Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts

Thursday, January 20, 2011

The Effects of the Rapture

"The effect on others of the rapture has caused a great deal of curiosity and serious discussion among Christians. What is going to be the effect of the rapture? I don’t know anything in the Bible that says anything specifically about the effect on the world of the rapture. I am wondering what is going to be the effect on the world. Perhaps the effect of the voice that came to Paul when he met the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road illustrates it, for remember, when Paul heard from the Lord, others heard a sound but did not understand the voice that was spoken.

"Perhaps Michael when he gets on that trumpet of God shall make such a sound that people will hear a sound of some kind, but will not understand what it is, and we will go to be with the Lord. I do know this, that they will have an explanation for it. People will believe anything. All you have to do to see that is look at Candid Camera and the kinds of things that happened there and the beliefs that people have.

"I know one thing. I wish that it were possible for me to remain one week after the rapture. I have not prayed this prayer because that would be an unscriptural prayer, but you know, I would like to remain one week afterwards so I could attend about a half a dozen liberal churches to hear the explanations that are given for the rapture, but I’m sure that comes from my old nature." -S. Lewis Johnson

post signature

Monday, June 7, 2010

What a Squirrel Believes – Theology Proper

What a Squirrel Believes

I believe in one, and only one, true and living God. He is the Triune God; eternally existing in one essence and being, yet three co-equal persons share this same essence and being; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is, by His nature and works, worthy of all glory, honor, obedience, and praise, and God alone is worthy of worship. He is the Creator of all that exists in Heaven and Earth, and His sovereign decrees determine all that comes to pass, and the end of all things glorifies Him. In all of His attributes, God is absolute perfection. He has absolute knowledge, wisdom, and power and is perfect in holiness, righteousness, justice, love, grace, and mercy.

While all of Theology is the study of the things of God, Theology Proper is the study of God Himself; His nature and attributes as revealed in the Scriptures.

The Bible does not try to prove the existence of God.

In fact, the Bible clearly states that everybody possesses the knowledge of God’s existence (Romans 1:18-20). In other words, the Bible says that there are no atheists. Those who deny the existence of God must do so by willfully suppressing what they know to be true (Romans 1:21). While there are many philosophical arguments that set out to prove that God exists, I think that, for the most part, they’re just a waste of time, since it is hard to convince someone of the truth that they already know but are firmly in denial about.

We must also be aware of our own limitations. While we all have the knowledge of God’s existence, we must also accept that we are unable to totally comprehend God. We who are bound by time and space have no frame of reference for understanding that which is eternal and transcendent. In the ultimate sense, God is incomprehensible (Deuteronomy 29:29). We must accept what the Bible reveals to us, knowing that we will not understand everything; indeed, we will not understand anything in full. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

The Trinity:

The Bible reveals that God is Triune, a threefold unity. God is one, yet He exists as three co-equal and co-eternal persons; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Christians are not tri-theists, we do not believe in 3 gods.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a derived doctrine, meaning that it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, but is a conclusion derived from the clear teachings of Scripture. The Bible clearly states that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6), yet the Father (Matthew 6:8-9; Matthew 7:21; Galatians 1:1), the Son (John 1:1-18; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-10), and the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29; John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18) are each identified as God.

The most concise statement in the Bible regarding the Trinity is, I think, Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In this verse, the word for “name” (ὄνομα [onoma]) is singular, so, in effect, it reads “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the one name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

That the God revealed in the Bible is Triune in nature is a difficult concept to grasp, and it is totally impossible to fully understand. It should be believed, not because it is easy to believe, but because it is what the Bible reveals.

[I will address the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit more fully in the posts on Christology and Pneumatology at a later date. For a more in-depth treatment of the Doctrine of the Trinity see James R. White’s The Forgotten Trinity]

The Sovereignty of God:

A sovereign is one who reigns, or rules. God’s sovereignty over His Creation is absolute, total, and independent (1 Chronicles 29:11-12; Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:34-35). God is the ultimate authority, and all lesser authority is granted by God for His purposes (John 19:11; Romans 13:1). As Arthur W. Pink put it, God is “subject to none, influenced by none, absolutely independent; God does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases. None can thwart Him, none can hinder Him.” (Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 135:6)

God, in His sovereignty, has decreed, in eternity past, everything which comes to pass, without exception. While God is not the author of sin, He does ordain the existence of evil, because if He had not ordained evil, evil would not exist (Isaiah 45:7). We have no right to question God’s decree (Job 40:2; Isaiah 45:9).

