To all my readers:
Happy Chinese New Year. May God bless you abundantly, and that you will grow in the knowledge of God and His Word in the Scriptures this year. Amen.
新年快乐。主福洋溢。愿您今年能更深刻的知道上帝和他圣经里的话语。阿门。
春節におめでとうございます。主イエスクリストの祝福が十二分にありますように。今年は神様を知ることと聖書の中に神様の話をわかることがあれるようになります。アーメン。
Interesting video from Dr. James White.
And here is a good quote:
Apologetics flow from systematic theology — biblical theology. You don't develop arguments and then change your theology to match your arguments; your apologetics should flow from your theology.
“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Is. 1:18-20)
This passage in Is. 1:18 is one of the more famous and utilized passage for the idea of apologetics. However, is that what the text actually mean?
Flowing from the emotive pleas of God for His people to repent and to turn to Him alone, to serve Him not by paying lip service and by outside appearance but by true inward belief manifesting in true godliness (v. 16-17), God in verse 18 continues to pleads with His people to turn to Him. God calls His people to reason with Him, and that although their sins are so many that they are as if they are guilty of shedding blood (as scarlet), Godis still willing to wash the stain of guilt away such that they will become white as snow. This idea is repeated in the comparison of 'red like crimson' with the whiteness of wool. As it can be seen, God is proclaiming that He is willing to forgive His people of their sins, and wash their guilt away. In verses 19 and 20, God is laying before them blessing and curses again, that if they turn back to God in obedience, they would continue to be blessed by God in eating of the good of the land. However, if they refuse to do so and continue on in their rebellion, God promises sure destruction, in fulfilment of the terms of the Mosaic Covenant.
As it can be seen, the phrase 'Come now, let us reason' must be interpreted in light of the overall thrust of the passage. Seen in this light would show that this passage cannot be used as a proof-text for apologetics, especially of the evidentialist type. God is here calling His wayward people to reason with Him, not unbelievers to debate the possibilities of His existance or the truthfulness and authority of Scripture. God is NOT an all-smiling old grandfather asking unbelievers to consider the "overwhelming" probability of His existance, but as the Sovereign Lord, commands all people to repent of their sins and turn to Him unto salvation. This passage therefore says nothing about apologetics. Instead, it is indicative of God pursuing His people and chasing after them to have a relationship with them.
Therefore, what lesson can we take from this? Seeing how God pursues His wayward people, if you are a backslider, I urge you to return back to God. God is not willing that any to perish, but that all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and He does not delight in the death of anyone, so repent and live (Ez. 18:32). Why are you then continuing to refuse and reject God, when God is patiently watiing for you to turn from your sins and will quickly wash your sins away if you just but turn to Him in repentance? Even though your sins may be many, all is not lost, for Jesus came to died on the Cross such that there is no sin committed that God cannot forgive. So sinner, while there is still time, repent and turn to God. O wayward child, turn away from your waywardness, for God has promised andwill not repent, that He will wash your sins, though how many they are and how crimson they have died your garments, such that they would be white as snow.
Yet do not continue to harden your hearts. For Christ's mercies are not always there. God has promised good to you when you repent, but if you persist in your sins, then the judgment and wrath of God will fall upon you for your destructon. For it is written:
Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.’ As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’ (Heb. 3:7b-11)
Turn to God while there is still time, while the offer of mercy stands. Do not delay and say that you will turn to Him tomorrow, for how do you know what will happen to you tomorrow?
Prayer: Lord, help us to turn to You in true repentance. Help us O Lord to see Your great love toward us in pursuing us and calling us to You. Help us O Father not to tarry and harden our hearts, or we might perish in our sins. In Jesus' name, Amen.
I would move on to other things soon, but just to note that one thing I have consistently seen in the quotes of the Reformers, Puritans and other great Calvinists thinkers of the past as provided by the Neo-Amyraldians is their consistent anachronisms. It seems that anytime words like 'common grace', 'offer', 'desire salvation of all' and others like them are mentioned by these ancient Reformed divines, then automatically the doctrine of 'common salvific grace' and the 'well-meant sincere offer' must be taught by these great Christian leaders. What has been notably absent from all these is the ability to interpret such phrases in their contexts and within the framework as believed by most if not all of these giants — Covenantal Theology, with its idea of the collective. As someone who has read the interactions of the Reformed Baptist apologist Dr. James R. White with RC apologists on the topic of the writings of the early Church Fathers, it seems more often than not that the same Roman Catholic tactic of reading modern concepts into words and phrases that was adopted in modern times to bear that modern concept, but which meant something different for the ancient writers, are used by the Neo-Amyraldians to prop up their case.
I would like to look at a few more quotes from Tony Byrne's blog where anachronism is almost always constantly surfacing, and more specifically with regards to two of his more recent posts with regards to John Bunyan, who was a Particular Baptist (ie not a Presbyterian, and Credobaptist).
In this post, Bunyan on General Love and Grace, Byrne makes the point that
Note the association in Bunyan between "general love," "general grace and mercy," and "blessings." He does not think there is a general mercy but no general grace. Further, he does not believe there is a general grace but no general love. In his view, general love is manifested in general grace and mercy, and the example of the "blessings" that Ishmael received in Genesis 17 are given as an example of all of these things.
Of course, what all of this have to do with 'common salvific grace' is beyond me. What Bunyan is here doing in his writings (or preachings?) is using theological imprecise terms to prove that for God's love and grace to the elect to be seen as special, some must need be reprobate and therefore not given the special love and grace of God. Bunyan in proving this uses terms like 'universal love', 'general love', 'general mercy', but that does not mean that he agrees with the modern connotations of these terms. Most definitely, to think that just because Bunyan uses such terms, which can only prove the biblical concept of 'common providential grace', to infer that Bunyan believes in 'common salvific grace' is to import a foreign interpretation into what he is teaching.
