Rightly reading the words of others: A friendly reply with regards especially to Ken Silva (part 1)

I have been interacting with my friend Rick Ianiello over at his blog post here. Due to various reasons, Rick does not think too well of discernment ministries in general, and Pastor Ken Silva is one of the people he has a problem with. Both of them are my friends, and I also have no interest in defending people per se as compared to God and His truth. Nevertheless, I think it is good that there should be no unnecessary conflict (key word: unnecessary) within the body of Christ, and it is in this spirit that I would like to defuse the criticism aimed against Pastor Ken. That does not mean Pastor Ken is sinless, or that he does not have areas of improvement, or even that he is totally correct all the time. But we should always be gracious to fellow believers and discern properly what they are saying in the best possible light. Unless the person is out to destroy the Church or corrode God's truth, we should aim so as to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

It is in this spirit that I would like to approach this task of mine. Rick has posted a more extensive critique of Pastor Ken's articles in a subsequent blog post here, and I would interact with this so that we can rightly discern the words of others.

The very nature of discernment ministries

Rick made a remark that it is alright to expose error, but typically ministers of the Gospel are not preoccupied with that and do exclusively. He is definitely correct, in so far as we are not called just to expose error, but to teach the truth, and see exposing error as something we must do because we love Christ, not because we love to expose people. It is definitely true also that discernment ministries are focused on this seemingly negative work, and I guess perhaps Pastor Ken's large output of articles exposing various groups here and there would definitely place him in the unenviable spot of being seen as overly focused on exposing error.

Now, this being said, let me offer a response to the charge of undue focus on exposing error. Discernment ministries are by their very nature focused on exposing error. If you go and read discernment websites, don't go there expecting to find nice little devotionals, exegesis of Scripture, expounding of doctrine etc unless they fit in with the theme of discernment. And that's why Christians are not meant to read articles on discernment ministries as if that is their Quiet Time material. Such articles are to be treated as news and information so that we can know what is going on in the visible Church and enemy forces she is facing both from within and without. It is so that we would be less naive and less easily duped by the enemy. So to attack discernment ministries as being unbalanced is a fallacious charge, since they are specialized ministries in the first place.

Of course, then the question will move to whether such ministries ought to exist in the first place. Since I have likened the articles put forward by discernment ministries as news, let me continue on with the analogy. Disernment ministries would therefore be analogous to a media company. Is news necessary? Why, of course, unless you want to be ignorant about what is happening around the world. There is just too much news that you cannot expect any single person to go around experiencing or finding the information from the direct people involved in such news. Similarly, with communications being global such that for example this article can be read and will be read by people from Singapore, US, UK and possibly even by an African or Arab if he stumbles onto it, and the increase in new movements everywhere within the visible Church, it is impossible that we can keep up with the latest going ons, which may well inpact all of us. For example, something which originated in Orange County, California has the ability to create division in the churches even as far away as South Africa or Singapore. Yes, pastors and elders are supposed to do the job, but pastors are overtaxed. With the harvest plentiful and the workers being few, those who are supposed to do the job oftentimes just do not have the time and energy to keep up with all this new information. Not to mention that most churches are not functioning as God intended with politicking, power-grabbing going etc, not to mention the problems faced created by the embrace of all forms of unbiblical church polity. Compounding this, the strength of the church is sapped becuse of the effort needed to stem the tide of heresy, which could easily be diverted elsewhere if proper church discipline was to be administered and the command of biblical separation obeyed. As such, we need specialized people in discernment ministries to help us, so that all parts of the Body of Christ aid each other in the work of God.

With regards specifically to Pastor Ken, it must be seen that both Christian Research Net, and Apprisng Ministries are discernment websites. As such, it should be natural that almost anything there would be with regards to exposing people. As such, there should be no grounds for complaint. We must also realize that such posting probably does not take a lot of time, and that the rest of the time may be spent on other forms of "positive" ministry like preaching, expositing the Scripture to his congregation etc. Now, I do not know whether that is the case, but it could be, and just as we shouldn't judge a book by its cover, we shouldn't judge a person solely by the stuff posted on websites which have such a purpose. We must realize that people may use the Internet for one purpose only, and not others, and we shouldn't judge a person based on the one side he has revealed on the Internet (surface judgment cf Jn. 7:24).

Let me give you a personal example. Not too long ago, I was accused and judged with regards to service in the Local Church, or more specificaly, I was judged to be spending too much time just stirring up controversy and not serving the body of believers. And how did the person came up with that? Perhaps it was due to the amount of posts I posted, plus I was tackling many issues and especially exposing the Purpose Driven paradigm. While I did spend a significant time blogging and being on the Net, the person is judging me based on appearance, not knowing the true situation back where I am, nevermind that my largest blog category then and now was on the Christian life! Just because I did not blog about my other 'non-electronic' areas of ministry (as if I must boast on my blog what I did for the Lord) means I am automatically condemned as being someone who is like the Pharisee. And furthermore, that person has the mindset that anybody can just decide to serve in a church in any capacity anytime and they would just allow you to do so. Needless to say, that person has judged wrongly. And therefore I do not like to judge on surface appearance. In the same way, just because Pastor Ken seems to spend a lot of time expsing error may not be so and actually may just be taking up 10% or less of his ministry time. It may be either way, but we do not have proof either-way. So let us be gracious and think of him in the best possible light.

On Doug Pagitt

Rick does not like Pagitt either. However, he finds fault with others who questioned Pagitt about his various beliefs. In summary, Rick thinks that Pagitt is not as bad as how oters make him out to be because his focus is not on such matters.

Now, I must first of all state that I have listened to the Crosswalk program with Ingrid Schlueter, and Todd Friel's Way of the Master program with Doug Pagitt. However, I have not listened to the one MacArthur commented on the article Pastor Ken linked to, so I can't comment on that. First of all, I agree with Rick with regards to his evaluation of Todd Friel's performance on that show, in that Friel's question was too cookie-cut and is something suited for those who deal with a historical evngelical mindset. This is not to say that Pagitt's inability to understand the question is a good thing (he should since he claims to be a pastor), but it wasn't a good thing. Nevertheless, I disagree with Rick's conclusion over the matter, in that I find Pagitt to show forth his views as heretical at the end.

It must be stated that Rick, perhaps being in the Vineyard movement which stresses a 'Kingdom-based' theology, sees things less dualistically and more 'holistically', in the sense that some things are 'both/and' rather than 'either/or'. That seems to be the take on Rick's defence of Pagitt. Yet, the problem is that such will not work in defending Pagitt. Remember that Pagitt is here in the Todd Friel radio program stating that topics such as heaven and hell, salvation from God's wrath and hell are things which are not important. Notice the word 'not' there. Pagitt is already disregarding the entire focus of historical soteriology. If truly he is embracing a 'both/and' theology, then he would agree with Friel but then add that there is more to the issue than just heaven and hell (ie Rick Warren's approach). By stating that salvation as understood historically is unimportant is an attack on the very nature of Gospel itself, not as Rick thinks is a postulation of a 'both/and' theology.

With regards to the part about the interview with Pastor Bob Dewaay, I guess Rick perhaps overlooked the fact that readers are given a link to buy the CDs/ DVDs of the DeWaay/ Pagitt debate, where they can make the conclusion themselves. And the issue here is that Pastor Ken is using the authority of two pastors to prop us his case, just for those people who have more respect of your position when they know other (more influential) pastors agree with you perhaps. Anyway, is being vague (which the Emergent Church loves to be) somehow a Christian virtue? I don't think so.

Now, we will look at specific quotes. Rick quoted this:

Ingrid Schlueter: So what you’re saying is that the question of whether the Gospel exists in other religions is a thrilling question that we should be asking.