[For a more in-depth treatment of God’s sovereignty, see John MacArthur’s Answering Big Questions About the Sovereignty of God & Why Does Evil Dominate the World?]

Attributes of God:

An attribute is a characteristic, property, or quality of someone or something. Attributes are what we use to describe things; “The box was 10 inches long and 5 inches wide,” and, “He is 5 feet, 9 inches tall and weighed 168 pounds,” are descriptions of physical attributes. If we say that someone is “nice” or “honest,” we are describing attributes of character and personality. So, when we speak of the attributes of God, we are attempting to describe what He is like.

God’s attributes are generally divided into His incommunicable attributes and His communicable attributes. His incommunicable attributes are transcendent characteristics which belong to God alone. His communicable attributes are characteristics which God’s creatures may share with their Creator in some limited degree. Where the creature shares an attribute with the Creator, the creature’s attribute is a poor and incomplete reflection of the perfection that is God.

The attributes of God are not parts of God, but are aspects of the whole being of God. All of His attributes are always consistent with each and every other attribute. Because one of God’s attribute is His infinite nature, any list of the attributes of God will be incomplete.

Some of God’s attributes are:
Self-existence
God’s existence is not dependent on anything outside of God Himself. (Exodus 3:14)

Infinitude & Eternality
God is completely unbound by space or time (Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 4:8)

Immutability
God’s being, nature, and character is unchanging. (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Heb. 6:17) God’s unchanging nature does preclude Him from performing different actions. (Jeremiah 31:31)

Self-sufficiency
God does not need anything. He does not need food or water to sustain Him. He needs no air to breath. He needs no one to advise Him. (Psalm 50:12-13)

Omnisapience
God is perfect in His wisdom. Everything He does is wise, and He is never foolish. (Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33; Ephesians 1:11-12)

Omniscience
There is nothing that God does not know. He has perfect and complete knowledge of the past, the present and the future. (Psalm 147:5; Romans 11:34; Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20) God’s perfect knowledge also extends to what might have been; He perfectly knows all possibilities. (Matthew 11:23) (God’s perfect knowledge of possibilities is not to be confused with error of Molinism, as even that which is possible is subject to God’s sovereign decree.)

Omnipresent
God, not being in anyway limited by space and time, is always present everywhere. (Jeremiah 23:24; Psalms 139:7-10; 1 Kings 8:27)

Omnipotence
God is all-powerful and is able to do whatever He wills. (Genesis 18:14; Jeremiah 32:17; Psalm 115:3; Matthew 19:26)

Love
Love, whether used of God or man, is the desire for and actions taken to insure the well-being of the one loved. (Deuteronomy 7:9; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:8)

Holiness
To be holy is to be set apart. God is set apart by his absolute perfection in all things. (Isaiah 6:3; 1 John 1:5; Revelation 15:4)

Righteousness
God’s righteousness refers to His morality and justice. All matters of right and wrong are a reflection of God’s righteousness. (Genesis 18:25; Daniel 9:7; Revelation 16:7)

Faithfulness
God is a promise-making and promise-keeping God. (Genesis 6:18; 9:9; 17:7; Deuteronomy 4:31; 7:9; 1 Peter 4:19)

Mercy
Mercy is seen most clearly in such qualities as compassion and patience. God’s mercy is expressed by His long-suffering with, and forgiveness of, sinners.(Exodus 34:6-7; Psalm 52:8; Micah 7:18; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 2:4; James 5:11))

Grace
God’s grace is distinct from but inseparable from His mercy. Where mercy is seen in pardon for wrongs done and mitigation of deserved punishment, grace is seen in the bestowal of undeserved blessings. (Matthew 5:44-48; Ephesians 2:8-9)


[For a more detailed look at the attributes of God, I recommend A. W. Pink’s Attributes of God.]