Secondly, Bunyan uses the term 'common grace', and Byrne immediately pounces on it as it he has just gotten the Holy Grail. Unfortunately for him, the context does not support the interpretation of this meaning 'common salvific grace'. The context is with regards to Church membership and the idea of the Visible and the Invisible Church, as a look at the section in its context would show. Bunyan's idea of "common grace" therefore is a grace which extend to the Visible Church collectively, whether those who are in it are elect or reprobates is immaterial, definitely not some prototype of 'common salvific grace'!
The next post to look at is one entitled John Bunyan (1628-1688) on God's Grace, Goodness, Offers and Saving Will. As per his norm, Byrne highlighted all the words that he thinks promotes 'common salvific grace' or the 'well-meant offer' in yellow. However, looking at the context of the quote from Bunyan, does Bunyan actually believes in 'common salvific grace'? I contend not. All the highlighted parts should be read together in their contexts to establish what Bunyan means by what he says, not just isolated as phrases and infused with established modern meanings. The entire quotation by Bunyan proves only that the offer of the Gospel is not proffered only to the elect but to all, such that even the reprobates could take it if they are able to (but of course they are unable to). As Bunyan states later, he says that "there is a difference between his withholding further grace, and of hindering men from closing with the grace at present offered". In this sense therefore, Bunyan states that for God's interaction with the reprobate, he withholds further grace, which is obviously referring to salvific grace. However, God does not "hinder men from closing with the grace at present offered", which just means that with the grace given to even the reprobates, God would not prevent them from being saved if they are able to use this grace to bring themselves unto salvation (but of course they are unable to). What is damaging to the Neo-Amyraldian case is this following quote from Bunyan:
But I say, as I have also said already, there is a great difference between his being willing to save them, through their complying with these his reasonable terms, and his being resolved to save them, whether they, as men, will close therewith, or no; so only he saveth the elect themselves, ... (Bold added)
As it can be seen, Bunyan here states that if God resolves (wills) to save them, then the proper objects of such a resolve must be only the elect. So therefore, Bunyan DOES not believe in God having any form of intent of saving the reprobate ('common salvific grace'). All of the talk about offer to the reprobate, grace given to them etc. are Bunyan using theological imprecise (even incorrect) terms to express something very true, which is that God will NOT hinder the reprobates from saving themselves IF they are able to do so. In more theological precise terms, God does not actively reprobate sinners, nor does He prohibit them from being offered the Gospel.
From these two posts, it can be seen that Byrne engages in lots of anachronisms. In fact, since his blog is only on this one topic, and he quotes many different Reformers, Puritans and other Calvinists, it is highly probable that almost all of them are anachronistic as well. We have already seen quite a number of them, and also a few committed by the so-called 'Moderate Calvinist' Calvin and Calvinism blog in a recent post. With the exception of modern Calvinists such as John Murray, Cornelius Van Till, John Frame etc., none of them seems to be teaching the concept of 'common salvific grace' or the 'well-meant offer of the Gospel' as formulated by Murray and Stonehouse. As such, it can be seen that it has not been proven that historic non-Amyraldian Calvinism believed in anything resembling the irrational Neo-Amyraldism of modern times, and with this, I conclude.
Well, it has been a good time of study and interaction on this particular topic of the will of God with regards to soteriology. For one, it has helped me in sharpening my theology to be more in line with Scripture, and for that I am thankful.
Tony Byrne has sortof replied to my assertion regarding God desiring repentance but not salvation in a post here. Although he didn't mention my name, I guess I am probably the only one that make the point he is attempting to refute so anyway, I will respond to the argument.
First of all, I do not know whether Byrne truly understand what I am driving at. Judging by this post, highly unlikely. He quotes various Scripture like Acts 2:40 and Is. 45:22 as proof-texts, and here are the Scripture passages:
And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” (Acts 2:40)
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. (Is. 45:22)
Byrne then states thus:
"Be saved" is a command. One should not say that God commands men to repent but doesn't command men to be saved. He commands both, but to be saved through his gospel terms, i.e., faith and repentance. This should be basic theology, but apparently the point has to be made.
Unfortunately, Byrne here shows a complete misunderstanding of what I am driving at. Here is what I mentioned in a previous post:
Yes, God commands people to repent and be saved, but not to be saved as fiat. Since the fuit of repentance is salvation, it is thus valid to say that God desires people to repent and be saved, but not just merely 'be saved'.
As it can be seen, and if not, I would clarify here, what I am saying is that God desires the repentance of people which leads to salvation, but not the salvation of people per se as a mere stand-alone thing. In other words, God's (preceptive) will for salvation is linked to repentance and would not exist without His desire for the repentance of all Man. How this would fits in with the idea of God's commands and desires would be expounded later, but suffice it is for the moment to say that Byrne has not understood my position.
The two verses have been quoted by Byrne in his post have incidentally been quoted by me (or the context of these two verses) to make the point that God desires repentance and not salvation per se, which can be seen in that previous post of mine. Byrne colored the words 'be saved' in the NKJV version of these two verses, but the problem is that he still doesn't get it. In Is. 45:22, the first three words are 'turn to me', with the result being 'and be saved', which therefore proves that God desires repentance and the salvation that comes along with it, not just 'be saved' being a naked imperative on its own. Acts 2:40 is preceded by verse 38 which I have quoted in my previous post and shows that the call to repentance precedes any talk about salvation, and it thus have the same solution as Is. 45:22. Nowhere is it stated that salvation and conversion are naked imperatives which can stand alone apart from the desire of God for their repentance. So no, God does not command Man to repent and to be saved, but God commands Man to repent and be saved; God does not command repentance and salvation, but commands repentance unto salvation. Notice the difference and see that the question is not merely one of semantics but whether salvation is commanded as a stand alone act and not rather as the result and fruit of a singular command of repentance.
Now, of course, how then is this to be understood as to the commands and desires of God? Let us look from God's viewpoint at any sinner, elect or reprobate. God's holiness neccesitates the wrath of God against the sinner who lives in rebellion against Him, which is due to his/her falling short of the standard and glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Rom. 2:6-10 as a restatement of the principle of the Covenant of Works, as applied in its context shows that God's desire for repentance in Rom. 2:4 means that He wills that Man follow and conform to His standards which if absolutely followed would give them life (which of course only Jesus could do). Therefore, when the sinner repents and turn to God, this makes him/her more in line with the standards of God so to speak and therefore God desires that such repentance be done as a godly virtue. It is in such a setting of God being the Judge that such a desire for salvation is said, in the sense that repentance is pleasing to God and the fruit of it (salvation) is therefore pleasing to Him.