Doug Pagitt: I think it’s the biblical question. Yes, I think it’s the right biblical question. I think, I find that you couldn’t read the New Testament without that question being raised and without the answers to it being the answers that we should be paying to; which is there is no culture or religion which holds God in complete isolation or purity. (15:25-15:56)

To this Rick added in another segment of what Pagitt said:

There is always the act of the Spirit outside of our religious systems. That's true of ... all religions. There is nobody who should be able to say that what we believe is the end of the story and that there is nothing else that God can contribute through people in the world. Or that there is nothing else that God is ever going to do in the world. That is a serious overstatement. There is no Christian expression which is not also a cultural expression. We do not have a culturally neutral Christianity. So what we have in any system of belief ... we are now engaged in a culturally invented Christianity which has its limitations.

Rick tries to defend this by talking about culture and Christianity. He syas:

Secondly, isn't Pagitt correct that we package our Christianity based on our culture? As one who travels the world, I get to see first hand that Christians everywhere are not alike in all that one may easily consider part of the Christian tradition.

I'm really sorry, but sometimes I just want to scream. I am an Asian Chinese and I think so far the only orthodox Evangelicals who try to defend something like that with such arguments are the White caucasians (Really sorry for stereotyping). To be sure, there are many different cultural expressions of Christianity, yet to think that this fact somehow creates a relativizing force on all cultures in general, and into faith in particular is ridiculous. We all came from Adam, from Noah, and were dispersed at the Tower of Babel, so please quit thinking as though we are all so alien. All cultures are not equal, neither are they all correct or all wrong. But all of this have nothing whatsoever to do with the faith and the Gospel itself. Furthermore, Pagitt is advocating religious pluralism, not just cultural humility. Religion, not just culture.

And this whole thing about seeing good in other religions etc is one of the fruits of the most perverse form of "Common grace" (Richard Mouw's type) teaching around. God is the source of all good, and all Man are desperately depraved and wicked (Total Depravity). Whatever good the unregenerate have is a reflection of the little which originates from God, so why should we look for good in them when we can find it in God and so much more and purer? Why do we need acknowledge good in culture and religion even though they have a bit of it, since theirs is a mere shadow compared to the fullness found in Christ. It is like marveling at the microscopic wavelet caused by a swimming bacterium because it looks similar to the large waves left in the wake of a killer whale.

And noticed that Pagitt says that God is working in other religious systems? Is God really doing that? I submit to you no. How can God be working in a system which is rank idolatry at best? God is working to brig poeople to Him, not to 'redeem' religions.

The next portion of the interview is also interesting:

Ingrid Schlueter: So we could interpret what you’re saying as how is God at work; how is the Gospel present within Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism—all of the different religions of the world.

Doug Pagitt: Yeah, for sure because—I mean—Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, those are not—I me—they are the right way to say ‘em. They are “isms,”right; so they are a school of thought, and they are also embedded in a particular cultural setting. And so I think someone could say, “yes, I can see how God—how God is expressed, talked about, understood, through these schools of thought.” Which I find to be quite helpful and they’re not all in contrast with my Christianity. (17:05-17:47)

And Rick adds the following segment, which doesn't actually help Pagitt,

And I could find other parts of those same systems that I think I could say I don't think that is at all the way God operates in the world. But I find that very same thing inside the Christian context.

Rick thinks Pagitt is saying that

He acknowledges clearly that there is false teaching in these other systems. He just isn't willing to say every word that flows from someone in another culture is false

Unfortunately, this is not what Pagitt is saying. Pagitt is first stating that there are good points within all religions which come from God; in other words he has already conceded that truth can be found in other religions and that God is working within them. As mentioned, this is the most twisted form of "common grace" ever to be seen and it leads to religious pluralism. In distinction, biblical Chrisianity's position has always been that we start with the truth of God which we have, and that any truth which is found in other religions is a shadow of the truth found in Christ. Just because some religions have some truth does not make that entities to learn from. For example, almost all religion tell you that stealing is wrong. Are we to say that we can learn from them because of that?

So wrapping this up, how can it be denied that Doug Pagitt is a heretic? The statements by Pagitt implicate him through and through.

Ecumenical fairytale and Rick Warren

The next thing to look at is Ken Silva's piece An ecumenical fairytale. In this piece, it is true that Pastor Ken did not specifically quote anyone, but this is the type of piece along the lines of the PoMotivator posters by TeamPyro. In other words, this piece presupposes that you have read all the previous material and therefore are able to follow along with the satire. I know Rick hates the PoMotivator posters, so I don't think he will like this piece by Pastor Ken too, but other than that, I don't see any other problem.

And with regards to Rick Warren, I had replied that because Norman Vincent Peale mentored Robert Schuller, and that Schuller had influenced Warren, therefore the link is there. Furthermore, Warren can be technically correct, but that is a red herring, for the main question is not whether Warren has met Schuller and they are great fishing buddies for example, but whether Schuller's ideas on things like church growth have been passed down to Warren. This is not a guilt-by-association tactic as supposed, but is valid since the thing being passed down is not something facile like 'have been taught by this person before', but that they do share the same mindset with regards to church growth for example; in other words a transmission of ideology.

We will look at Rob Bell and Erwin McManus later, in the next post.

[to be continued]

Weekly Meditations: Is. 1 (1)

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the Lord has spoken: “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.”

Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. (Is. 1:2-4)

We have started off the series looking at the backdrop in which Isaiah wrote this book which was named after him, and in which he performed his prophetic ministry. As a prophet, Isaiah was to deliver the words of God to the people (unlike the secular definition of a prophet being one who foretell the future). In this particular case, Isaiah was prophesying to the house of Israel during the time of the godly king Uzziah (before he died just before chapter 6). We thus can see Isaiah through the revelation of God knew the hearts of the people to be far from Him, although they were close to Him in appearance, since the first 5 chapters of Isaiah were written during the godly reign of King Uzziah.

God started his accusation against Israel by leveling the charge of rebellion and deliberate forgetfulness against His people. The Lord brings heaven and earth as witness against them, not that they could actually function as such as they are inaminate and nothing is more reliable than God's given Word (Mt. 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33), but because humanly speaking, these two are the two physical realities that does not seem to change, and encompasses the two visible extremes. Therefore, God by asking them to hear and witness what He has to say is showing everyone in the universe including the principalities in the heavens that whatever God will say is true and will be seen as such. Truly, God will be justified when He speaks.

God in verse 2 and 3 portrayed the picture of the raising up of children, the children being Israel, and yet these children are ungrateful and rebelled against Him. He compared them with brute, stupid animals, who yet know their masters, yet Israel who are men do not know God. His people are worse than the basest of animals as they cannot even recognize and know the God who raised them up and treated them kindly.

Now, this analogy is obviously meant to show the moral outrage that such rebellion should be. Is anything worse than turning your back on the one who raised you up? This is detestable in any oriental culture, of which the ancient Hebrew culture can be considered a part of, and only slightly better of even in liberal Western society. To repay back evil for good is bad enough, but when you repay your parents evil for their good is a total outrage, which God is conveying to the people that their actions towards him is like such, especially towards a perfect parent like God.

Remember that the people of Isaiah's day were nominal believers, being under the godly King Uzziah. Yet their entire attitude shows their departure from God, and that their hearts are far from Him. By not truly acknowledging him as God but just making God into a religion with all its rituals and formalities (Is. 1:11-14), God treated such ritualism and dead legalism as rebellion.

