Daniel, Lion Mouths, and Free Will

Daniel got thrown into a lion’s den because he prayed to God toward Jerusalem with his windows open. Seems a silly reason for the death penalty, but alas, equally silly things are coming our way soon I imagine.

Remember that Daniel was praying toward Jerusalem with his windows open before they made it illegal. In fact, it was him doing this that gave them the idea for the prohibition.

Daniel had guts to keep his daily meetings with God.

The king was genuinely bummed that he got played by the guys who hated Daniel. He stayed up all night worried about Dan and how he was doing with the lions.

Early in the morning he opened the den and called to Daniel. He received a response! Shock number one. Shock number two is that Daniel said the Lord sent an angel to shut the mouths of the lions.

Was this the same angel that appeared in the fiery furnace with Daniel’s three friends? Seems likely. Was this a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ, THE angel of the Lord? Could be, no further details are given.

I like the picture of an angel coming to shut lion mouths!

How did he do that?! Duct tape?

The lions, left to their own devices, would have devoured Daniel in a few seconds. Their free will was removed.

Does this imply that every time a lion opens its mouth it’s God making it do that? No, not at all.

Just like when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, does that mean that every time a person disobeys God it’s because God hardened their heart? No, there would be no reason to conclude that.

Lions do what lions do. The reason we know this was a miracle, the reason the king knew it was a miracle, is because for once lions didn’t do what lions do.

For instance, when the creepy guys who set up Daniel were tossed into the same den with the same lions, the lions crushed them before they hit the floor.

Was that a miracle? Did God have to override their free will to make them eat the bad guys? Nope, just lions being lions, plus they were extra hungry going a whole night without food.

Be careful not to extrapolate weird notions out of biblical accounts. Read them for what they say. Doing so will keep you from blaspheming the name and character of God. That’s a good thing.

If however you do, understand this is your own stupidity; God did not make you do it!

Conversations, Control, and Free Will

I listened to a podcast about conversations and how many of them turn into arguments. The Conversation Expert said the reason arguments happen is because people want control.

They want to control the conversation, but they also want to control the other person and what they believe. When two people are like this, arguments ensue. He said seeking control is a fundamental characteristic of human behavior.

This got me to thinking.

Our desire for control, which we all have due to pride, is clear evidence that we have free will. When we know we are not in control we have a reaction, often a reaction that attempts to reassert control.

How would humans have this incredible drive for control in them if they were fully controlled to the point of not having free will?

Furthermore, I’m always curious about why Calvinists argue so much. If God has ordained everything, why are most Calvinists so argumentative? I know their answer is because God ordains the means and the ends, but that explains nothing.

Why do they get so angry? Anger is not something someone with no free will would do. God has free will. God gets angry.

Perhaps people who want to believe in a God who is in meticulous control of all things are people who really like control.

That has been my experience.

I know many Calvinist dads who rule their little roosts and their kids go nuts. Their hyper-control authoritarianism drives the kids away in the end, even though the kids may be in fearful subjection while at home. Or, if they don’t rebel, they remain unhealthily submissive to the guy they are terrified of.

People who go all in on Calvinism are people who like to be in control. I think that’s why Calvinism has become so popular recently—our world is spinning out of control. We feel lost, so it helps us to remember that “God is on the throne” and “there’s nothing happening down here that He’s not doing.”

It might soothe you in the moment, but long term you’re undermining Scripture and the character of God, which will lead to much bigger problems.

Our desire for control, to assert our pride, is what drives people apart. People who truly trust God will deny themselves; they will let their rights get trampled. The will relinquish control. Read the Sermon on the Mount and pretend Jesus meant it.

People who argue and fight and cause drama are proud people desiring control. Don’t be one of those. Study to be quiet. Work with your own hands. Pray for those in authority. Fear God. Keep the commandments of Jesus Christ.

Submit yourself to Him and watch how love, joy, and peace enter your life.

2 Corinthians 5:21, Calvinism, and Substitutionary Atonement

So, we’ve talked pretty extensively about 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Jesus Christ being made sin for us. Now we have to deal with the second part: that we might be made the righteousness of God.

The Calvinist, Substitutionary Atonement theory, says this means the righteous deeds of Christ were credited to our account. This doctrine is called The Active Obedience of Christ.

Essentially it says that Christ kept the law for us, His deeds, His goodness and righteousness, are added to believers so that they are seen by God as having kept the law. God doesn’t see our deeds; He sees the righteous deeds of Christ.

I maintain that this is more philosophical theory than it is biblical truth.

If you ask a Calvinist where that idea is taught, they will point to 2 Corinthians 5:21. If you ask a Calvinist what 2 Corinthians 5:21 means they will tell you it means Substitutionary Atonement and our sins being imputed to Christ while Christ’s righteous deeds are imputed to us.

It’s classic circular reasoning. The verse doesn’t say this, yet this is the verse that is constantly used to prove this doctrine.

One major problem with this theory is that it assumes keeping the law is what saves us. This is a classic misunderstanding of the Old Testament.

The law was not given to provide a means of salvation; it was a covenant between God and the people of Israel that, if kept, would make the Promised Land abundant and secure (read Deuteronomy). The law was not given to save people. You are not saved because Jesus kept the law for you. Galatians is all about this. Read it.

People have always been saved by grace through faith, and that faith has always been in the seed of the woman who would crush Satan’s head. We know this seed as Jesus Christ.

Note carefully that 2 Corinthians 5:21 does not say Christ was made sin for us and His righteous deeds are imputed to us. It says He was made sin for us “that we might be made the righteousness of God.”

Now, I know Jesus is God, but words mean things! Paul has been talking about Jesus and God in 2 Corinthians 5. Verses 18 and 19 are talking about God and Jesus Christ as distinct persons. This is no subtle Trinitarian thing where the righteousness of God might be the righteous deeds of Jesus Christ.

The righteousness of God was around long before Christ did any righteous deeds. The righteousness of God is speaking of the perfect righteousness that defines God’s character. This isn’t doing good works; this is an actual attribute of who God is.

1 Corinthians 1:30 says, “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

Jesus Christ became righteousness for us. It’s who He is. This isn’t talking about good stuff that Jesus did during His earthly life. This is talking about an attribute of God.

This is bigger, deeper, fuller, more amazing, and wonderful than 33 years of doing right one earth.

The Bible says all people who are saved were saved by faith. Faith was counted unto him for righteousness. Hebrews 11:7 says Noah was made an heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

This isn’t Jesus keeping the law for you. The law has nothing to do with salvation. Again, read Galatians. The law was there to preserve the nation of Israel until the seed would come. The seed came. We are no longer under the tutelage of the law.

The law doesn’t save; the law served to preserve Israel to bring forth the Savior. Abraham was made righteous before the law (Romans 4). The law is not a component of salvation. Stop saying Jesus kept the law for you or that His righteous deeds are what saves you!

Faith saves you. When you believe God you are counted as righteous. You are counted as possessing the full righteousness of God. This is by faith, not by works, not even Christ’s works!

Don’t let Calvinistic theories ruin the Gospel!

Christ was made sin for us, He identified with our sin nature so that when Christ was crucified, so to was our old man. As a result of His dealing with sin, we are now, by faith, made the righteousness of God. We are an extension of His righteousness, which is unbelievably awesome!

As we grow in faith, as we grow into the perfect man Christ Jesus, this righteousness should show up more and more. That’s what sanctification is all about. If righteousness is not showing up in you more, than you should have no assurance that you have been made the righteousness of God. It is an undeniable force! It will show up if you are a partaker of the divine nature.

It’s that simple. Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation, is the means by which we tap into the Gospel work of Christ and receive new life.

It’s a beautiful thing. Don’t let man’s theories distort the beauty of what’s going on here!

Was God the Father Angry With Jesus His Son?

One problem I have with Bible commentaries and Study Bibles is that the author(s) often have a favorite doctrine that they will see in every passage. This is a very bad thing as it distracts from what the Bible is actually saying at any given time. Here’s an example for you from my recent reading in Isaiah.

Here is Isaiah 12:1:

And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.

Here is The MacArthur Study Bible note on Isaiah 12:1:

Your anger turned away. For the future remnant who will recognize the substitutionary death of Christ for their sins, Christ bore God’s anger in their place. Otherwise, that anger against them would remain.

MacArthur is a big fan of Calvinism. Calvinism is based on Substitutionary Atonement, or rather Substitutionary Atonement is based on Calvinism. One or the other. You can’t have one without the other.

It seems the main point of the MacArthur Study Bible is John trying to convince himself Calvinism is biblical. He sees it everywhere even though it’s not there ever.

This idea that God was angry with Christ is insane to me. The Bible never says this anywhere. The idea is that God is angry and His anger has to go somewhere. He’s angry with you as a sinner, but if you repent and believe the Gospel, His anger merely shifts to another object. Instead of being angry with you, now He’s angry with His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased for dying for you.

Sometimes it’s expressed in relation to killing people and death. God wants to kill you, you filthy rotten sinner, but you’re lucky Jesus loves you! Now instead of killing you, God will kill His own Son.

God just has to kill someone. He’s a raving maniacal killer whose blood lust must be fulfilled. If He can’t kill you, He’ll kill His Son. If He can’t be angry with you; He has to be angry with someone, so He’ll be angry with His Son who died for you.

This makes zero sense.

When my kids were little, one of them would get in trouble. They’d do something disrespectful and make me angry. If they saw the error of their way and humbly apologized, my anger went away. It’s not like if they made me angry by disobedience and then repented I’d be like, “Oh man, I’ve got this anger here now though. I have to do something with it, guess I’ll whoop up on your sister instead.”