God, by His absolute perfection in all things, is worthy of worship, honor, glory and praise (Deuteronomy 6:13; Psalm 2:11; Psalm 96:9; John 4:23; Romans 12:1-2; Revelation 14:7; Revelation 22:9).

post signature

Monday, May 10, 2010

Professing to be wise…

Professing to be wise, they became fools,
(Romans 1:22 NASB)

Last Friday night, Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries, debated Dr. Robert Price, fellow of the Jesus Seminar on the topic of “Is the Bible True?” with Dr. White in the affirmative, and Dr. Price taking the negative. And I have some thoughts…

Oh, not on the debate, I wasn’t there. I look forward to listening to it just as soon as the .mp3’s become available. (Until then, try these!) No, I have some thoughts on an atheist’s comments that were posted online after the debate. You see, yesterday, I did a Google search on the debate, to see what various reviewers were saying, and my search turned up the Free2Think Atheists, Humanists & Freethinkers forum (WARNING: this site contains certain monosyllabic words that always get bleeped on television.) The site is a forum for atheist discussion & “Killer Bud” posted his observations from the debate, which he attended.

In reading through his account, I was first struck by something “Killer Bud” said about his encounter with an unidentified Christian who tried to share the Gospel with him before the debate. “Killer Bud” said, “I had explained to him that it was not just some extemporaneous decision, and that my choice to be an atheist was well thought out.” So, his decision to become an atheist was “well thought out”? After some sort of thorough investigation as to the truth claims of Christianity and other religions?

But, no, it seems that is not the case. Later, as he is discussing the debate itself, “Killer Bud” writes, “To be honest, I had a hard time following a lot of it because I do not know much about the bible. They were quoting Hezekiah, Jeremiah, and I swore I heard Aunt Jemimah [sic]. I realize they both were really educated in biblical stuff but all that Matthew, Acts, and Corinthians stuff just kind of ran together for this laymen [sic] to follow.” Golly! He made a “well thought out” decision to reject the Bible with little or no Biblical knowledge to work from! Huh…

Then, later in the forum, “jedg.1987” said, “But yea, there was a good portion of it that was way over my head, and you have to imagine that if it was over the head of us atheists, the people who actually tend to study the Bible somewhat critically, it had to have gone over the head of 90% of the Christians there.”

Wait, atheists are the ones who “ actually tend to study the Bible somewhat critically ”?! If the debate is over their heads, then the Christians sure wont understand it? Well, sure, because atheists’re so much smarter than any dumb Christian, right? Yeah… Right…

The arrogance displayed in their ignorance is stunning! Atheists love to style themselves as intellectual & informed free thinkers, yet, truthfully, they are often uninformed and their ability to think is always in bondage to their sin.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
(2 Corinthians 4:3-4 NASB)

I am praying that God will open these atheists' eyes.

post signature

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

What A Squirrel Believes – Bibliology

What A Squirrel Believes
I believe the Bible, consisting of thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven books in the New Testament, to be the written Revelation of God. The Scriptures are fully inspired by God and inerrant & infallible in the original writings. God intends that His Revelation be understood by humanity, and, therefore, normal rules of language should be used in the interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is sufficient for religious instruction, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and is of supreme and final authority regarding all matters upon which it touches. In matters not touched upon by the Bible, what is right and true must be assessed in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures.

Bibliology is that part of theology that deals with the Bible itself; what it is, how we got it, and how it is to be understood.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of God must be at the center of any Christian statement of faith, but the doctrine of Scripture must come first, because only through the Scriptures can we come to know and understand God.

What The Bible Is:

There are two ways in which God reveals Himself; general revelation and special revelation.

General revelation is God revealed in His creation. Creation alone is sufficient so that all men have the knowledge of God’s existence. Paul writes in Romans, “…that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made…” [Romans 1:19-20] So creation alone gives all of us the knowledge that God exists.

In addition to physical creation, general revelation also includes the human conscience. All people everywhere have a sense of what is right and what is wrong [Romans 2:1]. Every culture has rules against murder and stealing and the like. This moral sense is flawed and distorted by sin, but it exists, none the less, and it reveals to all men that God is a moral God. Included in this knowledge is the concept of justice and that wrongdoing requires some sort of reckoning.

From general revelation, all men know that God is, that He is vastly powerful, and that He is moral. But that is all that general revelation reveals. The only way we can know anything else about God is if He tells us; and that is where special revelation comes in. Special revelation is God’s telling us about Himself, and it is found in the pages of the scriptures we know as the Bible.

Why only the Bible? Why not the Buddhist writings, or the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu Vedas, or the Qur’an? The simple answer is found in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. My reasoning is this:
  • Jesus said that He is God [John 8:58];

  • Jesus proved that He is God by rising from the dead [1 Corinthians 15:3-8];

  • Jesus confirmed the Jewish scriptures (what we know as the Old Testament) [Luke 16:31]

  • Jesus hand-picked the writers of the New Testament [John 15:16].