Hard words indeed, but one we have to grapple with also. Remember that in the days of King Uzziah they were still compromising the faith and their worship by utilizing syncretism (2 Kings. 15:4), worshipping Yahweh using pagan alters and maybe even rituals. God detest anything which detract away from Himself, even just 'small, ninor sins', and regards things like syncretism, even 'a little bit of syncretism', as rebellion against Him.

In verse 4, Isaiah proclaims the plight of the people of Israel. They are stated as being sinful, laden down with iniquity as well as "offsprings of evildoers" parallel to the concept of "children who deal corruptly". Thus, whether through guilt or sin, they are all culpable. They are spoken of being forsaken of the Lord. Since they rebelled against God, God left them to their own devices and they have became estranged from God their rightful Father.

From all this, it can be seen Isaiah started off on a 'harsh' note. The prophet minces no words and through speaking forth the words of God, he cuts to the issue at hand. Israel has by and large forsook their God and rebelled against Him. Although they keep the rites and comands on the surface, they are being religious for the sake of being religious, rather than because of obeying the God who loved and brought them up.

As an application for this week, let us think about this and learn from wayward Israel. Are we doing things for the sake of being religious? Are we merely going through church formalities and rituals just for their own sake; that it make us fulfil our church duties? Or worse still, are we compromising the biblical standards in our Christian walk and service, and see no problem with it? If so, please do repent of such errors and turn back to a geniune relationship with Christ. Compromise is rebellion against God, and God will not accept lame human excuses of it being a 'small sin', 'just a bit of compromise', because He is a perfectly holy God who demands absolute perfection (Mt. 5:48) and any 'small transgression' of the Law is held accountable before God as if he broke all of the Law (Jas. 2:10).

Tentative positions on the topic of 'common grace' and the 'free offer'

After my previous studies and various interactions leading to the previous posts, I have sortof settled on a more matured view of the entire issue with regards to 'common grace' and the 'free offer', and would attempt to consolidate them into precise written form from the many thoughts and interactions I have had.

1) God gives to all His creation what can be called 'Common providential grace', or simply providence. It is emphatically denied that He gave to His creation 'Common salvific grace'.

2) By 'Common providential grace', this refers to the general benevolence of God towards His creation, in upholding and substaining them, in providing for their needs in general, in giving rain, sunshine and other physically good things to everyone, and in restraining the sinfulness of Man.

3) By 'Common salvific grace', this refers to the favor which God grants upon all Man in such a way that He intends all things for their good, including that He desires them to repents and thus be saved.

4) Closely related to the idea of 'common salvific grace' is the idea of the 'well-meant offer'. We reject the 'well-meant offer' but embrace the concept of the 'universal unconditional offer'.

5) By 'well-meant offer', or 'sincere offer', is meant that God has a sinere and ardent desire that all Man should repent and that God desires their salvation.

6) By 'universal unconditional offer', is meant that God's offer of salvation is not discriminatory against people from any tribe, nation or tongue, ethnicity or 'skin color' — hence universal, and that it does not have a condition which Man must fulfil to obtain this offer — hence unconditional. (Well, beside being human)

7) The proclamation of the Gospel should be done with the 'universal unconditional offer' and not the 'well-meant offer'.

8) In evaluating such issues, attention must be made to the entirety of Scripture.

9) The idea of collective and individuals is very important and must be affirmed within this topic, or everything would end up in irrationality. The best known example of ideas about the collective is that of people in the Covenant, which is implied from Covenant Theology.

9) It is affirmed that Scriptures talks about God desiring to save sinners in a ways that He intends their repentance. Such talk in Scripture like Rom. 2:4 however must be noted in their context, which shows that God's desires and intentions here are expressed towards the collective and realized in the elect within the collective Covenant people.

10) Another important point to take note is that the class of evil people ≠ the class of reprobates. Therefore, that God is good towards the wicked cannot in any sense mean anything with regards to the issue of whether God is good towards the reprobates, since God has His elect even within the wicked (cf the example of Nebuchadnezzar, not to mention some of the Ninevites of Jonah's day)

11) The writings of the Reformers and Puritans are in full agreement with such a view. In fact, they are more truthfully interpreted as teaching such since they hold to Covenant Theology, which forces the differentiation between the collective and the individual.

12) The passage of Ez. 18 can be said to apply only to the Jews and therefore to the collective Covenant community circa Rom. 2:4. However, in Ez. 18:23 and Ez. 18:32, God declared that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We can interpret this text to mean that God is comparatively happier (anthropomorphically speaking) in repentance than in judgment, yet this has nothing whatsoever to say about God desiring their salvation in an absolute sense.

13) On a parallel track, God delights in repentance because it brings conformity with His Law. Therefore, to say that God likes and loves repentance does not imply that God desires the salvation of someone, although repentance would necessarily lead to salvation. As an analogy, just because person X wants to eat lots of ice-cream does not imply that he desires to be fat, although he would be fat (simplistic scenario), as his reason for so desiring is that he just loves the taste of ice-cream.

14) As such, God's command for all to repent is not that He desires any individual salvaton per se. God only intends the salvation of the elect, but He delights and wants repentance of all because they bring the person in conformity to His Law and thus bring glory to His name.

15) The Gospel is thus a sincere command instead of a sincer offer. It is thus based on a higher, more theocentric basis of the glory of God based upon the command to conform to His Law, instead of the anthropocentric basis of the plea of God to rebel sinners begging him to accept them (ie I want to save you, but you would not allow me to).

Hope this is fine.

On the common grace controversy: Rebuttal to Tony Byrne regarding the 'common grace' interpretation of Rom. 2:4

[continued from here; topic continuation from here and here]

We have previously read and exegeted the text of Rom. 2:4 in its context in the post here. I should have addressed Byrne's interpretation of Rom. 2:4 first, but I was too focused on the quotes Byrne quoted from the Reformers and Puritans to notice this. Now that we are done, we can go back and look once more at Byrne's particular interpretation of this verse, as stated here.

Before we start, let's add some clarification to the exegesis of Rom. 2:1-5, with regards to how the concept of the kindness of God obligating people to repent instead of leading them to repentance is derived. The truth is, it is both, but to different peoples. This kindness of God whose intention is to lead people to repentance will find its fulfilment in the elect individuals who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. And the salvation of these individuals from the Jewish stock, and therefore meaning from the OT Church, would indicate that God's intention to save as a collective have been fulfilled. Therefore, God's kindness is meant to lead people to repentance (v. 4) and it DOES lead people to repentance. That not everybody is led to repentance is not the issue, since the verse is talking about people collectively here.

The concept of obligation is derived from the tension of the God's intention for the collective and its overflow benefits to the reprobates within the collective Church. Since the reprobates individually belong to the collective whose intention was unto salvation, they should turn to Christ in repentance, seeing that God has showered them with so much blessing (the 'benevolence' of God). They therefore are obligated to repent because of God's benevolence to them as they are in the Church collectively.

Now, Byrne in this short post of his focuses mainly on the force of the Greek word agei. However, that isn't the issue for us. It may pose a problem to true hyper-Calvinists, but for us who can learn to differentiate between the individual and the collective, this is not a problem for us. We can always affirm that God's patience is meant to lead people to repentance in the collective sense (primarily with regards to the Covenant people and then to others), but not in the individual sense, and most definitely not to the class of reprobates both collectively nor individually.

Interestingly enough, Byrne perhaps unwittingly showed us more into his Amyraldian bent by mentioning the 'universal aspect of the atonement', which undermines his stated belief in the 'L' of TULIP. Now, I am not saying that those in the modern Amyraldian camp do not believe in Limited Atonement; they may, but their atonement is limited in the sense only of ultimate intent, not of God's intent in general, and that is what Byrne seems to be teaching too.