Repentance has a way of making anger go away. A soft answer turns away wrath. It doesn’t move wrath from one object to another; it dissipates the wrath. Israel, as a redeemed people, would no longer be an object of wrath. That’s not because God whooped up on His Son instead; it’s because Israel is no longer doing things that provoke God’s anger and they met the condition of faith that took care of their past sins.

It’s the goodness of God that leads people to repentance. Love is the prime motivator in all that God did in sending His Son and in all that His Son did in dying for us.

Love is the deal. Love eliminates wrath. Perfect love casts out fear. God doesn’t have to be angry with someone else because you came to Him.

God loves you and loves His Son. His Son has never once done anything to provoke His Father to wrath. There are zero reasons why God would be angry with Jesus Christ. Zero. Don’t believe anyone who says there are. They aren’t dealing with Scripture; they’re dealing with a humanly devised philosophy based on a caricature of the God of the Bible.

Jesus, Parables, and Israel’s Covenant

We once had a Sunday School curriculum called “Teach Like Jesus Taught.” It was a large box of story books, lesson plans, and little trinkets to be used as illustrations. Each lesson told a parable with objects to convey spiritual truth to kids. Allegedly.

I have also read a number of books for pastors about preaching encouraging pastors to have good object lessons and illustrations, just like Jesus.

The humorous thing about this, and remember there’s something funny about a lot of sad things, is that Jesus used parables so people wouldn’t get His point.

As you read the New Testament epistles you will notice a lack of illustrations. Oh sure, faith is a fight and race to be run, but they are more similes than they are elaborate stories like the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son.

My take on this is that the Epistles are written to believers who have the Holy Spirit, thus they can discern spiritual things. Jesus is not talking to people with the Holy Spirit. Plus there’s other stuff going on. Big stuff that most miss when they read the Gospels.

The disciples asked Jesus why He spoke in parables. Mark 4:11 has His answer, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.”

Those “on the outside” are everyone except the disciples and anyone who is following Christ. So, why did He speak in parables to those on the outside? Jesus tells you in the next two verses:

“They may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”

Jesus doesn’t want those on the outside to turn and be forgiven!

Calvinist types pounce on this verse: “See! God keeps people from being saved! He not only ordains to life; He ordains to destruction! It’s right there!”

Here’s the bit of the Four Gospels most people miss: There’s lots of stuff going on with Israel and their Covenant. Israel was prophesied to crucify their Messiah. It was prophesied that they would miss Him, that they would destroy their Covenant and be scattered among the nations. All this is in the process of happening while Jesus is speaking.

These two verses are a quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10. When Israel blows their covenant they will be set aside. He won’t hear their prayers. They have turned from Him and He has let them go. He uses their going to accomplish the Gospel.

This is not talking about God arbitrarily hardening some to destruction; it’s a fulfillment of prophecy. It’s the reaping of having sown disobedience to their covenant. They broke it; God is not going to skip on their punishment. He won’t let them off the hook. They will blow it and be set aside.

This passage is not talking about individual salvation. It is talking about Israel and their covenant being set aside.

Here’s the real kicker: This is also what Romans 9-11 is talking about.

Israel was chosen. God guaranteed their chosen-ness until they brought forth the Messiah (which is what they were chosen to accomplish). Once they do that, and subsequently reject Him, Israel is set aside and the Gentiles are brought in. It’s all explained in Romans 9 and 11, neither of which are about individual salvation.

Romans 10 is about individual salvation, and what does Romans 10 say? Any who call on Him will be saved. If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth you will be saved.

Israel has a lot to do with what God is talking about in the Bible. We pretend it’s all about us. It aint. Much of it is by inference, and certainly the results of what Israel did impact us, but not all of it is geared directly at Gentiles.

If you know this you will see it everywhere, especially in the parables of Jesus. Most of them make a point about Israel. They aren’t about you and I being nice to people; they are mostly about Israel and God’s plan of redemption.

Read the Bible to understand what the Bible is talking about, not just to get pithy illustrations to guilt people with!

Faith is not Fatalistic Submission

People say a lot of things that are sanctimonious, or perhaps more fairly, people say a lot of things that I think are sanctimonious!

By “sanctimonious” I mean that they sound really good, very spiritual, but in reality they don’t make much sense and aren’t really biblical.

Here’s a recent example:

“True faith rests in God’s answer even when it’s no.”

To me this is sheer sanctimony. It sounds good, yet denies most of the biblical example of actual people of faith in the Bible.

This phrase isn’t talking about faith; it’s talking about fatalism. It’s more akin to the Islamic idea of submission to God’s will. You are not allowed to question authority in Islam. They’ll cut your head off. You submit or else.

Faith in the Bible is a wrestling with God. It’s warfare. Fight the fight of faith. It’s not this sublime, trippy, mellow, and chipper fatalism we hear about so often.

It’s fake. People who saw such things sound detached from reality. Maybe delusional.

One passage that popped into my mind immediately upon hearing this phrase was Luke 18 where the widow keeps coming to the unjust judge. She was told “no” but was not content with that answer! She kept coming and asking him to change his answer to which he finally says,

“Yet because this widow troubles me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.”

Jesus’ application is that you can come to God, who like the unjust judge, will give in to your continual begging! This passage is used to encourage persistence in prayer.

I don’t think God wants brain dead submissiveness. If He did, He wouldn’t have allowed Adam and Eve the opportunity to sin. God doesn’t like sin, but He also doesn’t like robots.

God gives in repeatedly in the Bible to intercession and the intervention of people. He listens to our complaints and adjusts what’s happening.

The idea that mindless, will-less robots is the pinnacle of faith is missing what the Bible says about faith entirely. Would you enjoy a relationship with someone who simply did everything you wanted and never had a different opinion?

Maybe for a little bit! But it would get boring. People are different and God seems to like the differences and He seems to genuinely desire to hear from us.

Don’t be a fatalistic, mindless robot. Enjoy your Creator and the freedom He’s given you. Be careful with it, but don’t bury your talent because you knew your master was harsh. God can handle your weird.

True faith looks a lot more like being honest with God about all your thoughts and feelings and realizing God wants to know you. It looks like the Psalms. The Psalms are not fatalistic submission. They are a real person dealing with a real God.

That’s faith.

It Is God Who Grants Repentance

Was reading some John MacArthur and got to yet another portion where he drops into his Calvinistic beliefs and proceeds to make no sense! Just blows my mind how he can be so good with Scripture on so many subjects and then completely implode on Calvinistic stuff.

Here’s the sentence that got me:

It is God who grants repentance.

The context is him talking about salvation, what is required to be saved as part of his Lordship Salvation stuff. He says salvation is only known by a changed life; if no changed life then no salvation.

But, since he’s Calvinistic, he can’t actually say we do anything; God does it all. He maintains that repentance is required for true salvation, but then has to walk it back by saying that God is the one who grants you the ability to repent. In other words, God does everything, you have nothing to do with it. You repent because God made you repent.

But here’s the kicker of his point, here’s how the sentence shows up in total:

It is God who grants repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:5).

Now remember, this is in a whole paragraph about how God does everything in salvation, God is the one who makes people repent. He lists two verses to prove that God makes people repent. One would expect these verses to say that God makes people repent!

Here’s Acts 11:18

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

He uses this verse to prove a Calvinistic point that God makes people repent. The context is Peter explaining to Jewish religious leaders that Gentiles are coming to faith in the Messiah. God has granted repentance just as much to Gentiles as Jews. That’s the point. It isn’t a point about how God makes the individual believer repent. It just isn’t. Stop it.

OK, so here’s the second verse he lists to prove the point that God makes people repent, 2 Timothy 2:5

Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules.

I’m just going to go ahead and assume he put the wrong verse down because this has nothing to do with anything he’s talking about! It almost, in fact, makes the exact opposite point!

Always look up the references people use to “prove” their points; rarely do the verses actually do that, especially if the point is a Calvinistic point! It’s just not in there.

Deuteronomy and Romans 9

Christians like to argue about Romans 9 and Calvinistic concepts of salvation. There are also other Christians who don’t like to argue about Romans 9 and Calvinistic concepts of salvation, but they have to because the other Christians who like to argue about Romans 9 and Calvinistic concepts of salvation won’t stop talking.

So, alas, here we are. I was reading Deuteronomy 6-7 and was thinking about Israel based on what these chapters cover. Israel was chosen to be God’s people (Deuteronomy 7:6). The reason they were chosen goes back to Deuteronomy 6:10—God swore to their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that He would create a nation from them and give them the Promised Land.

The reason God needed a people was because back in Genesis 3 God told the serpent that a seed of the woman would crush his head. A human was going to defeat Satan, therefore the human needed to come from somewhere, some human family. Abraham would be the father of that family. Israel would exist because of the promise made to Abraham.

God reiterates in Deuteronomy 9:5 that Israel’s success is not because they are righteous and awesome, but because God made a promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Much of the beginning of Deuteronomy is recounting the deliverance from Egypt, the rebellion in the wilderness due to their refusal to take the land in faithful obedience from the start, and then looking forward to eventual conquest in the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey.

What does this have to do with Romans 9 and Calvinist stuff? We’re getting there. Probably. This is why it’s hard to understand these subjects because the Bible is a big book and you have to have an attention span, yo.

Romans 9-11 is largely about Israel. God choosing Jacob to be the father of the 12 sons who would be the 12 tribes of Israel. It talks of hardening Pharaoh’s heart so God could deliver His people. In other words, it’s reiterating what Deuteronomy is talking about.

Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, wilderness wandering, and possession of the Promised Land are physical pictures of the spiritual reality of salvation.

We are all born in slavery to sin and the Devil, we are members of the kingdom of darkness.