While all religious writings claim divine origins, none but the Bible can offer any kind of objective evidence to support the claim.

How We Got the Bible:

Many view the Bible just like any other book, as simply the work of men, but it is much more then that. While it is true that the Bible was written by men, it is also true that God spoke through these men. Peter tells us, “…no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” [2 Peter 1:21] And Paul writes [2 Timothy 3:16-17], “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” So, all of Scripture is from God through men moved by, or “carried along” by, the Holy Spirit.

When I say that I believe that the Scriptures are “inerrant & infallible in the original writings,” I mean that the copies we have are, well, copies. We do not have any of the original writings. For many people, this is quite a problem. “If we don’t have the originals,” they say, “how can we know that what we have is what was really written so long ago?” That is a very important question!

The facts are that we do not have the original writings of any ancient works as old as the Bible. Before the printing press, making copies of a book was a difficult and labor intensive project, as everything had to be copied by hand. And, for many writings, few ancient copies remain. We have only 10 ancient copies of the writings of Julius Caesar, and they were made 1000 years after he penned the originals. Aristotle fares better; we have about 50 copies of his writings, but the earliest of them was made 1400 years after the originals. Homer’s Iliad does much better, with 600+ copies, and the earliest of these were made only 500 years after Homer first wrote it.

How does the Bible compare to these other ancient documents? For the New Testament of the Bible, we have more then 5800+ Greek manuscript copies, and the earliest date to less than 100 years after the New Testament was first written. The Bible was also translated into other languages very early in its history, and we have thousands of other ancient manuscripts in other languages, such as Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, and Latin, that can be studied also. By comparing all these old copies, scholars of textual criticism endeavor to weed through the mistakes that occurred during the copying process to reconstruct the original words of the text. These scholars say that they are 99%+ sure of the original text, and that the parts that they are unsure of, less than 1%, do not materially affect the meaning of the text. It is pretty clear that the text of the Bible that we have today is an accurate representation of what was originally written. (Most good modern translations have footnotes that explain the different textual variants, and Greek critical texts, such as the Nestle-Aland 27, or “NA27”, will have vast footnotes that describe all the textual variants.)

How We Understand the Bible:

Because God used language to reveal Himself to people, it stands to reason that He desires that His Bible be understood by people. Therefore, it makes sense that the normal rules of language should apply to the Bible. This is called “grammatical-historical” interpretation. Grammatical-historical interpretation simply means that we look to understand the Bible by using the rules of grammar while taking into account the historical & cultural context that existed at the time it was written. In other words, we should take a literal approach to understanding the Bible, trusting that God has said exactly what He meant.

In the Bible, God tells us all that we need to know in order to find salvation in Jesus Christ and to prepare us to serve Him. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 says, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” So, the Bible is sufficient, and this is the heart of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Scripture must be our final authority in everything. When the Creator of everything tells us how things are, what is left to be said? Scripture must stand above science and philosophy and human reason. The only correct understanding of anything is the understanding that is in accordance with the clear teachings of the Bible.

post signature

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

What A Squirrel Believes – Technical Difficulties… Please Stand By

I’ve long collected statements of faith. I’ve got a file on my computer containing about 35 orthodox Christian statements of faith, everything from Grace Community Church’s 19 page What We Teach, to Truth for Life’s short What We Believe; and, of course, the 1925, 1963, and 2000 versions of the Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention. A personal favorite is the Articles of Faith of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.

I like orthodox statements of faith. I like to know where a person, group, or organization stands on the doctrines of the Christian Faith. As I said when I first broached this topic last week, I can’t understand why anyone would obfuscate their beliefs, except for nefarious purposes. And, as I said last week, I’m working on composing a statement of faith for A Squirrel In Babylon.

Well, like most things, writing a statement of faith is harder than it looks. Oh, it isn’t that I don’t know what I believe, or even that I can’t put what I believe into words. No, the problem is that I’m finding it hard to be concise in putting my beliefs into words. I have a new admiration for those who wrote all the statements of faith that I’ve collected. It’s hard to be brief and comprehensive at the same time!