Some may remember that I have done a couple of series previously on the proclamation of the Gospel, in which I have defined the term Neo-Amyraldism as being the belief in the two wills of God (or two-fold will) as long as one will or part intends the salvation of all (universal aspect of the atonement) and the other will or part intends the salvation of some (Limited Atonement). The reason why I used the term 'Amyraldism' as te root form to describe the modern 'common grace' belief is because both classical Amyraldism and this belief are derived from Calvinism, and both have a disjunction in the wills and decrees of God. Classical Amyraldism postulated a disjunction by making the latter will of God with the intention to save some abrogate the former will of God to save all, although in fairness it must be stated that God in the middle decrees Man to save so that He cannot save all. The modern variery postulates a disjunction too, but it is even worse because now both wills operate at the same time (the timeline of the world), and on the same level (soteriology). Since no other belief is so close to Calvinism and postulates a disjunction within the wills of God on the same subject title (the Will of God) on the same level (soteriology) as Amyraldism, therefore the term Neo-Amyraldism is best suited for describing the 'common gracers'.

I would end this series, and being interaction with Tony Byrne on this topic with a look at this statement:

1) Common grace is based in intentional love (see Matt. 5:44-45).

Mt. 5:44-45 teaches the general benevolence of God towards His Creation. First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation or soteriology so such is not teaching 'common salvific grace'. Secondly, Byrne is commiting the fallacy of amphiboly when using the phrase 'intentional love' and also 'common grace'. For example, Byrne uses the phrase common grace in his point 2 with regards to Rom. 2:4, which even if that was correct (it has been shown wrong above), refers to 'common salvific grace' while in Mt. 5:44-45, it refers to 'common providential grace' or just providence. With regards to the phrase 'intentional love', is Byrne using it to mean that God has a reason behind his providence, which is the meaning of Mt. 5:44-45, or that God has an intention to use that for something else like wanting people to repent, which is what Byrne would use it for at the end. Note his summary statement of the chain of thoughts:

5) Common grace is intentional love (point #1) granted to all men so that they might be encouraged to repent (point #2) and be saved (point #3) by means of Christ's satisfaction (point #4).

I'm sorry, but this is just plainly unorthodox. This denies Limited Atonement in its true sense, and makes God out to be the eternally frustrated and schizophrenic God who is always making a genuine effort to save all but yet he doesn't actually wants to save all. However, I agree with Byrne that Calvinists should return to something more akin to Calvin's theology, or that of the major Reformers and Puritans, and that Byrne too should heed his own words instead of reading their writings through the glasses of American individualism.

[The End; for now]

On the common grace controversy: The Reformers and Puritans on Rom. 2:4 Or A rebuttal to Tony Byrne's misquotation of their words

[Topic continuation from here and here]

I will now take the first step to engage Tony Bryne and the various stuff that he has posted onto his blog in order to prop up his support of Neo-Amyraldism. Anyway, here is the post I will primarily be interacting with. Please note that as stated in my first post on the topic, I will just need to show that the words of the Reformers and Puritans can need be interpreted differently from how Byrne is (mis)interpreting them, and in a way consistent with the worldview of the Reformers and Puritans, in order to prove that Byrne is not being correct in his appropriating them to support his neo-Amryldism. Without further to do, let us look at the quotes.

This is the first quote purportedly from Calvin, as taken from Tony's blog, which is claimed to support the Neo-Amyraldian view of 'common salvific grace':

"...the Apostle anticipates their arrogance, and proves, by an argument taken from a reason of an opposite kind, that there is no ground for them to think that God, on account of their outward prosperity, is propitious to them, since the design of his benevolence is far different, and that is, to convert sinners to himself. Where then the fear of God does not rule, confidence, on account of prosperity, is a contempt and a mockery of his great goodness. It hence follows, that a heavier punishment will be inflicted on those whom God has in this life favored; because, in addition to their other wickedness, they have rejected the fatherly invitation of God. And though all the gifts of God are so many evidences of his paternal goodness, yet as he often has a different object in view, the ungodly absurdly congratulate themselves on their prosperity, as though they were dear to him, while he kindly and bountifully supports them.

And hre is the full commentary of Rom. 2:4 as taken from the real source:

It does not seem to me, as some think, that there is here an argument, conclusive on two grounds, (dilemma,) but an anticipation of an objection: for as hypocrites are commonly transported with prosperity, as though they had merited the Lord’s kindness by their good deeds, and become thus more hardened in their contempt of God, the Apostle anticipates their arrogance, and proves, by an argument taken from a reason of an opposite kind, that there is no ground for them to think that God, on account of their outward prosperity, is propitious to them, since the design of his benevolence is far different, and that is, to convert sinners to himself. Where then the fear of God does not rule, confidence, on account of prosperity, is a contempt and a mockery of his great goodness. It hence follows, that a heavier punishment will be inflicted on those whom God has in this life favored; because, in addition to their other wickedness, they have rejected the fatherly invitation of God. And though all the gifts of God are so many evidences of his paternal goodness, yet as he often has a different object in view, the ungodly absurdly congratulate themselves on their prosperity, as though they were dear to him, while he kindly and bountifully supports them. (Online source)

Notice the words which Tony has conveniently ommitted, which sounds out the context upon which Calvin make the statements that he has made. The words which are ommitted are:

It does not seem to me, as some think, that there is here an argument, conclusive on two grounds, (dilemma,) but an anticipation of an objection: for as hypocrites are commonly transported with prosperity, as though they had merited the Lord’s kindness by their good deeds, and become thus more hardened in their contempt of God, ... (Bold added)

We can see that the later statements made by Calvin used by Byrne to prop up his doctrine of 'common salvific grace' actually do not do so. As it can be seen, Calvin applies these statements to the class of those he called the 'hypocrites'. It is these people whom God is blessing in order to 'lead them to repentance'. Who these people are must be seen also in the larger context. In Calvin's commentary of Rom. 2:1, the class of 'hypocrites' are mentioned as those who 'dazzle the eyes of men by displays of outward sanctity' and yet transgressed the law. Calvin therefore had in mind the religious hypocrites who are found within the bosom of the Visible Church (until they are kicked out if they are indeed ever kicked out).

And since such is the case, Calvin's exposition of Rom. 2:4 takes on a more comprehensive light. What Calvin is teaching is NOT 'common salvific grace', but that the kindness, forebearance and patience of God is directed towards those who are within the Visible Church. As Calvin mentioned about their arrogance due to God's benevolance to them (on account of their being in the Covenant), yet he shows that, just like the Jews which Paul had in mind, the benevolance of God towards them is in order to obligate them to repent and turn to Him.

With that, let us turn to Byrne's pointers which he thinks Calvin is here teaching:

1) The "design" of God's "benevolence" is "to convert sinners to himself."

2) God's "goodness" is associated with this conversion seeking benevolence that some mock and show contempt for in their vain "prosperity."

3) God's "benevolence" and "goodness" are then associated with his "favor."

My response to this is to define the group of 'sinners' which Calvin had in mind. Calvin had in mind here the religious hypocrites, not just any sinner.

4) Conversion seeking goodness, benevolence and favor are then associated with God's "fatherly invitation," and those who are to receive "a heavier punishment" are in view, i.e. the reprobate who hear the "fatherly invitation."

5) "All the gifts" that they receive are evidences of God's "paternal goodness" toward the "ungodly."

6) God is said to "kindly" and "bountifully" support them through their prosperity.

All of such is true as long as we know whom Calvin was talking about; he was talking about religious hypocrites within the Visible professing Church, not just any Tom, Dick and Harry.