In salvation the believer is delivered from this slavery, yet is left to wander and struggle and sometimes rebel and fail because although we are saved, we still have a flesh and we’re still in a fallen world with sin, we are sinners surrounded by sinners. We keep moving ahead with the Lord to a better time coming.

The Promised Land is the full realization of salvation; it’s when everyone is delivered from sin, living in eternity with the Lord, having been made like Him when we see Him as He is.

This whole thing with Israel happened because of a promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our salvation is because God made a promise with Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

God chose Israel because of promise to Abraham. But simply being born to Abraham didn’t guarantee anything. Not all who are of Israel are of Israel (Romans 9:6).

For instance, Joshua and Caleb were the only two people from the original generation of freed from slavery Israel that made it into the Promised Land. They did so because they had faith. In order to be part of the chosen people, you need faith.

In a general sense, all Jewish people were part of the chosen genetic race of Israel. But in a spiritual sense true Israel were those who had faith.

God has chosen a people to be part of the Body of Christ. This group was chosen, promised, and guaranteed before the foundation of the world. If you want to be part of that chosen people, then believe!

The one part of Romans 9-11 that speaks of individual salvation is in Romans 10. For example, verse 9, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Or verse 13, “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 10:16 says it all boils down to obeying the Gospel. Romans 10:18-21 goes on to say that both Moses and Isaiah talked about another people who were promised entry. These were a chosen people promised to Christ.

God chooses a people. If you want to be part of the people, whether Old Testament Israel or the New Testament Body of Christ/Church, then you believe and obey what God has revealed.

The Bible is a big book. Romans 9-11 quotes the Old Testament a lot. In order to understand those chapters a good grasp of the OT is necessary. That’s my bit of it I’ve been chewing on. Hope it helps.

Were Sacrifices Offered In Place of the One Sacrificing?

This year one of my goals is to read the MacArthur Study Bible. Every word.

If you’ve never seen a MacArthur Study Bible, well, let me just tell you: there are a lot of words. I mean, the Bible itself has a lot of words. MacArthur has a lot of words too. When you combine the two, you get a lot of words.

On top of that, many of the words (all of MacArthur’s) are in little tiny font that is printed very lightly and my bad eyes already want to surrender. But I’m tough. I’m persevering, so far. Of course, we’re only a month into the year!

I like much of what MacArthur says, but I do not like his Calvinism. In fact, his Calvinism seems to refute much else of what he says. It’s so illogical and it really troubles me because he’s so good otherwise.

So, as I’m reading his notes, I’m conscious of his Calvinist interpretations, and expecting much humor in seeing how his note does not mean what the verse he’s noting said!

Well, today I found my first example of John’s Calvinistic note disagreeing with a verse he put the note on! Woot woot.

It’s in Leviticus 1:4, which says, “He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.”

Here is MacArthur’s note on Leviticus 1:4 particularly on the words “for him,” “This was a substitutionary sacrifice that prefigured the ultimate sacrifice—Jesus Christ.”

OK, so on one hand this is fine. Obviously OT sacrifices prefigured Christ’s sacrifice, no problem there. However, the idea that the animal died “for” the sacrificer means substitutionary death is where I have a problem.

Substitutionary Atonement is Calvinism. Substitutionary means that Christ dies as a substitute for the sinner, Christ died in the exact place of the sinner. If you think this is what happened, then you have to conclude the L of the Calvinist TULIP: Limited Atonement—that Christ only died for the elect.

Limited Atonement is the weakest point of Calvinism and is contradicted by many verses, as I’ve covered here many times before.

If Christ died in the exact place of each saved person, then He could not have died in the exact place of non-believers. If Christ died in the exact place of everyone, then all would be saved. Therefore, Christ only died for the elect—Limited Atonement.

So, although his comment seems innocent, it hinges on the meaning of the word “for.” I’m no expert on Hebrew, but I do remember reading once that “for” in the Greek when used in reference to Christ dying for us does not mean “in place of,” but rather “on behalf of.” That’s how the actual Greek word is understood. Nowhere is it used to be “in place of” as this is an invention of Calvinism which was invented much later than the Greek language (See Vincent’s Word Studies on Romans 5:6, Christ died for the ungodly).

So, knowing that, I decided I would look up Leviticus 1:4 and the Hebrew word “for” and see if Hebrew uses the word as “in place of” or “on behalf of.”

Guess what?

Go on, guess.

Ha.

Here is the definition as given by Brown, Driver, and Briggs, the preeminent Hebrew Lexicon for the word “for:”

upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against

The actual definition of the word never refers to in the place of, but rather on behalf of. Somehow I knew that would be the case!

Now, of course, the Calvinist, never one to let the Bible interfere with their doctrine, will tell you it means the same thing. But it doesn’t.

And, now that Calvinism is widespread and academic, there are now new dictionaries of Bible words that will no doubt define “for” as “in the place of.” Which is why you should be careful about your Bible dictionaries, translations, and study Bibles as many are now produced by theological camps.

Stick with the old trusted and proven resources in these areas.

Christ dying on behalf of every person who has ever lived is akin to what the Bible says. Christ dying in the specific place of a certain people, the elect, because no one whom Christ died in the specific place of could be unsaved, is what Calvinism says.

The Bible and Calvinism do not say the same thing.

Thank you. Now I will return to squinting at little tiny font.

BOOK REVIEW: Gentle and Lowly

I’ve been reading Gentle and Lowly: the heart of Christ for sinners and sufferers, by Dane Ortlund. I’ve heard this book praised by many people, not all from the same theological background either.

One of my hobbies in life is to analyze things that “everyone” likes. I enjoy being contrarian! I know that if many people like something, it’s probably wrong!

So, those are my upfront admissions! You know where I’m coming from.

The point of the book is that Jesus is a lot more loving than we think. He bases his points on Puritan writings, which I find slightly ironic. Puritans are Calvinists. Calvinists are the ones who have beaten wrath and judgment into our heads.

One of the reasons people don’t think God is as loving as the Bible says is because of Calvinism! Their stress on wrath and justice in the Gospel has diminished love. You can look at all the verses in the Bible that mention the Gospel and you will see love associated with it way more than wrath or justice. Yet Calvinism has majored on those and minored on love.

So, for a guy to use Calvinist writings to prove God is loving and not so wrathful is kind of odd. You will also notice he can’t quote a ton from most of them!

If Calvinism hadn’t taken over the Gospel, this book would not have been necessary.

At the same time, I also think people like the book because it emphasizes love and mercy. Both are fine things, but in so doing he does kind of make it sound like sin isn’t that big of a deal. I know that’s not the author’s point, I’m not accusing him of anything, I actually like most of the book as it is a needed corrective of the Calvinist wrath motif. But I do know people are hearing him that way.

“God loves to be merciful” sounds to most people like, “Should we sin that grace may abound? Absolutely yes, go for it!”

I think the two reasons people like this book are because for once a Calvinist emphasizes love, and his emphasis sounds like an ok to go sin.

Me, being a not-Calvinist, heard his Calvinism throughout the book. He never harped on it much, so it was not a hurdle to my enjoyment. Then I got to chapter 22! He let it all out in this chapter!

How much less could we comprehend what it meant for God to funnel the cumulative judgment for all the sinfulness of his people down onto one man. But reflecting on what we feel toward, say, the perpetrator of some unthinkable act of abuse toward an innocent victim gives us a taste of what God felt toward Christ as he, the last Adam, stood in for the sins of God’s people. The righteous human wrath we feel—the wrath we would be wrong not to feel—is a drop in the ocean of righteous divine wrath the Father unleashed.

After all, God punished Jesus not for the sin of just one person but many. What must it mean when Isaiah says of the servant that “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6)? What was it for Christ to swallow down the cumulative twistedness, self-enthronement, natural God hatred, of the elect? What must it have been for the sum total of righteous divine wrath generated not just by one man’s sin but “the iniquity of us all” to come crashing down on a single soul?

So, there ya have it! Calvinistic wrath in all its glory.

God “unleashed” “divine wrath” on Jesus. It would be more than the wrath we would feel toward a child abuser. God views Jesus as worse than a child abuser is the idea. The “sum total of righteous divine wrath” “came crashing down on a single soul.”

There are no verses that say any of this. Yes, he includes Isaiah 53:6 that our iniquities were laid on Christ, no argument there. But the whole divine wrath on Jesus is a complete abstraction. The Bible nowhere says that God the Father had wrath toward His Son. “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Isaiah 53 has several mentions of God being pleased with the Suffering Servant. There is no wrath. Why would God be upset with Jesus for doing the most loving, sacrificial work ever done to save us from our sin? It makes no sense.

Several times Ortlund says Jesus suffered hell. Again there is no place in the Bible where it says Jesus went to hell for us. The KJV uses “hell” sometimes instead of “the grave,” but other than that, there is nothing about Jesus going to hell. “Today you will be with me in paradise” is the only mention of where Jesus went after His death. Maybe he’s being metaphorical with the hell talk. That’s my best take, otherwise it’s all speculative.

During his explanation of suffering God’s wrath, Ortlund doesn’t quote many verses. There’s a reason for that! Here’s one snippet he throws in to give seeming biblical support:

And in venting that righteous wrath God was not striking a morally neutral tree. He was splintering the Lovely One. Beauty and Goodness Himself was being uglified and vilified. “Stricken, smitten by God” (Isaiah 53:4).

Isaiah 53:4 has more words in it that Ortlund leaves out:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

There are some key words in here he conveniently leaves out: “we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God.” See, that’s not saying Jesus was stricken and smitten by God; it means that’s how we viewed it. When Christ was on the cross He was being mocked. “He saved others, he cannot save himself.” This was their ultimate victory. They overcame and killed the one who claimed to be equal with God. Humanity’s view is that God was against this so called Messiah. Is God really for a guy who we just nailed to a cross? I don’t think so! God is clearly against this guy.