All of this is just to say that it’s taking me a little longer then I’d planned to get the first article posted. Please be patient, and stay tuned…

post signature

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Calvinist Menace In Our Midst

It seems that, like mice in the kitchen, the Calvinist vermin are infesting Southern Baptist churches in Tennessee. What is to be done about this plague? Earlier this month, Tom Ascol blogged on a memo that was being circulated amongst Southern Baptist Churches in Tennessee advising on how to discover, and get rid of, Calvinists in the pulpit.

While many of the “Red Flags” outlined in the memo are absolute distortions of the Calvinist position, some are quite laughable.

Such as: “Use of the ESV Study Bible.” (Whew! I use an NASB MacArthur Study Bible!) -Or- “Look for the men they quote in their sermons: do they mainly quote Calvinists such as John Piper, R. C. Sproul, James White, Jonathon Edwards and others.” (Can I still quote Calvinists such as C. H. Spurgeon, J. P. Boyce, Alistair Begg, or John MacArthur?) –Or- “Tendency toward a highly logical systematic theology…” (As opposed to a highly illogical systematic theology?)

Others are self-contradictory, like: “Moving the church to become under Elder Rule.” -And- “Tendency to use their pastoral authority against any member that questions their reform theology or their direction.” Well, which is it? Are they looking to share power with other God-gifted men, or are they pushing to be dictators?

Some are just plain silly, like: “Adding other belief statements or confessions to what their church believes, such as: 1st London Baptist Confession (1689), 2nd London Baptist Confession (1644), New Hampshire Confession, and Abstract Principles.” (Yes, I noticed the dates, too…) Oh, please! The Abstract of Principles was the first statement of faith adopted by Southern Baptists in 1858! Are we never to look at what Southern Baptists believed in the past? Are we to ignore all history? There seems to be an ongoing effort to deny any and all traces of Southern Baptists’ Calvinist heritage, and this is wrong.

All of this is troubling, but, what troubles me the most is the assertion that Calvinist pastoral candidates will have a “Tendency to be evasive about their theology during the pastor search process. They will say things like: ‘I believe and preach the historic doctrines of Southern Baptists just like many of the great Baptist preachers of the past.’ Many laymen will be satisfied in hearing the statement, ‘I believe and preach the Bible.’ Without more intense questioning, the committee will not be fulfilling the sacred duty their church entrusted to them.

The memo was even accompanied by a “Belief Statement and Pastor’s Pledge” to be signed by the pastor, the chair of the pastor search committee & the chairman of the Deacons:
“I, (pastor), state that my theological beliefs and practices are in accord with _____ Baptist Church. I wish to state that I do not hold to a reformed or Calvinist doctrine and the Pastor Search Committee has questioned me comprehensively in this area of concern.

“With integrity of heart, I have heard the statements of the Pastor Search Committee and can say with certainty that if my theology ever changes to a Calvinist doctrine, I will share with the Deacons my new beliefs and work with them and the personel (sic) committee in transitioning me and my family to a new place of ministry that is more in line with my new theological stance.”

I could never sign such a document, as I would never hide from any search committee any of my theological positions & I agree wholeheartedly that every pastor search committee should thoroughly question every candidate, especially those under serious consideration. No pastoral candidate should ever be anything less than totally up front about any doctrinal position which he holds. Of course, I have no way of knowing how pervasive this “evasion” of search committee questions really is. And, as delusional as the rest of this “red flag” list is, this “evasion” may just be another delusion. However, the point remains that every man of God should be of sound and open doctrine.

With that in mind, I have decided to include a Statement of Faith here at A Squirrel in Babylon. I will be building up this Statement of Faith over the course of several, if not many, weeks in a series of blog posts. That way, I can expand upon each doctrinal statement, providing both my reasoning as well as scriptural proofs. I have no intention of writing a full blown systematic theology, but I never want to leave anyone in any doubt as to exactly what I believe, or why I believe it!

Stay tuned…

post signature

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Will, Free or Enslaved?

In the discussion in the comments section last week, the question of man’s free will came up. Does the Bible teach that man has a free will? And, if man’s will is not free, are we therefore just robots? I want to briefly address this before moving on to God’s unconditional election, as it is really part of the argument for the Total Depravity of Man.

First, we need to define what we mean by “free will.” Here’s one definition: free will noun 1: voluntary choice or decision “I do this of my own free will” 2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention ("free will." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 3 August 2009 ) I would contend that the Bible teaches that, by the first definition, man does have free will, but man does not have free will by the second.