We can thus see that the desire of God for repentance unto salvation is therefore only at the level of works/judgment and at the level of the "preceptive will". It thus is a manifestation more of the character of God then what God truly desires as persons. The term salvation also, like it or not, is intricately linked with the Covenant of Grace where God saves His people and them only, and it is on this basis that I maintain that God desires repentance but not salvation. Repentance is always linked to what we are to do and thus is easier linked to the idea of precept. Of couse, technically, we can say that God desires the salvation of all Man insofar as that desire is just a reflection of a fruit of a precept based on the Covenant of Works, but that would just obfuscates matters and redefine words and concepts differently from how almost anyone uses the terms 'salvation' and 'desire', and therefore I reject such a redefinition.
It is therefore using such reasoning which informs the statement that God desires repentance unto salvation but not repentance and salvation. By equivocating between the different senses of God "preceptive will" and decretal will with respects to the words 'repentance' and 'salvation', not to mention the general denial of the Covenant of Works, the irrational Neo-Amyraldian system is bred which creates a blatent contradiction in God as He is made to desire two contradictory things (salvation of all Man, non-salvation of some Man) in either two wills or the same one will in a two-fold manner. And it is such nonsense we reject, for we can see its evil fruits as it either breeds irrationality and misology as seen in the so-called "moderate Calvinists" today on one side, or it leads to the heresy of any form of semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism on the other. Or it could of course lead to true Hyper-Calvinism as people see their irrationality and therefore throw away the idea of the unconditionality and universality of the Gospel offer. All three ways are bad, and it is my contention that the failure to follow Scripture and rightly divide the Scriptures may be a cause in the rise of Hyper-Calvinism as thinking people will not just accept the irrationalism of the Neo-Amyraldians. God made us rational beings to think logically, and God's reasoning IS logical reasoning; in fact, He is Logic (Jn. 1:1), and it is time that the Neo-Amyraldins realize it instead of shouting 'rationalism' whenever anyone denies their irrational theology.
Lastly, Byrne should note my analogy regarding the desire to eat ice-cream. Frame's argument that if God desires the effect means He desires the consequence is a logical fallacy. Much as Frame is a brilliant seminarian professor, he is wrong here as he does not rightly divide the Word of God in this work of his. Being a disciple of the irrationalist Cornelius Van Til with his ideas of analogy definitely didn't help of course. As seen in the quotation of Frame's work, Frame's starting point is too human and seem to suggest that since humans have many desires that can be frustrated, God similarly has the same problem. Where this axoim of his (which actually undermines the omnipotence and sovereignty of God) is substantiated in Scripture of course is nowhere seen. Rather, once we realize that God's "preceptive will" is not a true will but rather a reflection of the character of God and therefore what God delights in rather than what God actually desires to do (decretal will), and that Scripture indicates God does all He pleases (Ps. 115:3, 135:6), then the problem is easily solved. As I have repeated many times, just as desiring to eat ice-cream does not imply that one desires to be fat, inferring that just because God desire repentance means that He desire that all Man be saved is a logical fallacy.
In conclusion therefore, it can be seen that Byrne's and the Neo-Amyraldian point is still not made. God DOES NOT in any way reformed desires the salvation of all Man without exception. Using such language is careless at best, and unbiblical at worst. It is sincerely hoped that the Neo-Amyraldians stop projecting unfulfilled wishes into the affections of God and leave them where they rightfully belong — in the commands of God as a reflection of His holiness and character.
[continued from here]
The Reformers and Puritans most definitely hold to a wide range of beliefs, yet on basics such as the doctrine of Salvation, there were more or less in agreement. Nevertheless, on this topic of God having a desire that the non-elect would be saved, they were not always in agreement, as the emergence of the Amyraldians and the beliefs of the Puritan Richard Baxter shows.
Nevertheless, with the framework of Covenantal Theology mostly in place, it can be seen that most of the Reformers and Puritans, as we shall see later, do have the concept of the collective, though they did not explicitly taught it and apply it as clearly as it could be. We can already seen the idea implied even in John Calvin when he talks about the atonement of Christ for His people, yet not teaching the doctrine of Limited Atonement as it became clearly formulated. We must realize that in 16th-17th century Europe, most of Europe was 'Christianized' so to speak, so therefore the entire continent as it is was treated as the Visible Church. In the eyes of the Reformers and the Puritans, there were only three parties in the Reformation conflict (them, the apostate part of the Visible Church which was soon to be no more a church, and the Turks — representing a non-Christian enemy)
A key point that seems to suggest that the Reformers and the Puritans did not have a 'common salvific grace' in mind was their absence of proclaiming God's love for the Turks. After all, the Turks then were almost the only non-Christians they knew (although the Roman Catholics through Spain and Portugal had already started coming into contact with other non-Christians primarily in South America, the Protestants have yet to catch up). Seeing as to the then identification of the Visible Church with the entire continent, it is incongruous therefore to postulate any form of "common salvific grace" to any mention of God desiring the salvation of the non-elect once we accept the notion of the collective as believed by Covenantal Theology.
With all that said, let us look for ourselves some of the writings of the Reformers and the Puritans, especially with regards to Tony Byrne's quotation of their words here, and also some of the proofs presented by the so-called 'Calvin and Calvinism' blog in their blog category "God's will for the salvation of all Men" here.
First of all, Byrne quotes Ursinus:
"3) Merciful. God’s mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance." Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 8, Q 25, S 2, p., 127.
"God willeth that all be saved, as he is delighted with the salvation of all...[and] inasmuch as he inviteth all to repentance: but he will not have all saved, in respect of the force and efficacy of calling." Ursinus, The Summe, p. 353. Quoted in G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement (Paternoster, 1997), p. 110.