So, where does all this orgy of God’s wrath on Jesus come from? It comes from extrapolating a lot out of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Ortlund talks about this passage for a few paragraphs. Allow me to quote his opening phrase about Jesus being forsaken:

“It’s speculation.” (pg. 200).

Yup, it is!

The whole God’s wrath on Jesus angle is speculation, because it says it nowhere in the Bible. If the point were clear, Ortlund would not have to speculate. But he does.

If you read the context of Psalm 22, which begins with “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” You will note that the forsakenness is dealing with physical death. As the chapter goes on you’ll see many prophecies that were fulfilled while Jesus was on the cross. You will also note that the Psalm ends with a clear understanding that he’s not forsaken by God. Yes, he’s forsaken to the point of physical suffering, but essentially he knows he’s ok. His feeling is not the full story.

For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard (Psalm 22:24).

Jesus did suffer, but God did not despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted. He wasn’t really forsaken. It looked like He was, we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, but in the end the Lord was with Him and heard His cries.

I guarantee you the thought of God when Christ was on the cross was not wrath against Jesus; it was sorrow. If our sin grieves the Holy Spirit, how much more must it have grieved God to see what was going on here?

In the end, this chapter refutes the entirety of the rest of Ortlund’s book. Ortlund tells me several times that God is my Father and the Father loves His sons. God only has love and mercy and compassion toward His kids. Except of course for His one Son who never did anything wrong; He blasted Him with His wrath! If God can be that upset with His one perfect Son, what chance do I have?

That’s exactly why Ortlund wrote this book, to balance out the wrathful extreme of Calvinist doctrine. I like that people like the book because he’s right when he’s right. He just can’t bring himself to admit that it’s Calvinism’s gospel that caused the problem in the first place!

Oh well. Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

God was never wrathful about His Son this I know, for the Bible also tells me so.

Stick with the Bible. You’ll have a much better understanding of God.

If God Is Doing All the Stupid, How Can We be Comforted By Him?

Calvinists often say they believe God directs every detail of life because it comforts them. Kids can walk away from the faith, politicians from the other side get in office, people die tragically, and other terrible things are couched with, “God is in control and His plan will not be thwarted. He knows what He’s doing.”

People console themselves with this notion that God is behind all the pain and evil in the world.

I, for one, do not understand how this gives anyone comfort. If God does all the evil then the character of God is undermined. If God is the doer of all the evil, then how can I trust Him? How is He one I’d go to for comfort if He’s the cause of my discomfort? Where is the comfort of the Comforter if the Comforter is making me uncomfortable? I find no solace here. I find the problem has just been exacerbated and there is nowhere to go to escape stupid.

I believe God has given a certain amount of freedom for humanity to be stupid. We take Him up on the offer frequently. The reasons why people die, bad politicians get power, kids walk away from the faith, and other bad things happen, is not because God is making it happen; it’s because sin has messed stuff up.

If I were to say all the stupid in the world is a result of God’s will and His plan, I gotta tell ya, I’m not comforted by that at all.

I believe God is above this world, sitting in righteousness, and watching us blow ourselves up with a mournful heart. This is seen repeatedly in the Old Testament prophets. God is not happy about sin and it’s results and never once does He say, “I’m the one making you worship Baal and commit adultery. Don’t worry about it. I’m still on the throne.”

Nope. Instead His consistent message is, “What in the world are you doing? Knock that stuff off and listen to me.”

If the level of stupid in our world is due to God, if He’s the one that’s making people do stupid stuff, then in what sense is He holy, righteous, or trustworthy? If God makes kids walk away from the faith, then why would I trust Him with my kids? I’d be better off without God in relation to my kids.

Furthermore, and the main point, is that nowhere does Scripture require you to believe that God is doing all the evil and nasty stupid stuff down here. In fact, the Bible tells us to pray that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. The only way that request makes sense is if God’s will is currently not being done on earth.

Asking for God’s will to be done is not simply asking God to push a button. It’s my desire to do God’s will, to teach it, and represent it, to promote it and encourage it. It starts with me.

Much of the talk of God’s complete control of all things is simply a rejection of responsibility. If everything is God’s doing, then I’m not ultimately responsible. It’s some bizarre mystery why my kids walked away from the faith, rather than possibly something I did or something my kid did.

If what happens is due to us, then we have a shot to make things better. If what happens is up to God’s arbitrary, unsearchable will, then we have no shot and I’m not sure why we would worship God for having made such a mess down here with His very odd, holiness-defying will.

The Bible clearly says we have a shot to make things better. Blaming God for all the stupid in the world is not a good look. It’s blasphemous and I don’t think God will take it kindly on judgment day. When we give an account for every deed done in the body, whether it be good or bad, and our defense is, “It wasn’t me; It was you doing it,” good luck with that one.

“Be not deceived, God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow.” We are reaping what we have sown. People die because we chose to go against the one who gave us life. Kids walk away from the faith because youth is curious and adults are hypocritical. Bad politicians get in because generally people who desire control and power are bad people.

Bad things happen because we live in a fallen world. We live in a fallen world because humanity decided to disobey God. The world is a mess precisely because we’re not doing God’s will, not because God’s will is being done.

Knowing that people do the stupid and God is outside of it and above it is what gives us comfort. He’s not part of the problem; He is the solution. Stop blaming Him for our stupidity. He’s not the dumb one here!

God Is In Control?

Whenever there is a crisis or uncertainty, Christians plop out the “God is in control” cliche.

I don’t think I’ve ever said this in such times, mostly because I have no idea what people think that means. As far as I can tell, Christians mean at least one of the following things:

1. God ordains everything.
This is the Calvinistic notion of meticulous determination. That every molecule of creation is doing exactly what God tells it to do. Therefore, in the current crisis, God created the coronavirus and is killing who He wants to kill with it, is making ill the people He wants ill, and is curing the people He wants to cure. There’s nothing to do to stop it. It’s God’s ordained plan. Suck it up.

2. God will protect me.
Many Christians have the idea that since they have Jesus (allegedly), they will be free of all diseases. Jesus protects them from any and all viruses. They are safe from all harm. The power of God works better than any vaccine or medication ever invented!

3. Fatalism.
God is in control; I am not, so, like, whatever. I’ll just do my thing and whatever happens, happens. I will do the bare minimum of precautions, mostly to avoid judgment by others, and just let God sort it out. If I perish, I perish; if I live, I live. Que sera sera.

4. God’s promises stay true.
All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. The good here is conformity to Christ. No matter what happens in good, bad or indifferent circumstances, God can use it to grow me in Christ. They meant it for evil, but God meant it unto good. Ultimately I will be made like Him when I see Him as He is and nothing will stop that.

If I say such a thing, I mean number 4.

I don’t mean number 1, because then God is just mean and nasty. There’s also no point for there being the Devil, the god of this age, the prince of the power of the air. Then we don’t really wrestle against principalities and powers. And, although God defines Himself as love, boy howdy, if this idea is true, what love is this? When God controls every aspect of life, that will be in the righteousness of the New Heaven and the New Earth, where God’s will is always done. There will be no tears, no death, no Fall. That aint here now.

I don’t mean number 2, because everyone dies. Even we who have the Spirit groan and travail in pain. These same people often wear glasses or have contacts. This view cannot be held with any semblance of logic or consistency and causes one to have to justify away reality.

I don’t mean number 3, because there are plenty of verses that say we have responsibilities down here. Fatalism is not a biblical basis for doing life. We reap what we sow. There are consequences for our actions. God gave us a brain for a reason.

I do mean number 4, because that’s the way God speaks of such things. Romans 8 has a large section about the fact that terrible things will happen down here. But none of these things can separate us from the love of God. All things can help conform us to the image of Jesus Christ and nothing will stop that progression to ultimate conquering. Even if we die, absent from the body is present with the Lord. I will be raised up incorruptible. I will be made like Him when I see Him as He is.

God is in control, but it’s important to understand what that means. A wrong understanding will distort your understanding of who God is and will greatly confuse you about reality on this planet.

Getting it right will fill you with hope and alleviate worry. Getting it right will help you let go of this life and lay hold on eternal life. Help you look for the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. When He fully takes over, what a day of rejoicing that will be!

Aint nothing gonna stop the Wedding Feast that’s coming!

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Man’s Depravity is Not Total

It doesn’t take genius to know that people are creepy. Sin is natural to us. We are “by nature” the children of wrath.

At the same time, Paul says Gentiles “do by nature” things contained in the law. Which means our nature is not all bad and it aint all good. This would seem to have to be the case if we are made in the image of God and yet fallen. There still has to be some God image in us.

If you express this thought in theological circles, you will get hammered. We’ve been told countless times that we are totally depraved. Calvinism has taken this and stretched it so out of place, they don’t even think you can believe the Gospel.

Not only is this massively contradicted by Scripture, it makes life pretty much pointless. We’re just automatons doing what we’re programmed to do with no choice. Yet God remains ticked off at us for doing what he programmed us to do.

The simple solution to avoid making God into a complete monster, is to admit we’re not totally depraved.

Yup, that’s right, we should drop the traditions of men for the biblical doctrines of God. I know, bizarre, but I’d suggest it.

I’ve held this view for years, yet don’t see many other people going public with the view, because if you do, Calvinists will beat you into the ground. So I’m always encouraged when I see someone else publicly express it.

