundation of the world.
If God’s choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God’s choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost — because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call “whosoever will” to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God’s attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God’s sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin — spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever “is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God’s work. In Acts 13:48 we read, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
Romans 8:29-30 states, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”
Occasionally someone will suggest that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” and Romans 8:29 says, “whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” And if divine foreknowledge simply means God’s knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of “foreknowledge.” When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge, it refers to God’s establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word “know,” in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God “foreknew” (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them — He loved them — before the foundation of the world.
If God’s choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God’s choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost — because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call “whosoever will” to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God’s attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God’s sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)