Without a context, it is impossible to judge what Ursinus actually is saying. Nevertheless, that Ursinus may not be teaching what Byrne thinks he is is probably correct. And it seems that Byrne has misquoted Ursinus, for Lord's Day 8, Question 25 of the Heiderberg Catechism has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of God being merciful. Here is Question 25:
Question 25 Since there is but one only divine essence, (a) why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, (b) that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.
I think Byrne most probably has Question 11 of Lord's Day 4 in mind here instead
Question 11. Is not God then also merciful?
Answer: God is indeed merciful, (a) but also just; (b) therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.
Now, it is probably the case that Byrne has quoted correctly from Williard's translation as published by P&R. If such is the case, then there seems to be a problem with the translation. As we look at the larger context of such a quote as can be seen in the 'Calvin and Calvinism' blog article which we shall look at in more detail later, the commentary fits Question 11 better than Question 25. Look at the commentary for yourself and see if there is any link whatsoever with the teaching of the Trinity in Question 25.
Nevertheless, let us look into Ursinus's quoted commentary (assuming it is correct) in light of Question 11 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
Assuming Ursinus is quoted correctly in context, what Ursinus seems to be teaching is basically that God's mercy is manifested to all Man that they may be given a chance to come to repentance. Remembering that this was meant to be a commentary (probably) of Question 11, combining the two shows that Ursinus had in mind that God did not justly destroy everyone immediately but have given them an opportunity to repent and be saved. It is in this narrow context of the temporal averting of God's wrath that it can be said that God 'desires the salvation of all Man'. Notably absent is Ursinus's exposition on who the all Man refers to, though if we grant the notion of the collective, then this could just mean the mass of humanity corporately instead of individually, and we could definitely grant that God loves all Man and desire their salvation collectively or organically.
The next quotation by Ursinus is even harder to interact due to what has been omitted in the ellipses. The statement does not make coherent sense with the middle portion missing, which probably clarifies what Ursinus means by the beginning words. Even with such a handicap, the beginning portion could be something analogous to the previous quote from his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism; that God is merciful in desiring the salvation of all Man in the sense of giving them a chance through not wiping them out immediately. And of course granting the distinction between what has been called the 'preceptive will' and the 'decretal will', what Ursinus may be saying is that God desires their salvation in the 'preceptive will' sense. Not precise language for sure, but then we must all start somewhere, and the Reformers need to start somewhere also in their break with Rome with her semi-Pelagian (small 's') tendencies.
Byrne then quotes from Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 3:9 as follows:
"And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent." Calvin, Commentary, 2 Peter 3:9.
Did Calvin think that God willed men to repent but did not will them to be saved? Not at all.
Calvin continues: "Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost." Calvin, Commentary, 2 Peter 3:9.
We are privileged to have almost all of the works of John Calvin online at Christian Classics Ethreal Library, at which we can find Calvin's commentary. So anyway, let us look at what Calvin says of 2 Peter 3:9, as can be seen here.
9 But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.
This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.
Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.
But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.
Once again, Byrne has quoted Calvin out of context. As it can be seen earlier, Calvin through his phrase 'care for us' and then alternating between us and the world, shows the idea of the collective at work here, although it is not stated as such. Calvin is here promoting that God is calling all to repentance, and this 'all' refer to the undifferentiated, collective whole. Such a calling is then applied to 'us' for 'our salvation', which is then made specific and individual. Therefore, when Calvin mentioned that "He [God] would have them all [the wold] to be saved", this desire extends to the collective undifferentiated whole of the world's peoples, such that the notice is served that we might take notice of it. And to nail the argument, Calvin in the last part discusses the question of why so many do perish if God "wishes none to perish", and states his answer as "no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God", which goes to show that such a desire of God unto salvation belongs more properly to the "preceptive will" portion, or as McMahon likes to says in his book utilizing Turretin's terms, such a desire only exists in the divided sense not in the compound sense. Or to use my preferred way of speaking, this desire is the expression of God's command and wants to undifferentiated collective humanity, and applied only to elect individuals.
Byrne lastly quotes Turretin who states, in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, that
God's preceptive will is indicative of what He "wishes" to be done by all, and even says that the great King "commands and desires" all the invited to come to the wedding feast. Turretin writes: "3] XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come." He further says, "2] XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree." When he says "come," he's talking about salvation in the context.
This of course proves nothing for our case, for our contention has never been that there is a so-called "preceptive will" which "desires" the salvation of individuals. Nevertheless, we deny that that has anything to do with soteriology proper and therefore cannot be called 'saving' in any sense of the term. And of course, I have said earlier in an article that scratches the surface of the issue that I dislike the term "preceptive will" because it may lead to the misconception that all the items in God's "preceptive will" are something God truly wants to do failing which will jeopardize his sovereignty, instead of God merely commanding and delighting in such works.
Byrne here is trying to defend views such as his from the Neo-Amyraldian label. As a refresher, here is how I define Neo-Amyraldism which can be inferred from my introduction article:
Neo-Amyraldism is the system of theology which postulates God having two wills (or two part of a will) which are both operating on the same level in Soteriology, of which one will (or part of a will) desires the salvation of all Man, and the other desiring the salvation of only the elect.
Can we see Byrne believing that God both desires the salvation of all Man and desiring the salvation of only the elect on the same level of Soteriology? It should be clear by now that he does think that those two wills operate on the same level of Soteriology. Whereas Turrentin thought only that the desire to save operates only on the "preceptive will" level, and thus there is no saving aspect to such a "preceptive will", the modern Noe-Amyraldians add a saving aspect and then by semantics indicate that such a saving aspect is part of the "preceptive will", a verbal gymnastics which is illogical, nonsensical and which make such a will intrude into the affections of God which affects His decretal will, since God will DO ALL He that He pleases (Ps. 115:3, 135:6). And this is the crux of the matter upon which Neo-Amyraldism crashes, for they posit God having a true sincere and heartfelt desire for the salvation of the reprobates which He nevertheless does not fulfil in contradiction to Scripture cf Ps. 115:3 and Ps. 135:6.