Other quotes from Calvin suffer from the same problem. Byrne has shown himself unable to grasp the very idea of the collective, and of course of Covenantal Theology. Disagree with the concept of Covenant Theology if you may, but at least he should realize and respect that the Reformers and Puritans believe in it and applied it to their theology. Even the early Baptists (ie the English Particular Baptists) had a framework more similar to Covenantal Theology compared to the individualistic American mindset, which is displayed by Byrne in his misquotation of the Reformer John Calvin. The refusal to differentiate between individuals and collective, which is the only way to understand Rom. 2:4 without causing it to create a logical contradiction in the Bible (something which Neo-Amyraldism does), is jettisoned by these baptists who are do not know when the Bible talks about individuals and when the collective is being mentioned.

Byrne then mentioned the Puritan John Flavel, and in another post posted a full excerpt from his now archived book:

2. The Lord exercises this patience towards sinners, thereby to lead them to repentance; this is the direct intention of it. The Lord desires and delights to see ingenuous relentings and brokenness of heart for sin; and there is nothing like his forbearance and patience in promoting such an evangelical repentance. All the terrors of the law will not break the heart of a sinner, as the patience and long-suffering of God will; therefore it is said that the goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering of God, lead men to repentance. Rom. 2:4. These are fitted to work upon all the principles of humanity which incline men to repentance; reason, conscience, gratitude, feel the influences of the goodness of God herein, and melt under it. Thus Saul's heart relented: "Is this thy voice, my son David? and Saul lifted up his voice and wept. And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil." 1 Sam. 24:16, 17. Thus the goodness and forbearance of God doth, as it were, take a sinner by the hand, lead him into a corner, and say, "Come, let us talk together; thus and thus vile hast thou been, and thus and thus long-suffering and merciful has God been to thee; thy heart has been full of sin, the heart of thy God has been full of pity and mercy." This dissolves the sinner into tears, and breaks his heart in pieces. If any thing will melt a hard heart, this will do it. How good has God been to me. How have I tried his patience to the uttermost, and still he waits to be gracious, and is exalted that he may have compassion. The sobs and tears, the ingenuous relentings of a sinner's heart, under the apprehensions of the sparing mercy and goodness of God, are the music of heaven.

Or course, conveniently overlooked from this is the context. This was most probably taken from a sermon preached by Flavel, and nothing from here proves anything related to the novel idea of 'common salvific grace'. Remeber that the Reformers and Puritans generally hold to Covenant Theology, and the principle of the collective, thus there is no problem with stating that Christ exhorts and desires to see sinners save; that he is kind to sinners as a group (which is after all an application of Rom. 2:4). Flavel here is exhorting sinners as a collective to repent, not writing a theological treatise on how God has given 'common savific grace' to each individual sinner which seeks their ultimate well-being. The confusing of the two again is the reason why Byrne continues to read his novelty into the writings of these great men.

Lastly, we would look into John Howe's words as written by Byrne here. I could not ascertain the source, however, and I don't have the book, so I will just take it that Bryne has quoted it in context.

3. Consider the forbearance of God towards you, while you are continually at mercy. With what patience doth he spare you, though your own hearts must tell you that you are offending creatures, and whom he can destroy in a moment! He spares you that neglect him. He is not willing that you should perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth, that you may be saved; by which he calls and leads you to repentance, Rom. ii 4. On God's part, here is a kind intention; but on man's part, nothing but persevering enmity.

I agree with Byrne that Howe seems to be alluding to 2 Peter 3:9 ("He is not willing that you should perish") and 1 Tim. 2:4 ("come to the knowledge of the truth, that you may be saved"). However, that makes Byrne's case even worse. For unless you agree with the Arminian eisegesis of the texts of 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4 to teach a universal intention of the atonement, a correct exegesis will show that these texts are properly applied to the people of God and specifically the elect of God. Howe is using those texts to call the individual elect in his invitation to the collective whole, using Rom. 2:4 as the text in order to convict the individual elect sinners of sin and bring them to the Savior.

In conclusion, as we have seen, Byrne does not understand the worldview of the Reformers and the Puritans, and use his individualistic American cultural glasses to interpret their writings. By failing to understand the idea of the collective, Byrne falsely read the novel idea of 'common salvific grace', first invented in its present form sometime after Van Til, Murray et al arose, into their words. Of course, if he subscribes to New Covenantal Theology, then that would confound things, since he cannot read Rom. 2:1-5 as stating that God is gracious towards His covenant people in the Jews in order to lead thm to repentance, becase one of the distinctives ofNew Covenantal Theology is the denial of any salvific intent in the covenants made in the OT.

We would end this off by looking at Byrne's understanding of Rom. 2:4, in his post here, in the next post.

[to be continued]

Exegesis of Rom. 2:1-5 (Updated)

[topic continuation from here]

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. (Rom. 2:1-5)

This is a powerful passage in the book of Romans. Also, Rom. 2:4 happens to be one of the intended proof texts for the theory of 'common salvific grace' and the 'well-meant offer', of which I am convinced it is neither. It is therefore important that we should exegete the text within its context and see what the passage teaches, and thus what Rom. 2:4 actually teaches. Does it actually teach what the Neo-Amyraldians say it teaches? I contend not.

Rom. 2:1 starts off with the word 'Therefore'. It is thus a continuation from the previous chapter, showing forth that the conclusions in Rom. 1:18-32 specifically logically leads to the concepts that will be mentioned in Rom. 2:1 onwards. Rom. 1:18-32 exposes the depravity of Man in general who, 'although they knew God, did not honor Him as God nor give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened' (Rom. 1:21), and ended stating their depravity to such an extent that they 'not only do them [evil deeds], but give approval to those who practice them' (Rom. 1:32b), a most wicked proposition indeed.

After exposing the depravity of Man in general with an eye towards the Gentiles, Paul uses the fact of their depravity to silence the talk of the Jews, who are denoted in the phrase 'every one of you who judges'. That Paul now turns to the Jews and is talking to them can be seen in the metnion of the Law later in Chapter 2, and also the mention of 'Jew' and 'Greek' in verses 9-10, corresponding to the two group of audiences Paul had in mind in Chapters 1 and 2 respectively., not to mention that verse 17 specifically identifies Paul's audience as the Jews. A little undertstanding of the view Jews had of Gentiles then would show also that the Jews had a judgmental attitude towards the Gentiles, priding themselves on being the chosen people of God while the Gentiles are all going to hell. Paul, in verse 1 therefore, turns the table against the self-righteous Jews who judge everyone but themselves, thinking themselves as being a guide to the blind, light to those in darkness, instructor of the foolish, teacher of children and possesor of the Law (Rom. 2: 19-20). Yet, Paul expose their wickedness in their deeds — doing the same sinful things the Gentiles do, and bring hypocritical. Paul reminds the Jews of their common knowledge in the Law that the judgment of God rightly falls on those people who do such things (v. 2). Paul then applied the Law and rebuked them because they think that they can escape the judgment of God even though they do the same things they themselves condemned as deserving punishment if they are done by the Gentiles (v. 3), thinking that their status as God's people would exempt them from judgment. Of course, Paul will discount such hypocritical self-righteous teaching in verses 6-10, ending off with the statement that God does not show any partiality (v. 11).

In between verses 1-3 and 6-11 are the ones that we are going to focus on. In verse 4, Paul is stating that God shows kindness, forbearance and patience in his dealings with these Jews, and that such is meant to lead them to repentance. However, the hard and impenitant or unrepentant hearts of the Jews would mean that the kindness, forebearance and patience of God would have no effect. Therefore, such would increase the meausre of wrath against these Jews in the Final Judgment, and thus they will be more severly punished by God.