It is clear from the Bible that we all make the choices we make of our own volition, but it is also clear that our very nature makes it impossible for us to make choices other than the ones we make. Our sin nature would be classified as a “prior cause” under this definition. The Bible teaches that we have a will, but it is a will enslaved to sin, and this concept is found clearly in Romans 6.

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (Romans 6:17-22)

In this passage, Paul, clearly identifies the unregenerate (and the regenerate prior salvation) as being in a condition of enslavement to sin. What does it mean to be enslaved to sin? In his commentary on Romans, John MacArthur puts it this way:

“(T)he unregenerate person is under the continual, unbroken slavery of sin. That is the universal position of the natural man, with no exceptions. No matter how outwardly moral, upright, or benevolent an unsaved person’s life may be, all that he thinks, says, and does emanates from a proud, sinful, ungodly heart. Quoting from Psalm 14, Paul had already made that truth clear. ‘As it is written, “there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for god; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good there is not even one”’ (Romans 3:10-12)” (MacArthur, John. Romans [volume 1]. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991. Page 346)

So the unregenerate will is unable to do good, nor is it able to change itself from bad to good. As it says in Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.” That seems to be a pretty clear declaration that we are unable to change ourselves. Do you see how clearly this fits with the Ephesians 2 concept of being “dead in our trespasses and sins”?

Unfortunately, while grappling with this issue, many people erroneously reach the conclusion that Biblical predestination is deterministic fatalism. However, this is not the case. You see, the Scriptures make two things very clear; 1) God is a personal God, and not an impersonal force. He takes a personal interest in guiding and watching over each and every one of us. And 2) man is never portrayed as a robot, but as a being freely choosing his actions, and fully deserving the consequences of his actions. The invitation of the gospel is truly offered to all men. The problem is that all men, each and every one of us, would, if left on our own, freely reject that offer.

Fatalism also carries with it the idea that, no matter what we do, our actions cannot affect the predetermined outcome. But on the contrary, the Bible teaches that we are real people making real choices that do indeed affect the outcome. Our choices have consequences.

The Bible teaches that man has a will; it just is not a free will. In fact, you might say that man’s willfulness is a big part of man’s sinfulness. We are willfully disobedient to God. So where did this idea of a free will come from? The answer seems to lie more in philosophy than in Scripture. The idea goes something like this, “God gives a command | God holds man responsible for obeying the command | Therefore man must have the ability to obey the command in order to be held responsible for it.” Neat idea, but it isn’t found in the Bible.

The problem with this argument is that man is capable of understanding God’s commands; he simply chooses not to obey. This can be easily demonstrated by taking any group of people through a detailed study of the 10 Commandments. Everybody in the group, Baring severe physiological mental incapacity, will understand that stealing is wrong, yet all in the group will have willfully taken something at some time that they knew was not theirs. And, truthfully, the same can be demonstrated for the other nine commandments as well.

John Macarthur puts it this way, “the unsaved person is not free to do good or evil as he chooses. He is bound and enslave to sin, and the only thing he can do is to sin. His only choices have to do with when, how, why, and to what degree he will sin.” (MacArthur. Romans. Page 344)

Let’s be honest, the truth is that without God’s gracious restraint imposed upon us, we would all be much, much worse than we are.

So, in a nutshell, what the Bible says is this: that man is sinful, lost, and hell bound, and there is nothing he can do about it. This is the bad news that makes the Gospel truly the “good news” that it really is! And until and unless we can truly convey this lostness to the people we are evangelizing, they will not accept just how in need of help they really are.

post signature

Monday, July 27, 2009

Who Controls Salvation?

I've been doing a lot of reading, listening and watching as I research and prepare my series defending Calvinism. As I said, I'm no high-powered scholar, so I like to get all my ducks in a row. I probably take more time then I really need too, but I like to be well prepared.

Anyway, one thing I've been doing is listening to a lot of debates on the subject of Calvinism, including a debate between James White and George Bryson. I was particularly struck by Dr. White's closing statement, and I thought you might find it edifying as well.



Meanwhile, my post on Unconditional Election should be up first thing in the morning in the near future.

post signature

Friday, July 17, 2009

Defending Dordt

Part II

[Programing note: There will be no The Squirrel Can Cook this week, as it is just too hot to cook. Deo Valenti, The Squirrel Can Cook will return next Friday]

Returning to our examination of the doctrines of Calvinism, I would like now to turn to the doctrines themselves. It is difficult to deal with each doctrine separately, as they are all intimately woven together, so there will be some crossover with the other doctrines as we deal with each.