Next, we would briefly look at the writings on the 'Calvin and Calvinism' blog, as I have linked to here.
As I see it, much of it can be seen to be confusion over what constitutes proof for stating that 'God's will [is] for the salvation of all Man'. For example, Calvin's commentary on 2 Cor. 5:20 when interpreted with the idea of the collective proves our case instead. Ditto too for the later article on Rutherford here too.
The passage supposedly from Ursinus is a very generous portion, and indeed is very helpful to establish what Ursinus means (as compared to Byrne's quotations). We can see that even in this quotation, the writer of the post seems sometimes not to see where the objection begins and ends and where the answer from Ursinus starts. Obviously, the objection is what Ursinus is refuting, so to underline any statement in those objection to prove 'common salvific grace' is wrong, which they unfortunately did do. Yet, it cannot be denied that Ursinus did seem to teach God's desire to save all, or did he? In the passage, one particular part strikes out as showing where Ursinus is coming from:
God wills that all men should be saved, in as far as he rejoices in the salvation of all: and he rejoices in the punishment of the wicked, yet not; in as far as it is the torment of his creatures; but in as much as it is the execution of his justice. God wills that all should be saved, in as much as he, in a certain respect, invites, and calls all to repentance, but he does not will the salvation of all, as it respects the efficacy of this calling. He blesses all, “if haply they might feel after him, and find him:” (Acts 17:27.) He invites all, and says to all; Honesty and obedience are pleasing to me, and due to me from you; ... (Bold added)
We can thus see Ursinus's mention of God desiring the salvation of all has more to do with the fact that such an action is pleasing to God, and the obedience done unto salvation is something due to God, or in other words, owed to God. Therefore, Ursinus is not teaching that God actually have some heartfelt longing that all might be saved, but that he delights in it because such is paying their dues to God. Of course, here I disagree with him on this minor point, for I maintain that what is owed is repentance in conformity to God's law which leads to salvation, but not salvation itself.
Next is the passage from the American Presbyterian William Shedd. This by far is the worst type of 'proof' that I have seen, since Shedd here is defending the sufficiency and unlimited value of the Atonement such that all could be saved if they would just turn to Christ , which no orthodox Christian denies. The phrase "a common benevolent and merciful relation to them all" does not at all refer to the idea that God has a 'common salvific grace' for all, just as the term 'Real Presence' as used by the early Church Fathers does not mean that Christ is physically bodily in the elements of the Supper (the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation). Such anachronism is bad scholarship indeed. What Shedd actually means by this statement, as defined within the context of defending the sufficiency of the Atonement, is that God has made it possible for whosoever to be saved, and such is a benovolence that is available to anyone who takes holds of the offer of the Gospel. It is in this 'whosoever' context that God "sustains a common benevolent and merciful relation to them all", in that all may take up this offer. Of course, we have no problem with the fact that God desires compliance to His will and commands, which does not prove anything about God having a well-meant desire for the salvation of all Man without exception.
From this brief look at the writings of Reformers, Puritans and one American Presbyterian source (W.G.T. Shedd), it can be seen that not one of them actually promotes the novel doctrine of the Neo-Amyraldians, as I have defined above. Barring anachronism and reading out of context, the edifice of the 'well-meant offer' has been shown to be without historical orthodox backing, with the exception of the Amyraldians and perhaps the Lutherans and the Anglicans (both groups not being totally orthodox anyway). To the question of whether God desires the repentance and salvation of all Man, we can therefore answer that God commands the repentance of all Man, but doesn't exactly desire it (as loaded with the modern connotation and theological usage of the Neo-Amyraldians). And for this position, we have the support of almost all the Reformed giants on our side.
[THE END!]
OK, not really true universalism, but something eerily similar, and just as heretical. Check this nicely done video by A Little Leaven:
Perhaps someone could explain what business a pastor have to do at the Davos World Economic Forum, which is not evangelism by the way. Let's listen to Rick Warren's words from Davos and ask yourself this question, Is that what pastors are supposed to do? (Nevermind the other issue of Drucker's 3-legged stool)
Where is the Gospel, Rick? Why are we supposed to cooperate with other "faiths" to solve the global giants instead of saving the lost souls of their adherents?
Well, it seems I need to amend a not so recent post regarding Exclusive Psalmody, as I have came to know the complex descriptive terms and concepts embraced by Exclusive Psalmodists in their technical word of "element" to describe the various parts of worship. Basically, "element" refers to an autonomous, independent part of worship which is directly controlled by the Regulative Principle of Worship, while "circumstance" refers to something which is peripheral to or the method which accompanies the "element" and is not subjected to the Regulative Principle since it is an application like what time should we conduct the worship service, where to have it in etc.
In the post entitled Tentative positions on the topics of 'Common Grace' and the 'Free Offer', I've made the statement that
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.
In this post, I hope to deal particularly with this statement, as it may seem counter-intuitive. Does God desires repentance but not salvation of everyone? What does the Bible say about this issue? And how does this impact how we proclaim the Gospel? Later, continuing the interaction with certain points made by Tony Byrne on an old TeamPyro blog post, we would look as to how some Reformers and Puritans tackled the issue also.
Now, when we talk about God 'desiring to save people', typically the whole issue should be placed within what is known as the preceptive will of God, or the commands of God, as in this is contained what God commands people to do. This is especially so if we are not to have anything to do with the heresy of universal or common salvific grace, and thus of necessity limit such a desire to the preceptive will of God. So then the biblical question is: Does God command people to be saved, or rather as I have contented, God commands people to repent?
A glance through the Scriptures does not seem to support the contention that God commands people to be saved. Rather, they seem to support the idea that God commands people to repent and be saved. Some passages that states this can be seen as follows:
For thus said the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, “In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.” But you were unwilling, (Is. 30:15)
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. (Is. 45:22)
Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life, (Ez. 13:22)
“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. ... Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? ... Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. ... For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.” (Ez. 18:21, 23, 27, 32)
Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ez. 33:11)
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, (Acts 3:19-20)
When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)
As it can be seen, the message of salvation both in the Old Testament and the New Testament not only links repentance and salvation, but places primary importance on repentance. The message of the Gospel is even stated as "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (Mt. 4:17). We can even see the primary importance of repentance as seen in Acts 17: 30 where God is said to command all people everywhere to repent.