Now, we have already seen that Rom. 2 is talking about the Jews. As such, Rom. 2:4 is most definitely talking about the Jews. The Jews as the Covenant people of the Old Testament thus show that the main focus of the text is to the Covenant people of God. Therefore, this means that the text cannot be used to prove anything regarding the 'common salvific grace' theory or the 'well-meant offer', as this is not primarily directed towards everyone. Now, application can definitely be made to apply it to those who are self-righteous from other religions, but then applications can never be made to use prove doctrine of any kind, especially the scared doctrines regarding the will of God. Even granting that it talks about the world doesn't help their position, for it is one thing to apply it to the collective class of 'world', and another to apply it to individual reprobates within the world.

Nevertheless, aren't there possible reprobates within the Covenant people of God? Most definitely! However, the fact of the matter is that God works primarily through covenants, and therefore whatever is said about the collective may not be applicable to the individual within the group, especially one that will be removed from the group if exposed for what they actually are. For example, in the passage of Rom. 2:4, most definitely the Jews who refused to repent are possibly reprobates, yet they being in the Covenant people would mean that God's kindness, foreberance and patience would be over them to lead them to repentance, yet not as intended towards them in particular as individuals, but to them as part of the collective Covenant people.

Through all this, there is an added dimension to the entire matter. As this was written to the Jews, God's kindness, forebearance and patience was expressed to them mainly in the Old Testament — the Law and Prophets. We thus can see that the Law was intended to lead people to repentance, contra New Covenantal Theology, and thus God's kindness, foreberance and patience obligates them to repentance. However, it was unable to not becuase the Law was weak, but because we are weak (Gal. 3:10). And this is the point that Paul was going to drive home later. After showing forth the hopelessness of both Jew and Gentile of having a righteousness of works, with a summary in Rom. 3:10-18, Paul would then set forth the Gospel of free grace through Christ Jesus later, which was his intention all along.

In conclusion, through this short exegesis, it is hoped that we have a better understanding of Romans. Also, we have seen that Rom. 2:4 cannot be used to prove the theory of 'common salvific grace' or the 'well-meant offer'. What it does prove is that God is always kind, patient and forebearing with His covenant people, and in bringing the elect to faith and repentance also. Reprobates within the Covenant community (the Church) are treated with patience also because they are part of the collective, not because God has intention to save them. At the same time, such kindnes shown to them obligates them (gives them more responsibility) to repent and store up wrath against them for rejecting this undifferentiated kindness of God.

We wil next look into various writings by certain Puritan and Reformed divines, to see whether their writings actually promote the theory of 'Common salvific grace' and the 'well-meant offer', as Tony Byrne claims they do.

[to be continued]

Neo-Apostolic madness

This is one reason why Singapore mainstream Charismatism and the New Apostolic 'Reformation' deserves nothing but ridicule. Look at this video for yourself:

With deluded sheeple and their false prophets and apostles leading them, Christianity has become a mockery in the eyes of unbelievers. Cindy Jacobs is a false prophetess who should rightfully (in a biblical church setting) be excommunicated for blatent heresy. Here in Singapore, almost all charismatic churches are Third wave (or Word-faith) who support such nonsense, so pardon me if I do not think highly of Charismatics in Singapore.

And as this commentor has said, the chapter and verse division in the Bible are NOT inspired by God (they were created sometime during the Reformation) so this make the false prophecy even more moronic and blasphemous.

[HT: A Little Leaven, Christian Research Net]

Weekly Meditations: On the book of Isaiah

Starting from this week, I would be posting something each week as I read through the books of the Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. I wouldn't say I am an expert, but in an effort to positively exegete the Bible biblically instead of topically (which I have been doing for some time to derive, examine and consolidate my beliefs according to the Scriptures), I have decided that I should do some serious book study so as to get the most from the Scripture, especially since that is the best way to be balanced in our approach to Scripture instead of only talking about one particular "pet doctrine" to the exclusion of others.

With that, let us start.

---

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. (Is. 1:1)

The book of Isaiah was written by the book of Isaiah and recounts the visions that God gave him in his fulfiment of the prophetic office God has appointed him to. Isaiah lived in the days of King Uzziah (Azariah), King Jotham, King Ahaz and King Hezekiah, all kings of Judah. According to tradition, he lived into the reign of the wicked king Manesseh when he was matyred. But I digress.

Now, since Isaiah lived through the reigns of these kings, it would be good to look at the type of kings they are, so as to understand the spiritual state of Israel during that time.

In 2 Kings 15:1-7 and 2 Chron. 26:1-22, we can see the state of Israel under and the character of King Uzziah (Azariah). In 2 Kings 15:3 and 2 Chor. 26:4, it can be seen that King Uzziah was a godly king. He followed the Lord and obeyed His commands in general. Yet, we can see the problems with Judah during His reign. 2 Kings 15:4 showed that he did not prohibit the people from sacrificing to Yahweh at the pagan high places (ie syncretism), nevermind tearing them down. Thus, the state of Judah during his reign seems to show the picture of a generally godly king who was not exactly zealous for God, and of a people who serve God but not doing so whole-heartedly; who compromise the faith. Later during his reign, King Uzziah, who was mightily blessed by God, became proud and elevated himself to the priestly office which he was not entitled to. He thus tried to offer sacrifices to the Lord and was struck by the Lord with leprosy untill his death because of his rebellion and infidelity (2 Chron. 26:16-21).

Now, although I would really love to go into the details of the narrative accounts, such is not the point of this exegesis, which is survey the spiritual state and thus the background upon which Isaiah performs his prophetic ministry. I would like to point out briefly however, that since the Bible is inerrant (axiomatically), the differences between the naming of King Uzzaiah (Azariah) between the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles may be due to the fact that King Uzziah has two names (compare 2 Kings 15:5 with 2 Kings. 15:32), and that Uzziah is probably used in 2 Chron. to differentiate between him and the high priest who possess the same name of Azariah (2 Chron. 26:17)

The next king we would look at is King Jotham., the son of King Uzzaiah, of which his reign is dscribed in 2 Kings 15:32-38 and 2 Chron. 27:1-9. Jotham continues the faith and obedience to God of his father King Uzzaiah, yet without being proud (I am sure he has seen what happens to his father when he became proud). Also, he was propspered by God and granted victory over his enemies like the Ammonites (2 Chonr. 27:5-6). However, the waywardness of the people continued in his reign as seen in 2 Kings 15:35 and 2 Chron. 27:2. In 2 Chron 27:2, the phrase "But the people still followed corrupt practices" was introduced to described the situation of the people's spirituality, of which such sentiments are absent in the Chronicle passage describing the reign of King Uzzaiah. This suggest either that the people are becoming more wayward, or also probably that the continuation of such syncretism daily compounded the sin of the people of Judah, who through perpetuating it increased their guilt before God.

King Ahaz, unlike the other 3 kings, was a wicked king, as described in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron. 28. He turned to other gods, even to the god of Syria when he was defeated by them. We can see in 2 Kings 16:4 and 2 Chron. 28:4 that he sacrificed at the high places, which suggests that the idolatry and syncretism practiced at the high places, and tolerated under King Uzziah and King Jotham has borne evil fruit. The Kingdom of Judah thus was afflicted by all sets of troubles sent against them by the Lord, of which God has already started judgment against Judah back in 2 Kings 15:37 because of their persistent compromise.

His son King Hezekiah, unlike his father, was a godly king. And unlike his fathers before him, Hezekiah even tore down the high places (2 Chron. 31:1) which were a snare to Judah. During his time, he instituted national revival in re-establishing temple worship and sacrifices, and in celebrating the Passover (2 Chron. 30). Yet, despite all these wondrous things, we can see from the fact that his son Manesseh was able to turn them astray so quickly (2 Kings 21:9) that such a revival was superficial.