I came across one today in Ellicott’s Commentary on Matthew 7:11. God is saying that even earthly fathers know how to do nice things for their kids, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”

Ellicott says this:

The words at once recognise the fact of man’s depravity, and assert that it is not total. In the midst of all our evil there is still that element of natural and pure affection which makes the fatherhood of men a fit parable of the Fatherhood of God. We mount from our love to His, abstracting from our thoughts the evil of which we cannot but be conscious.

Beautiful. Thank you, Mr. Ellicott! You the man.

Luther and Foreknowledge

The Bondage of the Will slogs along to Erasmus’ argument about foreknowledge. Paul said, “Whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate.” If words mean anything, God’s predestination is based upon His foreknowledge.

But, as we know, words don’t always mean what they appear to mean. A Calvinistic trick is to define the word “foreknowledge” as essentially meaning “predestine.” Luther does the same thing.

If God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen. It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like everything else.

Luther, who recently said God’s revealed will is different from his non-revealed will and that God does not use words like man does, adds,

There are no obscure or ambiguous words here, even though all the most learned men of all ages should be so blind as to think and affirm the contrary.

Just wondering how Luther knows when words mean what they mean and when they don’t.

Luther goes on about foreknowledge meaning God making things happen and redefining words when he says,

We know that man’s foreknowledge is fallible. We know that an eclipse does not occur because it is forecast, but is forecast because it is going to occur. But what relevance has that foreknowledge for us? We are discussing the foreknowledge of God! And if you do not allow that the thing which God foreknows is necessarily brought to pass, you take away faith and the fear of God, you undermine all the divine promises and threatenings, and so you deny deity itself.

So, here’s Luther’s idea about God words and Man words meaning different things in action. So when God foreknows it’s akin to God doing, but when man foreknows it’s just man knowing beforehand. Words don’t mean things then.

The essential idea of the Calvinistic and Lutheran view of God is that God’s sovereignty means no one else can know or do anything. God can only control what He does. He’s not strong enough to control if man had free-will to do things.

Their attempt to elevate the character of God ultimately undermines it. God is a dictator who can’t allow anyone any freedom apart from His control.

But God foreknowing what is going to happen in no way necessarily implies He does everything or that God can only know what He does.

God is made smaller with this view, not bigger. They are viewing power, ironically enough, entirely from a weak human perspective. This is the God of Islam, not the God of the Bible.

God’s Will(s)

Luther’s Bondage of the Will takes up Erasmus’ question: how can God say He doesn’t like death and sin if, according to Luther, He makes people die and sin?

It’s a good question, one that hits at the central problem I have with the denial of free-will: it impugns the character of God.

The answer you’ll get is massively troubling.

First, they will tell you that you’re an idiot for asking.

Second, they will tell you that God is a mystery.

Third, they will start defining for you the various kinds of wills that God has.

Luther does all three of these things in the four paragraphs that answers Erasmus. Here are a few sentences about God’s different wills.

[Erasmus is not making any] distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He does not show us in His Word, and He wills many things that He does not in His Word show us that He wills. Thus, He does not will the death of a sinner–that is, in His Word, but He wills it by His inscrutable will.

I agree that God has not revealed everything, that’s just common sense. But Luther says God is not revealing things that are opposite of what He revealed.

In other words, you can’t trust God’s Word because God might not actually will what He said He willed!

Again, as with yesterday’s post, and how, pray tell, does Luther know God wills the opposite of what He said? Where does God tell us that He doesn’t mean what He says? How is Luther figuring this out? And, once again, why is it that God always agrees with Luther while disagreeing with His own revealed will in His Word?!

This is the kind of stuff that makes me write blog posts on days where I didn’t even want to pick up his book because I didn’t want to write another blog post about it.

If Luther is right, you might as well stop reading the Bible, God didn’t mean it anyway. He’s just lying to you. Goodness, what cost must be paid to maintain your doctrines? He’s thrown out the reliability of God’s Word and made God a liar in order to maintain his doctrine. Unreal.

Words Mean Things

I’m in a part of Luther’s Bondage of the Will where he is addressing the verses that Erasmus uses to “prove” man has free-will. So far Erasmus has not used the verses I would use, but we’ll see if he gets there.

So far he is dealing with verses that say “if we obey,” ‘if we are willing,” “if you shall obey.” Erasmus uses these to say that obviously we have a will and ability otherwise God wouldn’t say this.

Here’s Luther’s basic defense. You ready? I know I am!

If I ask how it is proved that the existence of ‘free-will’ in man is indicated and implied wherever the phrase ‘if thou art willing,’ ‘if thou shalt hear,’ ‘if thou shalt do’ are used, she will say, ‘Because the nature of words and use of language among men seem to require it.’ Therefore, she bases her judgment of things and words that are of God upon the customs and concerns of men; and what is more perverse than that, when the former are heavenly and the latter earthly? Thus in her stupidity she betrays herself as thinking of God only as of man.

Luther’s point is this: I know that’s what it says, but that’s not what it means.

He maintains that God uses words differently than people do. It appears as though God is saying that, but God uses words differently so we know He doesn’t mean that.

Couple things:

–If God uses words not like men, how does Luther, a man, know how God is using words? And, more curiously, how is it that God is always using words to back up Luther? Rather coincidental, no?!

–If God uses words not the way man does, wouldn’t God explain that to man at some point? Is God aware that He’s talking to man? Seems like God, who is pretty smart, would communicate to man in such a way that man could understand Him, rather than obliquely saying things.

–If this is true, then all bets are off. You can make the Bible say whatever you want as long as you maintain this is what God really meant.

This is highly frustrating to me. The only thing I can use to make my doctrinal points is the Bible. So when a person tells me the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, then I have nothing left. It’s a winning tactic, but will also keep you from ever hearing and understanding what God actually said.

But that’s the tendency that many Christian Leaders have used and still do. “You idiots can’t understand this book, but thank God you have me! Now listen up because I, for some unexplained reason, really know what God meant.”

I’m not buying it. God said what He meant. He’s not playing games or obfuscating. Words mean things. Take the common sense, literal meaning of His words and you’re gonna be just fine.

All false doctrine at some point makes you have to ignore the common sense, literal meaning of words. Your alarm bells should go off when you hear people say words don’t mean what they say. Every Calvinist I’ve ever talked to has argued about the meanings of words. Luther does the same thing.

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
–2 Timothy 2:14-15

How to Earn Salvation Without Earning Salvation

Back to Luther’s Bondage of the Will. He says this:

God has surely promised His grace to the humbled; that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled til he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another–God alone.

As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, an occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvation.

OK, so a couple things:

First, it should be remembered that at the root of the no free-will, God does all the saving, monergism, predestination/election, emphasis is a sincere desire to elevate the supremacy of God and the weakness of humanity. They are indeed trying to get to humility. This is at the root of what they are trying to do. It doesn’t do any good to blast the Calvinist or the Lutheran as completely deranged. Their intentions are good. Their execution of their intentions misses the mark, in my opinion.

Secondly, this quote makes absolutely no sense. Luther ends the quote by saying the only people who get God’s grace for salvation are those who despair entirely of themselves. Which is fine, I can go with that. But the entire rest of the quote says how there’s nothing anyone can do to get God’s grace for salvation! Isn’t me being entirely in despair over myself a “smallest contribution to my salvation” that he just said I couldn’t do?!

This, again, is where this entire doctrine falls into the realm of non-sensicalness. The previous pages before this quote Luther defends himself against a charge from Erasmus that his doctrine doesn’t make any sense.

Luther’s defense is that, no, it’s not me that makes no sense; it’s God who doesn’t make any sense. I’m just saying what God says, so therefore God is the one who doesn’t make sense.

Now, granted, Luther doesn’t quite say it that bluntly, but that’s what he’s saying.

Your lecture is wasted on me! If, however, you believe these paradoxes [that if God wills all things then He rewards the good that He made us do and punishes the evil that He made us do] to be words of God, then where is your conscience, where is your shame, where is the fear and reverence which you owe to the true God? For what you are saying is that there is no information more useless than God’s word! So your Creator must learn from you, His creature, what may usefully be preached and what not? God was so stupid and thoughtless, was He, that He did not know what should be taught?

This is the classic defense when you point out the contradictory nature of what no free-will leads to. “It’s what God says, your problem is with Him, not me. It’s all a giant mystery.”

I disagree. This stuff makes no sense and there really aren’t any verses that say this is the way the entirety of all human existence works.

Their desire in all this is to elevate God and diminish humanity. I get it. I applaud the efforts. But in so doing they are left with contradiction and illogical conclusions. I think it’s actually much easier to just take everything written on the subject in the Bible rather than select a few passages and philosophize some nonsense.

But they maintain that if you disagree with them, you’re an arrogant jerk who thinks he deserves salvation and knows better than God. What’s my defense against that?

It’s always handy to assume your doctrine is exactly what God says, so disagreeing with you is disagreeing with God. It’s handy, but not often true. It also seems, ironically enough, to be the exact opposite attitude of someone who characterizes themselves as “humbled; one who mourns over and despairs of themselves.”

God’s Immutable Will and Promises

Luther proposes the idea that if God is not fully in control (meaning humans have no free will because God does everything) then we can have no assurance that God will do His promises.

[If it’s not true that] God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust, and rely on His promises? When He makes promises, you ought to be out of doubt that He knows, and can and will perform, what He promises; otherwise you will be accounting him neither true nor faithful, which is unbelief and the height of irreverence, and a denial of the most high God!

At the root of the “there’s no free will” teaching is a desire to elevate God’s glory and supremacy. I’m all for that, but I think it goes to unnecessary lengths to do so. For in so doing, they actually limit His glory and supremacy.