As it can be seen, the Scriptures teaches that with regards to the commands of God, God commands repentance, not salvation. Yes, God commands people to repent and be saved, but not to be saved as fiat. Since the fuit of repentance is salvation, it is thus valid to say that God desires people to repent and be saved, but not just merely 'be saved'.
God thus commands all Man to repent of their sins, and this is His preceptive will for their lives. As I have stated, theologically, this is due to the fact that repentance is a virtue God desires, in the same way that God hate rebellion, and therefore that God desires repentance has nothing to do with His desiring salvation but more because such an action is pleasing in and of itself.
That said, how should we preach the Gospel? We should not preach the Gospel like the Arminians or the Neo-Amyraldians; that God desires everybody to be saved. Rather, we should follow the Bible more closely and tell people that God desires their repentance leading to their salvation. As such, the focus should be on their need to repent rather than God's desire to save. Presented this way, the Gospel would glorify God more and be used by the Holy Spirit to bring more of His elect to Him, to the praise of His wondrous grace.
In the next post on this topc, let us look at some of the Reformers and Puritans' view on this topic.
[to be continued]
**Update**: It seems that Pastor Rayburn is actually pastor of Faith Tacoma Church (PCA), and that he was giving a series of sermons in Harvest OPC then. Thanks to John for the feedback regarding the error, which is corrected now.
*Update*: I probably have erred on the identity of "Rabbi" Duncan, so I'lll withdraw that part. Thanks to those who feedbacked to me the information.
I have on the Net recently came across a former friend, Jonathan Koh, a former Reformed Charismatic turned visibly apostate, and who mentioned that he is now attending the Word-faith New Creation "Church", though presumably not a member. As he is adamant in promoting his heresies and false ecumenism online, I think it would be instructive to look at one aspect of his heresy for now; that of the embrace of the philosophy of dialectics. Unlike his Emergent friends, Jonathan is not so slippery and thus it is easier to hold him on the statements that he has made.
Just some background so it would be seen where I am coming from. Jonathan was a person seemingly passionate for the cause of Christ and the Reformed truth when he joined my former church, Covenant Presbyterian Church, when I was still rather young (~ 16-18 years old I think) and didn't know much about anything, though newly converted then. He taught my younger brother in their cell group and was a friend of ours. One thing I remembered was when he tried to taught my brother's cell about the topic of predestination, of which I didn't have a view (If pressed, I would answer like an Arminian) then. Needless to say, from the responses, I garner that almost nothing went through to them, due to the topic being 'very profound'. He also organized all night prayer meetings and for some time, it seemed that the youth ministry would be progressing towards greater growth in biblical spirituality.
However, his idealism created a dissonance within him as he was naive enough to think that doing such would create revival, and the resistance of the higher leadership to change was not helping matters, leading to disillusionment. And the flaws within himself began to show, as his foundation on the truths of the Reformation began to show itself as being shallow (Mt. 7: 26-27). He was then also interested in sociology and political science, of which he read some of their works then also. His epistemological shallowness began to show as the lies spun by the Liberals and their allies in the media on topics such as Israel and the so-called "Palestinian occupation" began to be imbibed by him without discernment. And of course, those causes are very safe, costing little in terms of personal sacrifice and pain compared to the cross and discouragement of ministry, and the people ARE indeed passionate about what they do. Not to mention that Satan will not be actively working against you if you take up such causes. Anyway, he left the church when he went to study overseas and we lost contact with him soon after.
This is just a brief summary of Jonathan's life as I came to know him then. Since then, he has changed a lot especially in his embrace of postmodern epistemology, or rather called 'Modernism part II'.
Let it be said that I do this not out of anything but love, although Jonathan in our recent exchange was very judgmental in libeling my motives, as if he is God and knows them. I hope this warning and expose would have a three-fold effect. First of all, it is sincerely hoped that the Holy Spirit would convict Jonathan of his heresy and that he would repent of this. Or if he doesn't, then the truth would harden his heart in preparation for future wrath (Rom. 2:5). Secondly, for those who look on, by his example, it is hoped that we be warned of the particular heresy that Jonathan has fallen into, and that we can learn to exercise discernment and learn from his mistakes. Being enthusiastic about the Christian faith, and of the Reformed truths even, means nothing, for in Jonathan's case it could be the case of the seed which sprung up on rocky ground, and were destroyed when the sun of trials come (Mt. 13:5-6). Thus, it pains me to do this, but where the truth of God is concerned, God is above all others, and I will not allow such heresy to remain unchallenged.
With such a long introduction, let us look at the piece written by Jonathan Koh his website/blog here.
In this article, Jonathan promotes the philosophy of dialectics. From his piece, it can be seen that the strain of dialectics he is promoting is a form of the Hegelian dialectic of thesis/antithesis-synthesis in keeping contradictions together as part of the truth. The dialectical method he is promoting is that seen here, in an attempt to "overcome formal dualism" in positing transcendence of the truths of so-called contradictions found within the Bible. This is made very explicit in the various quotes Jonathan placed there in which the very idea of holding contradictions in tension and resolving none of them but instead celebrating both is put forth. As examples, Jonathan quotes:
I would run after nothing and shun nothing… the truth is not in the middle, and not in one extreme, but in both extremes. (Charles Simeon)
Preach the antinomies of truth, and carry each out a far as it is possible to carry it. But don’t attempt to reconcile them. These two lines [/ \] will meet if produced far enough. But if I try to make them meet, I give one or other of them a twist, and so reduce it from being a straight line. ... (Rabbi Duncan)
Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious. (Chesterton)
There is revelation only as the contradictions are held together. (Jacques Ellul, The subversion of Christianity)
We would look at some of his supposed contradictions later, but suffice it is to say that one such contradiction that he puts forward is the 'contradiction' between faith and works. Does Federal Vision ring a bell here?