I have come to the conclusion that people who reject the Doctrines of Grace usually do so for a combination of two reasons: 1) an inflated view of man and 2) an insufficient view of God. They fail to grasp just how totally sinful man is and just how absolutely sovereign God is.

The TULIP begins where we must begin, with the Total Depravity of Man. While most people who reject Calvinism point at the doctrine of limited atonement as the point they disagree with most, a little digging shows that it is an inadequate understanding of man’s total depravity that is really the issue. Because if our starting point is a failure to recognize just all sinful man is, and how debilitating to man that sin is, we will fail to understand how difficult saving man really is.

Totally Depraved | Humans are corrupt throughout | Not "bad as can be" – TurretinFan


Most people misunderstand what is meant by that term “total depravity.” And, truthfully, depravity is not the clearest word that could be used. John Macarthur refers instead to man’s total inability; because the Bible tells us that man, in his natural state, is unable to seek God, obey God, or to please God in any way. “Depravity” is not the best choice of words, because when we hear the word “depraved” we think of the worst of offenders; mass murderers, child molesters, concentration camp guards, telemarketers, and the like. We don’t think of ourselves as “depraved.” And, in a sense we are correct (I hope none of my readers are a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot.) But, in the theological sense, we are all depraved. Total Depravity does not say that men are as bad as they could be. What it does say is that every part of man is tainted and corrupted by sin.

Cloud defines total depravity this way: “Man is totally corrupt and dead in his sin so that he cannot even respond to the gospel unless God sovereignly enables him, which only happens if he is one of the elect. God not only must enable the dead sinner, but must sovereignly regenerate him and give him the gift of faith.” This is a fairly concise definition, as far as it goes. Mr. Cloud does not address the Calvinist position that man is responsible for his own sin.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body… From this original corruption, hereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.”

So what is the scriptural support for this doctrine? While there are many passages that allude to the doctrine of total depravity, Romans 3: 10-18 is surely high on the list.

“…as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." (Romans 3:10-18 NASB)

In these eight verses, Paul quotes from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms to show that all mankind is sinful without exception. He sums it up quite clearly in Romans 3:23 when he writes, “for all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God.” Note that Paul, and conversely the Old Testament prophets, say that there is no one who does good and there is no one who seeks after God. Humanity is so unable to please God that the Bible calls mankind “spiritually dead.”

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

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but dead people very rarely do anything for themselves. Like, NEVER! A funeral home attendant, while preparing to a body for burial, does not set a pile of clothes down and ask the corpse to get dressed. Just as those who are physically dead are physically helpless, the spiritually dead are spiritually helpless. As Paul says, in Romans 8:6-7, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 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,” we are, by nature, hostile towards God.

This is not to say that man does not have choices, just that man’s choices are not free. We will not, on our own, choose to do good, or to follow God any more than a lion would choose a pile of bananas over a steaming pile of fresh meat. It is not in his nature.

I hear the questions, because I’ve heard them before, “What do you mean, ‘none who does good?’ Lots of people do good! Feeding the poor; helping little old ladies across the street; supporting the symphony, are these things not good?” I’ll let Isaiah answer that one…

“…all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment…” – Isaiah 64:6 (NASB)

The literal translation of “filthy garment” (“filthy rags” in the KJV) is “used menstrual cloth,” an undeniably disgusting image. And Isaiah says that that is the value of our righteous deeds! How much more ugly are our unrighteous deeds? But we can see that what we see as good the Bible describes as truly worthless and disgusting in God’s sight. In even the best things that we do there is an element of pride and self-righteousness. Every thought that we have, and every action that we take, is not free from the taint of sin.

It is reported that John Bunyan said that there was enough sin in the best prayer that he ever prayed to damn the whole world. That is the essence of Total Depravity.

post signature

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Defending Dordt

Part I

Late last week, I received an e-mail containing a link to an article “refuting” Calvinism by King James Only advocate David Cloud. The person who sent me the link, not a Calvinist herself, knows that I am a Calvinist, and wanted my opinion on the article. While I had heard the name in regards to King James Onlyism, I had never read any of Mr. Cloud’s writings before. I was most pleased to see that Mr. Cloud’s writings were, in contrast to the abundant vitriol of many in the King James Only camp, reasonable in tone & less of an “attack piece” then I had expected.