According to Luther, the only way God can do anything is if He does everything. If God is not in control of every part of creation then He would not be able to do anything. If people are allowed to act freely, do whatever they want, God wouldn’t be able to do what God wanted to do.

That’s just sheer silliness. In no way does our free will eliminate any power from God. God is sovereign over creation, including over the laws that govern what creation does. We have freedom within the bounds He has set.

At any point God can override the laws (ax heads floating on water denied all manner of natural law). It is not hard at all for God to do what He wants. The idea that if Jeff has free will, God would be powerless to stop Jeff, is just crazy!

Yet you’ll hear this argument a lot. Don’t fall for it.

What God would have more power:

A God that can control only what He does, or a God who can control everything at any time no matter what anyone else is doing?

This view of God comes from a human standpoint. If I were to have ultimate power, yes it would mean I would dictate what everyone does. If you could resist me, then yeah, I would not be in control.

But God is way bigger than us. He’s in control of His creation, to the extent He’s not at all afraid to let us run around within the bounds He’s set.

Interestingly enough, Luther, about two pages before the above quote, says denying free will should be easy for Christians to do, because even heathen poets deny it! He goes on to quote Vergil a bunch. “See, even heathen philosophers know we don’t have free will.”

Yeah, I know Martin, that’s one of the reasons why I question whether it’s right!

Denying our free will is a humanistic idea that comes directly from people like Vergil. It doesn’t come from the Bible or from God.

Watch out for the human attempt to ascribe glory and power to God in ways that ultimately completely eliminate His glory and power, but rather elevate human notions of glory and power. To me this is what denying free will does. It’s one more reason I know it’s wrong.

How I Know I Have Free Will

1. Experience
My every day experience lets me know I have free will. I reap what I sow. I can decide to do any number of things with my time right now. Even people who don’t think free will exists, betray it in their behavior. They constantly try to convince me I don’t have it! This is a blatant denial of their belief. Even their experience shows we have free will.

2. Philosophy
Most human philosophies postulate no free will. Atheistic, materialistic, evolutionary philosophy says we don’t have free will, we are products of our genes and must act the way we are coded to act. People don’t want free will. We like to think we are completely unaccountable victims. Unless you violate my rights, of course! Then those people should be held accountable. Experiencing thoughts of revenge and justice are a clear revelation that there is free will. It is one thing for a philosopher to say there is no free will; it is yet another to let people steal all the philosopher’s stuff, rape his wife, kidnap his kids, and so on and philosophically conclude, “Oh well, I’ll let it go, he had to do it, he didn’t have free will.”

3. The Bible
The Bible clearly shows we have free will. Whosoever will may come. Jesus would have gathered Jerusalem, but they would not. There is judgment and accountability, a reaping of what we’ve sown. The general theme of Scripture is one of rebellious free will acting out in hostility against God’s will. Yes there are passages like Romans 9 that say God can override our will, but this is not the norm. If it were the norm for God to override our wills, then why does Romans 9 focus in on Pharaoh? What makes Pharaoh an exceptional example?

4. Sin
The Bible says our heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. A denial of free will sounds exactly like something a wicked and deceitful heart would come up with. At the root of denying free will is a desire to get out of accountability. This is why atheistic evolutionary philosophy denies free will: now we can do what we want, no sin, I have to act this way, so get off my back. Free will does not sound like something people would come up with, and every time people come up with a theory, it typically denies free will. Sinful people do not like free will. It means we’re accountable and responsible to change and be better. It is much more freeing to pretend I have nothing to do with anything and all my mess is someone else’s fault.

5. Consequences
The best test of a theory is to see what would happen if everyone acted on it. Would you like to live in a society where we actually acted like there was no free will? There could be no law, no crimes or punishments, no judges, no juries, no sin. People would do “whatever they wanted” and no one could stop them. Who are you to stop what someone else cannot stop in themselves since they aren’t the ones in control anyway? What gives you the right to put your will above theirs? The result of actually, literally acting as if we have no free will would be absolutely destructive to life as we know it. Which is why no one acts like they don’t have free will.

6. Blasphemy
If there is no free will then God has to be the author of sin. God has to be responsible for all the evil in our world, all our sin, our genocides, the whole deal. Then for God to judge us for doing what He made us do? This makes God out to be a complete monster. Who needs Satan when God is this monstrous? If there is no free will then any revelation from God is completely irrelevant. There is no point for anything. All purpose, all beauty, all kindness, all joy is complete sham. God is a brutal dictator wishing demise on all those who are doing what they were programmed to do. If there is no free will; then God is not love.

You have free will. Judgment Day will make this painfully obvious. You should go ahead and admit it today and get yourself right with God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and act as though you are someone who will give an account for every deed done in the body, because you will. And the defense, “I just did what you made me do” will be swallowed up in your inability to speak for the weight of your guilt before His glory.

Don’t Confuse Your Favorite Theologian with Jesus

I’ve finished reading the 61-page Introduction to The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, a cause for celebration.

Incidentally, I am reading a translation done by O. R. Johnston and J. I. Packer, so if you know those names, I assume they are the ones who wrote the Introduction.

The conclusion emphasized the centrality of denying free will and promoting the concept of monergism in salvation (the idea that God acts alone in saving people; we have nothing to do with it).

Faith is only something God gives you after He regenerates you, they say. Then they say this:

to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other.

Eesh. That makes me cringe all over the place. But they go a step further. Disagreeing with Luther is un-Christian and also, get this, don’t know if you knew this or not, but disagreeing with Luther means you disagree with Jesus Himself.

I’m serious. Here’s the quote:

If the almighty God of the Bible is to be our God, if the New Testament Gospel is to be our message, if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever–is any other position than Luther’s possible?

Double eesh.

Let me answer that question with a very definite “yes.”

Disagreeing with Luther is not disagreeing with Jesus. Statements like this should alert you that you’re dealing with fanboys.

He went through a list of Reformers who held Luther’s views on this issue, including John Calvin, of course. They maintain that all the Reformers, at least the ones they like, all agreed on our inability to have faith and be saved unless God does it all.

One thing all these Reformers, at least the ones they mention, have in common is that they all loved Augustine.

Disagreeing with Luther does not make you disagree with Jesus Christ; it makes you disagree with Augustine. Which is totally fine by the way.

1 John 2:27 says “the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you.” If you have the Holy Spirit you don’t need a man to teach you.

If your doctrine is entirely based on a person, you’re not using the Holy Spirit. If you think you need to adhere to Luther or Calvin or Augustine or me in order to know Jesus, you’re out of your ever lovin’ mind.

People can help teach you, but to think you need a person to know Christ is insane. Never, ever elevate a person’s teaching to a level where you think disagreeing with them is disagreeing with Jesus.

Agree with Jesus; to the extent we agree with Jesus is the extent to which we will agree with each other.

This Introduction has entirely creeped me out.

Jonathan Edwards and Being Saved by Works

Jonathan Edwards is considered by some to be America’s greatest theologian. I don’t know about that.

What I do know is that Jonathan Edwards is a Calvinist of the first order. John Piper credits much of his Calvinistic preaching to Jonathan Edwards.

If you want Calvinist doctrine; read Jonathan Edwards.

Calvinism teaches that man does not have free will. That God ordained before your birth whether you would go to heaven or hell. You have nothing to do with it. The only people who believe the Gospel are people God previously regenerated.

I don’t know if Edwards went for all that, but many modern Calvinists who worship at the feet of Edwards certainly do.

That being the case, I was shocked to read the following quote from Jonathan Edwards the Preacher by Robert Turnbull. Quote is on page 98.

“The only hope of escape [from eternal punishment] is by the free gift of salvation from God. This cannot be won by man’s efforts, but if one is violent in seeking salvation and diligent in fulfilling all the duties God has prescribed, there is the probability that God will give him saving grace–although, of course, He is not bound to do so. Therefore be violent for the Kingdom.”

Did you catch that? Let me quote one part for emphasis:

This cannot be won by man’s efforts, but if one is violent in seeking salvation and diligent in fulfilling all the duties God has prescribed, there is the probability that God will give him saving grace

This is as unbelievable sentence. Not only does it make no theological sense, I’m not even sure it makes common sense. Words cease to mean things when used like this.

It’s just like the Westminster Confession–God has ordained everything that comes to pass, but He’s not the author of sin. He ordains everything but He doesn’t ordain sin? So does He ordain everything or not? Calvinists are famous for making bold statements that are completely undermined in the next sentence. If you question this, they’ll just tell you you’re dumb and it’s all a “mystery.”

Edwards is going all out Pelagian with this one. I wish people would actually read the theologians they so admire. I guarantee you’ll admire them less after a while! Which is perfectly fine because you’re supposed to be following Christ and adhering to His word anyway.

Later on the same page, the author says about the above quote, “Such discourses Edwards claimed were the ones most remarkably blessed.”

The appeals that worked were the ones that were completely contrary to his Calvinist doctrines. In other words, Edwards was a Calvinist until he wanted results. He pragmatically chucks Calvinism to get the numbers!

The author of this book is a huge fan of Edwards. It was close to a hagiography. So I was doubly stunned when I read this page.

I have never met a Calvinist who was a consistent Calvinist. Calvinism makes no sense and everyone knows it. Even Jonathan Edwards knew it. He was man enough to admit it, and sleazy enough to drop it in order to manipulate people.

God bless us, every one.

Appointed to Obtain Salvation

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ
–1 Thessalonians 5:9

Speaking verses we ignore because they freak people out. . .

This verse is troubling for several doctrines.

First, we deal with the word “appointed.” This word means, “to set, place, or put as a passive object.” If I set a book on the table, I am the active agent and the book is passive. The book gets put there by me. It can’t put itself there.