From such a preliminary survey of the kings ruling the nation of Judah then, and of the spiritual state of the people, it can be seen that compromise was rampent, syncretism was the "in" thing, and that even a national revival instigated by the godly king Hezekiah was more superficial than true. This such is the sociao-religious background of Judah of that time, and the context upon which Isaiah performed his prophetic ministry. As we shall see later, Isaiah saw through all the gloss and veneer of faithfulness to God, and saw the spiritual rot that will slowly and ultimately detroy the people of God in Judah. And this we will look at in subsequent meditations.

Calvin's Insitutes: On the sacraments

[continued from here]

Calvin stated that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. Now, Baptists typically call them ordinances and deny them the name of sacraments. But what are the differences between these two terms? Let us look as to how Calvin defined the very concepts of sacraments, and evaluate them accordingly as to what they should be called. After all, no one ever denies that these are ordinances, since the concept of 'ordinance' only mean that they have been ordained by Christ. But of course, Baptists have a problem, since a few things seem to be ordained by Christ also, like feet-washing (cf Jn. 13:14). Of course, I do know one way of how this issue is handled by the Baptists, but that does not make the term 'ordinance' is a specific enough term to be limited to only Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

In his Institutes, Calvin wrote the following:

First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences His promise of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards Him, both before Himself, and before angels as well as men. We may therefore define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which in meaning differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, ... (Vol. II, p. 492)

... that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and as it were, seals of the good-will which He entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith. (Vol. II, p. 496)

For the schools of the Sophists have taught that with general consent that the sacraments of the new law, in other words, these now in use in the Christian Church, justify, and confer grace, provided only that we do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. It is impossible to describe how fatal and pestilential this sentiment is, and the more so, that for many ages it has, to the great loss of the Church, prevailed over a considerable part of the world. It is plainly of the devil: for first, in promosing a righteousness without faith, it drives souls headlong on destruction; secondly, in deriving a cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it entails miserable minds, already of their own accord too much inclined to the earth, in a superstitious idea, which makes them acquiesce in the spectacle of a corporal object rather than in God Himself. ... For what is a sacrament received without faith, but most certain destruction to the Church? (Vol. II, p. 501)

He [God] alone can give the sign, and bear witness to Himself. ... There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. All men collected into one canot, of themselves, give us any promise of salvation, and., therefore, they cannot 0f themselves, give out and set upn a sacrament. (Vol. II, p. 620)

A sacrament ought to be a testimony of the good will of God toward us. (Vol. II, p. 624)

For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. (Vol. II, p. 647)

From this, it can be seen that foundational to the concept of Sacraments is that they signify something gracious being done by God through that action. In fact, to be more precise, we could use the terms signs and seals, echoing the statements made about them in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.

II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. (WCF, Chapter XXVII — On the sacraments)

By means of the sacraments being signs, they function as evidences to us of the divine reality signified through them. Thus, they are "a testimony of the divine favor" (Vol. II, p. 492), "evidences of divine grace" (Vol. II, p. 496), and "testimony of the good-will of God towards us" (Vol. II, p. 624). Unlike any other ordinary ordinances therefore, the sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper) point to a larger spiritual reality rather than just being instituted for remembrance's sake alone. For example, Baptism signifies the dying of the Old Man and the putting on of the New, into the grace of salvation, while the Lord's Supper points to the Atonement of Christ and the New Covenant that He instituted in the New Testament — the fulfilment of all the Covenant promises in Him and the actualization of the true significance of all the ceremonial rituals previously given. They are not just mere remembrances that we do because Christ has told us to do so.

Of course, what riles the Baptists up is not this per se, but the insinuation that such ordinances are gracious in their outworking. First of all, it must be stated that Calvin and the Reformed community in general, and most definitely the Bible, rejects the entire sacramentalist idea of sacraments confering grace Ex opere operato. For Calvin, this can be seen in the passage quoted above from p. 501 of volume 2, where he refuted the Sophists who believed "in deriving a cause of righteousness from the sacraments". Although sacraments have a gracious outworking in them, they are not gracious because they are sacraments, but because God is pleased to use them (when done in God's way) to grant us grace. Of course, the next question that would be asked is of what grace this is then, which we shall cover a bit later.

Before that, what does it mean for a sacrament to be a seal? This is reflected in the phrases by Calvin when he states that they "sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith" (Vol. II, p. 496), having a "promise of salvation" (Vol. II, p. 620), and "appointed by God to confirm a promise" (Vol. II, p. 647). From this, I do not see that Calvin meant that partaking of the sacraments by themselves will 'magically' increase our faith etc. Rather, when we refer to the sacraments as seals, it seems to be the case that this meant that assuring grace which is given as we participate in it with a right spirit, or as Calvin puts it, our "corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him" (Vol. II, p. 492). In other words, the seals function as we partake of it rightly. In Baptism, therefore, we will have a larger measure of assurance through the grace of God because we have publicly identified with Christ totally (as our Prophet, Priest and King). Similarly, in the Lord's Supper, we would have the assuring and comforting grace of God with us that we are His, and He has died and paid the penalty for our sins, which ought to confirm and increase our faith.

We now come to the issue of the grace of God. In what way are the sacraments to be considered as gracious? Also, since it is denied that they confer grace by their operation, then how is it gracious? Well, they should be understood as ordiances whereby God is pleased to visit His people with His grace, not be confering it based on the fact that the ritual is performed, but by giving it to those whose hearts are prepared for it when they are done validly. As visible signs, they are the only physical aids to the flesh instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ in a life of spiritual reality. And thus because God so condescends to us by displaying spiritual realities in a manner which caters to our weakness (through our physical senses), saints, especially the weaker ones, would feel the reality of Christian truths much easier. Such is the grace which the sacraments give to us, and that is why they are termed here assuring and confirming grace, because that is their function.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the sacraments are not just mere ordinances, because they are grace-imparting signs and seals of God's Covenant of Grace with us. May we therefore learn to treasure them more and participate in them more fully, with the right attitude of spirit and mind.

Calvin's Institutes: Thoughts

I apologise for the recent drought in posts, but I have been busy with various family commitments, plus work is always tough. Anyway, I have just finished reading Calvin's Institutes. Before going into specifics, I would like to evaluate the book as a whole.

After reading through the entirety of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, it can be seen that Calvin was an expert in his time. Definitely, he knew the writings of the church fathers and other early Christians better than most people, and his form of argumentation is probably best suited for that era. Nevertheless, it is a pain to read for those of us who do not live in such an era. The beginning three books (on God the Father and His work; on Jesus Christ and His work; on the grace of God, faith, justification and salvation) are doctrinally solid, though it takes effort to go through the convoluted arguments suited for another age, which I have done previously on the following subjects(Against the Charismatics, On Faith, Christian Living, Election and Reprobation and Election: Contrary texts?). Book 4, on the external means of grace and the Church ('practical' Christianity) however, seemed to grow less solid biblically as the book draws to a close, though knowing the constraints of that time, the fact that Calvin managed to salvage and rediscover so much truth from Scripture in the midst of the rank apostasy that is Romanism is something very remarkable. Anyway, here are 4 areas I would like to comment on, namely:

• The Church and her officers

• On the nature of sacraments

• Infant Baptism

• Civil government

I would address 3 of them here while the one on the nature of sacraments would be tackled later in the next post.