First of all, I couldn't care less about the 'reputations' of these people, as Scripture alone is my authority. That does not mean that their reputation does not mean anything, but God's Word reigns supreme. The person that Jonathan mentions upon hearing his sermon is one Pastor Robert Rayburn, a PCA pastor preaching then in an OPC church. I do not know Pastor Rayburn, but I would be charitable to Pastor Rayburn, and until evidence is found, assume that Jonathan misunderstood him. With regards to the other authors, I have no idea since when a Roman Catholic could be termed as an authority in epistemology, especially with regards to the truths of Scripture. That again shows Jonathan's embrace of anybody who seems intellectual, even if the person is teaching heresy; the worship of the Academy.
And with that, let us look into the issue proper. Does Scripture promote the Hegelian dialectic? Of course, examples could be given and will be analyzed later as to whether they truly are contradictory, but for now, let us analyze the issue epistemologically.
It can be easily seen that the Bible does not promote such irrationalism. First of all, the entire thought pattern of the Bible is dualistic, from Genesis to Revelation, without any mixing of the thesis/antithesis pair. God is set in opposition to Satan, good vs evil, obedience vs disobedience, election vs reprobation, love vs hate, saved vs lost, light vs darkness and we could go on and on. Those who truly read the Bible for all its worth will develop a sharply antithecal mindset and see things in thesis/antithesis pairings. An example of such antithecal wording can be found in phrases like 'for the one who is not against you is for you' (Lk. 9:50ff) and 'And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire' (Rev. 20:15). To make it very apparent, to be a Christian is the opposite of being a non-Christian. One cannot be a Christian and a non-Christian at the same time.
This brings us to the fundamental issue — the law of non-contradiction. Jonathan probably did not study logic, but to deny this law is just plainly absurd, for the denial of the law of non-contradiction is definitely not the affirmation of such a law (Reductio ad absurdum). Yet, this is what dialectics seeks to have. We must remember that dialetics does not just deal with seeming contradictions or paradox, since these are solvable. Rather, they deal with flat-out contradictions which are irreconcilable or antinomies. Therefore, to embrace the Hegelian dialectics epistemologically is to commit epistmological suicide, which Jonathan has done. In Jonathan's view therefore, one can deny Christ and yet be a Christian and go to heaven (ie Brian McLaren), since there is no need to be logically coherent. In other words, the only authority for Jonathan's words are himself or the Academy (when his views happen to be the same as theirs), all being totally irrational, unbiblical and unlivable. Debating therefore with Jonathan, like probably with any of the Emergents, is useless, for they are not committed to being rational. They can say anything they want, and affirm and deny the faith in the same breath. And of course those who criticize them would be deemed to be 'Modernistic', which show their either ignorance or denial of what Modernism actually is.
After dispensing of the heresy of the dialectic, let us look at the various examples which are so-called antinomies or logical contradictions. Jonathan listed the doctrine of people being at the same time sinners and yet saints (justified), how the Kingdom of God is here and not yet, how Jesus is wholly Man and wholly God, the doctrine of the Trinity, and how the Bible teaches justification by faith yet judgment about works. It is the biblical position that none of these are antinomies, since if they contradict each other, then the Christian faith is in error, since God is not God and not-not God at the same time, and God states that He is truth (Jn. 14:6) and is logical (Jn. 1:1), not both truth and error, and both logical and illogical at the same time in the same sense
Take the first example given. Christians are sinner yet saints. However, this is not a contradiction because we are not sinners and saints in the same manner. We are sinners by nature, and saints by legal declaration and through adoption, and not both sinners and saints in the same manner. In the same way, an adopted child is not the child biologically but is the child by adoption, thus he/she can be said to be both the child and not the child of a couple. Ditto for the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has come in the spiritual sense secretly. It is in this sense that the Kingdom of God has come. Yet the Kingdom of God has not come in the sense of Christ coming visibly to all and bringing the entire creation into judgment, and fulfilling all history, and thus it is not yet come. Failure to differentiate between the senses creates a false contradiction where none actually existed.
With regards to the others, that Jonathan mentioned them shows how far from orthodoxy he has strayed. The hypostatic union of Christ (100% human and 100% God) is not illogical. It is a mystery in that we cannot comprehend totally what this means, but it is not a contradiction, unless you add the premise that the class of humans and God is mutually exclusive. But upon what can we maintain that? Just because no human is God does not mean that there can never be one person who is both God and Man. The contradictions will only exist if a faulty premise is maintained about the mutual exclusivity of the natures of God and Man. Such a position is counter-intuitive to be sure, but it is not illogical. With regards to the Trinity, the orthodox position has always been that God is three persons in one essence/nature. A contradiction would only arise if God is three persons in one person, or three nature in one nature., because 3 ≠ 1. But just as there is no contradiction in saying 3x = 1y, but contradiction in saying that 3x = 1x, from whence the contradiction? Jonathan by using such examples only show he does not even understand, or is purposefully ignoring, the formulation of these historic Christian doctrines.
The mention of faith and works is at the core of the Reformation, and if the undermining of the hypostatic union and the Trinity ring hollow in the ears of modern Evanjellifishes, then perhaps they might want to consider the more practical mess you will get when you add works in order to gain salvation. The Bible is explicit that faith and works are mutually incompatible (Rom. 3:28, Rom. 4:4-5, Gal. 2:16). What then about Jonathan's statement? If what is in mind here is the fact that believers will be rewarded for their labors, then there is no contradictions, for such works count after salvation by faith. In other words, works still play no part in salvation. However, Jonathan actually have in mind something deeper. What he has in mind is the Scriptural commands of obedience, which would thus cut directly into the whole Lordship controversy issue. However, that is only a contradiction if one refuses to follow the plain teachings of Scripture. The commands of obedience can only be obeyed by Christians, since they received a new regenerate heart (2 Cor. 5:17) and thus have a new nature that can obey God. To place obedience as a prerequisite for salvation implies that unregenerate unbelievers can somehow strive towards obedience, which the Bible explicitly denies, as no one seeks for God. (Rom. 3:11). I am surprised that Jonathan does not seem to realize this as he claimed to be a Calvinist earlier in his life, and thus should know about the doctrine of Total Depravity.