God has not put us in a place where we passively must accept wrath. This undermines the Calvinist idea that some are created by God specifically for the purpose of suffering His wrath in hell.

Second, we deal with the word “obtain.” In the context we are obtaining salvation. To obtain means, “redemption which will give possession. Acquire, purchase, win.”

Ellicott’s commentaty says this about obtaining salvation, “Means more than “obtain;” the Greek means “acquire” by one’s own efforts;” earn and make our own.”

Flipped out yet? Theologically triggered?

God has not put us in a passive position to have to take His wrath. Rather, He placed us as human beings, people who had no say in being born, as passive objects, in this world, a place where we don’t have to get God’s wrath; we can obtain, purchase, or get salvation.

He placed us in a place where we can do something to escape wrath and be saved.

This is where the church has overblown grace. We’ve been told that if there’s something you do to get, purchase, or obtain salvation that this is contrary to grace.

But it’s not. We can meet a condition that obtains salvation. We don’t earn it by works, or by works of the law, or by being impressive to God enough so He saves us. We obtain it through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ opened a way of salvation through His Gospel, which we can use to obtain salvation. God gives grace to the humble. Being humble is not a work; being humble is the condition to receive grace. You are capable of being humble. Do so and you’ll obtain grace.

There are two ways people could be saved:

1. completely God’s work, or
2. we have something to do with it

Calvinism says it’s all God. If it’s all God then we are passive objects being moved by God alone. But Paul says God has not placed us as passive objects to obtain wrath, but placed us in a place where there’s something we can do to obtain salvation.

Therefore, there sure seems to be something I can do to be saved. A response we are capable of making. We respond by faith to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not as a passive object, but as an active object that can acquire salvation.

Much of our Christian doctrine is an oversimplification based on a handful of verses rather than what the Bible says in whole.

I’ll let you hash out the implications of this verse and you can figure out what you want to do with it and why I’m an idiot for interpreting it the way I did.

That’s fine. The verse remains. Do something with it.

Humility Is Not A Work

God gives grace to the humble.

That bothers a lot of people, because they think there is nothing you can do to get grace. The following verse is trotted out as proof text:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
–Romans 11:6

This passage, in its context, is talking about the choosing of the nation of Israel for the Messiah to come through. The choosing of the nation that all nations would be blessed by. Salvation is of the Jews.

The Messiah was one Man and could be related to one race of people. That people was/is Israel. Romans 9-11 explains God’s plan of redemption and the interaction between Jews and Gentiles in the revealing of that plan.

I don’t think this verse has anything to do with how people receive salvation by grace.

Another verse quoted is Romans 4:4

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Paul’s point is that salvation is not achieved by works of the law, by circumcision, and keeping the old covenant law.

The context flows back into Romans 3, which is all about the Jews and their law. They thought doing Old Covenant law is what saved them. But never once did God ever tell anyone that keeping the Old Covenant law would save them. It was a covenant to stay in the Promised Land.

Abraham was before the law, therefore salvation, which was around in Abraham’s day, couldn’t be by the law. Romans 4 goes on to quote David, who lived under the law, also saying that salvation is not something you work your way into.

Therefore, if the Bible says there are things we do to get grace, and it does, then clearly those things cannot be the work Paul refers to in Romans.

The only way it could be is if the Bible is massively inconsistent on this issue, which some have staked their doctrine to such a claim. Not a good idea, but at least they are being more honest then most!

We are saved by grace through faith. Grace is what God provides; faith is how we respond. Faith is humble.

Every single human being knows they are bad. We have a conscience. A conscience is not proof of spiritual life; it’s proof that you are human. We all feel guilt. Yes, the conscience can be hardened, but it’s still there.

Knowing we are wrong wears a person out. We will seek mind altering chemicals to drown it out, or entertainment and distraction to get it to shut up, or sometimes even suicide.

All our desires of the flesh exist to quiet guilt. Yet the more we use the flesh to quiet guilt, the more guilty we become. It’s hopeless.

When the light of the Gospel shines in and a hopeless, guilt-ridden person hears that God loves them and wants to set them free from sin and guilt through the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, some grab onto that message with humble dependence.

When a person comes to the end, when hopelessness and guilt have trounced their soul, they respond to the Gospel.

This is not trying to fix the flesh, impress God, or in any way purchasing our own salvation. This is an admission that we got nothing and Christ is all.

I fail to see how this is pride and fleshly works.

Humility, love, and faith are exactly what the Gospel draws out of a person who seeks deliverance from themselves.

This is how the Bible speaks of how salvation happens. Any other theory plays fast and loose with Scripture and makes much of it false. Don’t do that. Be humble! Hear God’s Word and respond accordingly.

Getting Grace and Monergism

Many believe there is nothing you can do to get grace. That if you had to do something to get it; it wouldn’t be grace.

The question then is: OK, so how does one get grace?

If there is nothing I can do to get grace, then either

1) I can’t get grace, or
2) Something else must do everything with grace and me getting it without me doing anything.

Every believer knows some people get grace, so option 1 can’t be the answer. Therefore, we are left with option 2.

Option 2 is officially called “Monergism.” Here is a definition of Monergism accepted by Monergists:

“In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.”

Humans cannot respond to God. Everything is done by the Holy Spirit. Once a person is regenerated, then they can believe the Gospel.

Regeneration before believing is nowhere stated in the Bible and often said in the opposite way, such as, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”

Nowhere are we told, “Be saved and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Monergism is completely contrary to Scripture. Sure, you can bend a handful of verses to seem like they are saying this, but no, this is not how the Scripture speaks of salvation.

So neither option answers our dilemma of how we can get grace by doing nothing.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to assume there must be something we can do to get grace, and this thing we do to get grace, does not mean I earned it or worked for it. It means I met a condition.

This simple understanding seems to fit quite nicely with Scripture.

“God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble,” the Bible says several times. If you’re not humble then you don’t get grace. How does this fit with Monergism?

Monergism would say, “Well yeah, God makes you humble so you get grace.” OK, well, wouldn’t God making me humble while I was not humble be a gracious thing? If so, then God does give grace to non-humble people.

Monergism is held true as long as you’re cool with making Scripture false.

Don’t let your doctrine get carried away and make you call the Scriptures a liar. Stick with the Scripture. Line your doctrine up with it.

How to Get Grace

There are some who read that title and are already ticked off!

“There’s nothing you do to get grace! Grace is God’s undeserved favor. If you did something to get it; then it wouldn’t be grace!”

This is the view of Calvinism and the “I” of their TULIP–Irresistible Grace.

Irresistible Grace says the only way you get grace is if God chooses you to get it. If you win the luck of the draw, God will shove His grace down your throat whether you want it or not.

OK, that was my cynical and not very complimentary definition of Irresistible Grace. It is, however, in essence what it is, just without the theological politeness!

Clearly I do not believe in Irresistible Grace. Grace can be resisted; that’s why there are people in hell.

Saying there is something you do to get grace does not mean we earn grace, merit grace, nor that we worked for grace.

Doing something to get grace merely means we met the conditions upon which grace is granted.

There are several conditions the Bible says we meet to get grace.

First, is faith. We are saved by grace through faith. We believe the Gospel, we believe that Jesus Christ is the only one able to save us. When we believe this, we receive the benefits of God’s grace.

Second, is humility. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Being humble is not a work of the flesh. Humility is knowing your flesh can’t work anything to save itself.

Third, is love. Here I will quote a little quoted verse, Ephesians 6:24, “Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.” If you don’t love Jesus Christ sincerely; no grace for you!

None of this says we earn grace or worked for it. Grace is a beautiful thing. God, through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, provides everything we need for salvation. This is offered by His grace.

Our response is a faithful, humble, love that is drawn to the humble love Christ demonstrated on the cross. It’s grabbing on to Jesus Christ for salvation in love and faith, completely appreciating and being humbled by His salvation.

This is not a fleshly work that puffs up the fleshly nature. This is simply a realization of who we are and who Christ is, and our desperate need for Him.

There is a reason why some get God’s grace for salvation and some don’t. It’s not luck of the draw either. It’s based on your humble, faithful, and loving reaction to the grace and love of God.

Go get some grace! You need it!

R C Sproul’s Calvinism is Mind-boggling

Here are two quotes from RC Sproul. These are not obscure quotes. These are oft repeated quotes from him.

If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled.

This quote says that every single piece of creation is doing exactly what God tells it to do. “Sovereignty,” for Sproul, means God is in meticulous control of everything. Being in charge means dictating absolutely everything that everything does. If God is not dictating every element of creation, then God is not sovereign.

So now, the exact same man says this quote:

Every sin is an act of cosmic treason, a futile attempt to dethrone God in His sovereign authority.

Every sin is going against God’s sovereign authority. Sin is cosmic treason.

I don’t get it.

I know this is where the Calvinist chalks things up to “mystery.” But no, this isn’t a mystery, one of the two has to be false.

If every molecule is doing what God tells it to do, then how can molecules join together to commit cosmic treason?

The best solution to the contradiction is not chalking it up to mystery, and it certainly isn’t deciding that nothing is really sin, but admitting his understanding of sovereignty is wrong.

God is sovereign. Sovereign does not mean making every part of creation do what He wants it to do.

God establishes boundaries. Creation is free inside those boundaries. God is in control to restrict any violation of the boundaries. Nothing is out of His reach to intervene.

I do believe sin is cosmic treason. I’ll take that quote over his molecule quote, that one is just nuts.

Don’t get carried away in your theological ideas. Pretty soon you don’t make sense. Incoherence isn’t proof of mystery; it’s proof your theology has derailed.