With regards to the subject of the Church, Calvin taught the concept of the Visible and the Invisible Church (Vol. II, p. 288). Also, he differentiated between necessary, esential doctrines in which belief is essential for salvation, while others ('minor' doctrines) are said to be "the subject of controversy among the churches [but] do not destroy the unity of the faith" (Vol. II, p. 291). So far, so good.

The bone of contention with Calvin, of course, would be on the topic of the officers of the church. Seeing that it came from Calvin's pen, it may be possible that later Reformed writers followed his assumption that Eph. 4:11 taught Paul was writing about the officers of the church in this verse, when in fact he was not. Paul was here talking about the people with such giftings, which is not the same as talking about Officers of the church, which are found primarily in the Pastoral Epistles. (There is a reason why they are called the Pastoral Epistles). After all, if you admit they are officers, then it would be inconsistent to then say that the 'officers' of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists are not still present today, since these are all mentioned as it were in 'one breath'. Furthermore, teachers should be an office as well. Of coure, you can always say that the Greek grammatical construct here would render the phrase as 'pastor-teacher', which is fine and woud remove the latter problem, but not the former one.

With regards to the topic of Infant Baptism (In Chapter XVI), although I am a pedobaptist, I would say that Calvin's arguments on this topic are not as strong that they can be called convincing. However, he did masterfully refuted some of the arguments which the Anabaptists have brought up during his time with regards to the denial of the analogy between circumcision and baptism, that children cannot understand the faith and baptism, that instruction should precede baptism etc. Such common baptist arguments are disposed of easily enough. However, the degree of similarity between the Covenant in OT and NT times especially with regards to baptism are not properly discussed. Of course, this is not Calvin's fault, but just to point out something he wrote which is not exactly convincing.

With regards to Civil government, I would just briefly state some points. Calvin, living in such a time, assume the union of Church and State which was common then. As such, the magistrate was to enforce the rulings of the Church with regards to religious laws, better known as the first four laws in the 10 commandments (Vol. II, p. 658). Calvin gave the example of the praise given to OT kings who restored the worship of God, and he states that a ruler is needed since without a ruler, there would be anarchy as in the time of Judges, when everybody did as he pleased (Judges 21:25). However, we must remember that OT Israel was a theocracy, and therefore anything with respect to its governance was analogous to that of the church, not the world. As for the verse Judges 21:25, this only proves that a ruler is needed for order, not that that ruler should be a magistrate. In fact, elders are supposed to rule the church, so the problem of anarchy is solved.

Calvin also maintained that the care of Christian princes and magistrates should be to protect the church (Vol. III, p. 658). Defintely, as individual Christians, they should endeavor to serve God in whatever they do, which would include protecting the church through restraining her persecutors and charging them to protect against any crime committed against them. However, the extrapolation of something Christian politicians should do personally into what Christian politicians ought to do as a career duty is another story altogether. And thus my disagreement with Calvin.

Lastly, I would mention the topic of submission to authority. Certainly, Calvin is against the submittion to the government if they attempt to force you to sin or even deny Christ (Vol. II, p. 675). Calvin, however, maintains that it is correct to obey and submit even to a tyrant, using the commands of God to the exiled Jews in Babylon to submit to their leaders as an example. This, however, misinterprets the passage. The context is talking about the exile being a judgment from God. As such, instead of Calvin seeing that "the Lord was pleased to demand for this dire and ferocious tyrant [Nebuchadnezzer], for no other reason than just that he held the kingdom' (Vol. II, p. 672), the context shows that the Jews were commanded to submit to Nebuchadnezzer because they are to submit to God's judgments, nothing whatsoever to do with whether he was/is a king. Therefore, regardless of the truth of civil disobedience, the fact of the matter is that Calvin did not prove that civil disobedience against a tyrant is wrong.

After having looked through these 3 issues, let us see what Calvin has to say about the nature of Sacraments.

[to be continued]

Article: Jesus' "dumb question"

A good article here by Dan Philips, on the question Jesus asked the lame man in Jn. 5:6.

Much as you and I might recoil from another's state in life, that person might not share our revulsion. One can grow to identify with a condition, to find meaning and individuality and significance in something that of itself offers nothing desirable whatever. Whether it be a natural handicap or a totally different weakness, failing, misery, affliction or sin, we can come to think of ourselves as Noble Sufferers, as Tragic Victims, as Tormented Souls. So (pathetically and unhealthily) rewarding is this identification, that we unknowingly have no real desire to be parted from our badge of uniqueness, our gimmick, our shtick.

....

And so I find myself wondering, of some such: do they want to become healthy? Do they want to know the truth God has revealed? Or would it ruin the image they've crafted so carefully, spoil their cherished public image, lose valued associations?

And the question thus remain, do we want to be well? Or do we prefer to remain within our comfort zones, however pathetic and pathological it may be?

The price of speaking out against Pope Rick

Well, it seems that when you speak out against Rick Warren in anything he does, this is what you will get; ostracism, rejection and backstabbing from "Christian" leaders. And since Warren has been compromising in allowing homosexuals, abortionists and their decadent liberal allies to speak in his church (i.e. Barack Oama, Hilary Clinton), that would mean that soon all the pro-family ministeries and groups should start closing down. That includes James Dobson of Focus on the Family for example. If he doesn't speak out against Warren the heretic, he should just close down his ministry altogether, because ultimately you will be forced to close down anyway after the Hegelian dialetic have run its course.

[HT: The Reformed Gadfly]

Neo-Amyraldism: Helpful articles

Here are two posts on Mark's blog which should help in preparation for the interaction with Byrne:

A response to Tony Byrne and David Ponter

Two wills, well meant offer, John Piper and an Arminian thrown in for free!

Enjoy!

Direction for the year 2008

Well, with this new year, I think it would be good to set some direction, both for my life and for this blog.

With the growing apostasy in visible Christianity, I feel the growng need for godly men to step up to answer the call for the defense of the Gospel. Yet, I know my flaws, and only God can work in me to prepare me if He does indeed call me into such a work. But at least there are some things I can and should do:

1) Pray and intercede. I think I need to work on that more. Not that I do not pray, but I think I should be praying more than the amount of time I currently spend talking to God.

2) Linked to that, I would be praying for God's direction. Unfortunately, perhaps, some of my gifts are generally not appreciated by the churches, and this is compounded by various issues. Yes, I would love to serve God and the Church, but I would not compromise just to get an opportunity to serve. (If I were to do so, I am sure there are many opportunities to serve, yet what witness would I be giving before God?)

And as for blog direction, I guess I should choose a general theme for this year to guide my posts. The theme would be: Holiness and the Fear of God. Although I have various projects in mind (and one currently ongoing), I would try to focus my attention to this theme. As I have written earlier, the primary and most fundamental reason why we are having this mess in the first place is because of a lack of the fear of God because we have forgotten about God and His holiness, and the fact that He is the Sovereign King. We have jettisoned God's standards in the name of so-called 'liberty', and redefine the faith to be about us (anthropocentric). As such, I hope to:

1) Post on various aspects of Christian living, and contrast the ways of the compromised churches with the definition and standard of Scripture

2) Exegete through the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. I would try to make this a weekly feature, and thus posts my insights as I study the Scriptures.

May God help me to do all these, and that I should be spent for the praise and the glory of His great name alone. Amen.

Article: True Fruit of the Fear of God

Here is an excellent article by my friend and brother Mike Ratliff, who I am still convinced should be a pastor, due to his humility and love for God and His flock.

And flowing with this theme, I have created a new signature for all my outgoing posts as follows:

The fundamental problem with visible Christianity is neither a lack of good works, nor even poor doctrine, but a lack of the vision of the glory and absolute holiness of God resulting in the healthy fear of God.