Unfortunately for Mr. Cloud, poor arguments and incorrect conclusions, however well written they are, are still poor arguments and incorrect conclusions.

I’ve given a lot of thought to how best to respond to Mr. Cloud’s position. I could go through Cloud’s arguments, and answer each in turn, but that has already been done, and done well, here. My apologetic methodology has always been to basically just tell people what I believe, and why I believe it, and let them do with that information what they will. So I’ve decided, instead, to present a positive defense of what is known as the 5 Points of Calvinism. For, if I can show that the doctrines that we collectively know as Calvinism are Biblical, then Mr. Cloud will stand refuted.

But, throughout my positive defense of Calvinism, I will address certain of Mr. Clouds errors along the way.

Before we begin: some preliminaries. I am a Calvinist. What does that mean? When I say that I am a Calvinist, I mean that I hold to the 5 Solas of the reformation (Sola Fide - by faith alone; Sola Scriptura - by Scripture alone; Solus Christus - by Christ alone; Sola gratia - by grace alone; Soli Deo gloria - glory to God alone,) and to the 5 points as codified at the Synod of Dordt in 1618-1619, and that is all I mean. I’m not an expert on Calvin, his life or his theology. I know that my theology differs from his on a few points, including baptism and eschatology. While I do own a copy of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, I have not read it cover-to-cover, nor studied it in depth. (I do intend to at some point. I even downloaded a lecture series on Calvin’s Institutes from Covenant Theological Seminary, but I haven’t listened to it yet.)

Also, I am not an expert on Church History. In fact, I’m not an accomplished scholar in any field. I’m just a humble country preacher who’s trying to do the best that he can. So, if you’re expecting some doctrinal dissertation, you’re in the wrong place. Just so you know.

It is my intention to break this into several parts. We’ll just stick with the TULIP order, for convenience and familiarity, if for no other reason. Today, I’ll introduce our subject.

Introduction: Why 5 points?

John Calvin never reduced his theology to five points, and the 5 points do not encapsulated Calvin’s entire theology, but deal only with the questions of “Who does God save?” and “How does God save them?” Calvin died in 1564, but the “5 points” didn’t come to be until 1618-19, during the Synod of Dordt, which was held in Dordrecht, Holland, in response to the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his followers, who published the 5 Articles of Remonstrance (re•mon•strance noun 1: an earnest presentation of reasons for opposition or grievance [Webster’s]) in 1610, the year after Arminius died.

It was 8 years later, during the winter of 1618-1619, that the Synod of Dordt met to address the Remonstrants’ articles. They met in session 154 times, from November 13th, 1618 to May 9th, 1619. The results of their deliberations were published as The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands, commonly known as the Canons of Dordt. The Canons were never intended to be a comprehensive or exhaustive treatment of Calvinist theology, but were narrowly focused on the issues brought up by the Remonstrants. The point being that it was the Arminian Remonstrants, not the Calvinists, who first developed 5 points, which are the polar opposites of the Calvinist’s TULIP.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints


Cloud is correct when he says that the TULIP acronym did not appear until the 1700's, and was developed as a memory aid. A brief web search does not reveal exactly when, where, or by whom the TULIP was planted.

Mr. Cloud made a point of saying that, while he is certainly not a Calvinist, he is also not an Arminian. And I understand that. There are people who sit somewhere between 5-point Calvinists and 5-point Arminians, so that is not really an issue. But Cloud takes issue with Calvinists’ “black and white thinking.” Well, the real heart of the issue is Monergism vs. Synergism, and that is a black or white issue.

Monergism (“mono” - one + “erg” - work - the work of one, or working alone) is the doctrine that salvation is entirely God’s work from start to finish. He begins it and He accomplishes it. Man adds nothing to his salvation, and can take absolutely no credit for any part of it. It is all God’s doing, and to Him belongs all the glory.

Synergism (“syn” - together or with + “erg” - work - to work together, cooperate) is the doctrine that salvation is a cooperative effort between God and man. In order for a person to be saved, God has done His part, but the individual must do his. Synergism says that the human will and the divine Spirit work together in the act of regeneration.

That is the heart of the issue; Those are the two sides of this debate. I hope, by the time we’re done, that you will have gotten a good understanding of both sides.

post signature