How To Define Doctrine

I’ve been riffing about this quote the last few days:

A rejection of penal substitutionary atonement is a rejection of the gospel. Either you’re saved through the work of Christ on the Cross, or you’re not saved at all.

This quote makes it sound as if penal substitutionary atonement is the Gospel. Salvation would then be pinned upon believing penal substitutionary atonement.

I believe penal substitutionary atonement is a man-made doctrine, a result of Calvinistic philosophy, and is not inherently Biblical.

“Penal substitutionary atonement” is mentioned zero times in the New Testament, written after there was a revealed and understood Gospel.

Now, I know, “Trinity isn’t in the Bible either, yet you believe in that.” True. The concept is there and the doctrine of the trinity is the best explanation I’ve heard of how the Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Penal substitutionary atonement is not, in my opinion, the best explanation of the Gospel.

Furthermore, having an unorthodox doctrine of the trinity (one that does not measure up to the man-made definition of what the trinity is), does not disqualify you from salvation.

However, I have heard proponents of the trinity say that if you reject their notion of the trinity you can’t be saved. I’m not sure about that.

I do think wrong views of who God is will impact your doctrine on many levels and it is a vital doctrine, but can anyone fully explain it?

The Trinity is never explicitly explained in Scripture, whereas the Gospel is repeatedly explained. The Trinity is a pretty good attempt to draw together hints in the Scripture about God. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not a very good summation of all the Bible clearly and repeatedly says about the Gospel.

The fact that we have definitions that we like and agree upon does not mean we actually understand it correctly. In other words, just because you think you’re right doesn’t necessarily mean you are right!

Making people believe your idea, no matter how orthodox (accepted) it may be, is still not a basis of salvation.

Back to penal substitutionary atonement. If penal substitutionary atonement is equal to the Gospel, and must be believed to be saved, shouldn’t these concepts be explicitly stated?

Yet the word “penal,” “penalty,” “penalize,” or any other word with “penal” in it is never once used in relationship to the Gospel in the New Testament.

The word “substitute,” “substitution,” “substitutionary,” or any other word with “substitute” in it is never used in the New Testament in relationship to the Gospel.

Allow me to really shock you and say that the word “atone,” “atoned,” “atonement,” or any other word including the root “atone” is never used in the New Testament in relation to the Gospel (“Atonement” is used one time in the KJV when they mistranslated a Greek word).

It seems weird to me that believing penal substitutionary atonement is required in order to believe the Gospel when none of these words is ever used in relation to the Gospel.

There are, no doubt, verses that people can list that hint at these words (Isaiah 53 being the closest to the idea), there may be concepts that are similar, but alas, none of these words is ever used.

I do not have to believe your doctrine in order to believe the Gospel. I do not have to use your non-biblical words. In fact, I prefer not using the word “trinity” simply because it’s not a biblical word. I prefer “godhead” much better, because there is at least biblical precedent for using such a word.

When we explain to people what we believe, what our doctrine is, it is always best to quote Scripture. It is better to say it the way the Bible says it than to quote what people said.

I, in no way, think doctrine is unimportant. On the contrary, I think doctrine is so important that we should be very careful in what we say it is and how we define it. Instead of using our words, ideas, and concepts, it seems better to quote Scripture.

If a person were to ask me, “Hey, Jeff, what is the Gospel?”

I would not answer by quoting the definition of penal substitutionary atonement. I would instead quote 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

I can rest on that. I’d rather rest on the foundation of Scripture than on the teetering, fallible doctrines of men. If someone has a problem with my defining biblical quote, then I end up defending the Bible, which is way better than defending what some guys said.

If your doctrine uses non-biblical words, I am immediately skeptical. I assume human philosophy has entered your doctrine. I also wonder how well you know the Scripture. Is this unfair judgment on my part? Maybe, then again, the Bible tells me to test the spirits and I don’t mess around with that.

Doctrine is important. The Gospel is important. So important that we should be very careful in how we define it, explain it, and defend it. You can’t go wrong quoting the Bible. Do so.

Two Problems With Substitutionary Atonement

Yesterday I did a post on the following quote:

A rejection of penal substitutionary atonement is a rejection of the gospel. Either you’re saved through the work of Christ on the Cross, or you’re not saved at all.

The gist of the quote is that if you don’t believe in Substitutionary Atonement (to be called SA from now on cuz it’s hard to type!) then you aren’t saved.

This is a rather silly position to take. SA is Calvinism. What the author of the quote is saying is that if you’re not Calvinist you don’t believe the Gospel and thus are not saved.

In his quote, only Calvinists are saved. These are the same people who fought against the Catholic Church for saying only Catholics are saved!

I believe it is entirely possible to not believe in SA and still believe the Gospel, because SA is not the Gospel. SA is an attempt to summarize and explain the Gospel.

It gets some things right and presses other things out of measure.

I know it is possible to not accept SA and yet still believe the Gospel, because I do.

Here are my two main reasons for rejecting SA:

1. SA says that Christ died as your substitute. He died in your place. You were supposed to die, but instead Christ did. Although this sounds good and there are a couple verses you can misinterpret to make it sound like that’s what the Bible says, this isn’t right.

If Christ specifically died in the exact place of every believer, then He did not die in the exact place of every non-believer. This leads to Limited Atonement, the L of the Calvinist TULIP. This is, by far, their weakest point. It is refuted by many Scriptures. Limited Atonement is wrong. Anyone can come to Christ for salvation. He died for the sins of the whole world.

Limited Atonement rejects that idea because Limited Atonement is not based on Scripture; it’s based on the Calvinist philosophy of SA.

2. SA says that Christ died instead of you. He was your exact substitute, doing something you don’t have to do now because He did it for you.

This obviously isn’t true because everyone dies! This is also not true from a Gospel standpoint because, according to Romans 6 and many other passages, Christ didn’t just die for you, He wasn’t just some man who did some thing a long time ago for you. By faith you were crucified with Him, buried with Him, and raised up with Him to newness of life. I am crucified with Christ. The old man is crucified with its affections and lusts.

SA is all about Christ dying, not me. The New Testament clearly shows that we die with Christ and are raised up with Christ to newness of life. By faith, anyone can identify themselves with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s not instead of or in the place of; it’s with.

SA is wrong. It ignores lots of Scripture. SA is Calvinism. Heaven contains non-Calvinists. You do not have to believe in SA to be saved. Rejecting SA is not rejecting the Gospel.

Rejecting SA is rejecting a human attempt to explain the Gospel, an attempt that fails in several ways.

Hold fast to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word; hold loosely the ideas and philosophies of people. We’re saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by faith in John Calvin, Augustine, or anyone else. Please don’t forget that.

Doctrine and the Gospel

I saw this quote on the internet the other day:

A rejection of penal substitutionary atonement is a rejection of the gospel. Either you’re saved through the work of Christ on the Cross, or you’re not saved at all.

I fully agree that you are saved by the work of Christ on the cross or not at all (as long as the resurrection is included). No problem there.

But the idea that my belief in the Gospel equals my belief in a man-made attempt to explain what Christ did, crosses the line.

Substitutionary atonement is not the Gospel. It’s the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of the Gospel.

If this quote is true, then only Calvinist/Reformed people can be saved.

This is one example of many I have seen and heard over the years. This is not an issue with substitutionary atonement; it’s an issue with overstating your case.

The fact that you can read your doctrine into the Gospel does not mean that your doctrine IS the Gospel.

One of the main problems Jesus Christ had with the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day was the demand to adhere to their ideas rather than adhering, by faith, to God Himself.

Believing what people say is not believing the Gospel! Believing a person’s summation of the Gospel is not believing the Gospel!

You do not have to have 100% agreement in doctrine with some elite group in order to get into heaven.

Furthermore, substitutionary atonement was not codified until about 600 years ago. Are we to believe that no one was saved before the Reformers showed us what the Gospel was?

Your job is to know the Lord Jesus Christ. To grow in your love for Him and all He has done and will do for you.

All of this is based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection. It is not based on adherence or conformity to a group’s doctrine.

The temptation to say “Only people who agree with me are saved because I’m the only one who knows what the Gospel is” ruins people, leads to self-righteousness, and divides the Church.

Stop doing that.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That’s a direct quote from the Bible and there are other verses like it. None of these verses say “believe what some guy theorized about what Jesus did and you will be saved.”

Know Christ yourself. Know His Gospel. Pray and talk with the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. People can help you understand the Gospel (Ephesians 4 makes that clear), but nowhere is salvation promised to those who agree in totality with some random group.

Deal with God. He’s your Judge. Deal with the Word of God, for by His Word you will be judged.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
–Matthew 15:8-9

Grace To All

Calvinism is Greek philosophy read into a handful of Scriptures. If Calvinism is true, then a massive amount of verses in the Bible are not.

Here’s one:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
–Titus 2:11

The King James Version above is not the best. It gives the idea that God’s grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men. That all men saw its appearance.

The correct translation of the Greek is better expressed in the New American Standard:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

or the English Standard Version:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

I mean, even the NIV gets this one right!

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

The grace of God, which brings salvation to all men, has appeared. All men can receive God’s grace. It hasn’t just appeared to them; it can actually save them. Not just some of them, but ALL of them.

It is not saying that all men will be saved, but that all men can be saved by God’s grace, and His gracious salvation has appeared–referring to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.

Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father. Everyone can approach the Father through the Son.

Everyone.

Not just a chosen few only.

Grace is there for everyone to be saved.

The offer of salvation is legitimately made to all people. Not just by us with God ordained means, but legitimately by God who desires all men to be saved.

Titus 2:11 rejects Limited Atonement forcefully.

I like Titus 2:11 way more than I like sticking with some guys theories.