It is a sad day when a person apostatize from the faith, and especially someone who held a lot of truth and had great passion before. Yet, such people have been prophesied before in Scripture and we are to avoid them like the plaque they really are.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. (1 Jn. 2:19)
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. (Heb. 6:4-8)
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:26-31)
And with regards to the comment that Scripture is obscure, this is what Scripture says:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:14-16. Bold added)
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.
Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds;they are not pressed out or bound upor softened with oil.
Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners. And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field, like a besieged city.
If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah.
Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
“When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feastsmy soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.
(Is. 1:2-17)
We have seen in our last study how angry God is against His people who have compromise and sinned against God through syncretism and 'tolerance' of errors. And as such, they have become as it were estranged from God, people whom God know not of although they are called to be God's people. Despite having a veneer of religiosity, God looks at the heart (1 Sam. 16:7ff) and knows the secret thoughts of Man (Ps. 139:2b). In God's eyes, secret sins are no different from open sin and therefore God will punish self-righteous people even though they seemed righteous on the surface, as in the case of the Pharisees.
In verse 5, God expresses a desire for His people to turn to Him. In light of the 'common grace' controversy that I am currenly involved in, such a desire is to be understood as an anthropopathic expression directed towards a certain end and as the expressed (preceptive) will of God. As such, it does not expressed what God has actually decreed in the final sense, but of God's outward emotive (not emotional) response to the situation. Although God is sovereign and in control, and He has allowed eve decreed such a falling away to happen, the situation still evokes a emotive response from God, as God is not an uncaring Father. Such a response is dictated by God's character as the Covenanting God who loves His Covenant people, and does not at all refer to what God ultimately desires. (For those who are interested, I use the word emotive because God expresses emotion. Whereas 'emotional' refers to being in a state influenced by the situation, the word 'emotive' just refers to God expressing emotions, of which such expressions are the result of the application of God's character to the situation.)
Seen in such a light, God in verse 5 is is calling His wayward Covenant people to Himself. Due to their sins and secret wickedness in rebellion, they are under the curse of God and therefore are struck down. God calls His people to consider their outcome. He calls to them to at least even think about their own skins, as it were. Their rebellion against God has and will continue to cost them much. Verses 5b- 6 liken their condition in graphic terms, to those who are so diseased that sores, bruises and all kinds of wounds are found everwhere on their bodies. Worse still, they are not bound up and taken care of. Given what we know of the Jewish laws regarding leprosy and uncleanness (Lev. 13), what kind of image would be conjured up other than one of revulsion? Yet that is what the Lord is likning Israel to. Israel by her rebellion is an abomination unto the Lord and is absolutely disgusting to everyone. God is thus calling on Israel to consider how disgusting she actually is, and implores her to turn from her wickedness in repentance towards God.
In verses 7-8, the Spirit of the Lord proclaims through Isaiah the judgments that Israel had began to experience and which she would finally face — destruction. Although the army was relatively strong during the days of King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:6-15), Isaiah saw through the temporal strength of Judah and the Spirit showed him that the corruption of the people would lead to their downfall, which they began to experience later on though during the days of the wicked king Ahaz, and which the northern kingdom have experienced much more severely. The judgment of the Lord upon His covenant people will be swift and devastating, and Isaiah praised God for even leaving behind any survivors. Comparing themselves to the wicked cities of ancient times, Sodom and Gomorrah, Isaiah proclaims his gratitude to God in preserving the people of Israel, even a remnant, instead of wiping them all out like what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Continuing on with the fitting analogy, the Spirit of the Lord implores the rulers of Israel (both Israel and Judah) to heed the words of God (v. 10). From verses 11-14, God shows His utter detestation of the sacrifices and offerings that Israel is offering up to Him. Although God commands sacrifices, sabbaths and feasts, yet their surface-level observance is an offence to Him. After all, all these things are meant more for Israel to instruct them and as serve as signs of the Gospel than for God, as if God will starve if no sacrifices were offered! God detests their false religiosity and hates them (v. 13), with the result being that God will hide His face from such people and not visit them with favor. In fact, God treats them as murderers, stating that their "hands are full of blood"(v. 15).
Verses 16-17 are thus the works that God exhorts Israel to do. Israel is exhorted to stop doing evil (v. 16) which corresponds to washing themselves clean. On top of stop doing evil, they are exhorted to do good. They are to 'seek justice', 'correct oppression', 'bring justice to the fatherless' and 'plead the widow's cause' (v. 17). On the surface, this seemed to promote meritorius good works, or the heretical teachings of Liberation Theology. Yet, such readings miss the entire point of all these exhortations, as interpreting these texts according to the whole of Scripture (the Analogy of Faith) would yield their true meaning. As Jesus had said in Mt. 7:16-20, we shall know people by their fruits. So therefore God through Isaiah is exhorting them to bear good fruits in these good works, as they can only do such good works as biblically defined when they have repented and have turned back to God. Contrary to the heretical Marxist interpretation of such commands in Scripture, the phrase 'seek justice' refers to true justice, not 'justice' for perceived unfairness but kingdom justice like punishing those who murder children and excommunication of those who destroy the faith of others. 'Correct oppression' is the kingdom responsibility to proclaim and help others be free of the oppression of sin, and also not to take advantage of others; 'Bring justice to the fatherless' and 'plead the widow's cause' is to ensure that those who are disadvantaged are not discriminated against and oppressed by those who want to impose their values on others like Marxists. All of such are fruits of the Spirit and therefore God by focusing on the fruits is exhorting them to change at the roots with the result being the visible expression of a repentant and changed heart.
As we have looked at this passage, let us continue to seek God and turn to Him. Reader, have you been compromising recently? Have you allowed the things of the world to enter and squeeze out God? If so, please repent. Seeing the bitter and evil fruit that has been reaped by such unfaithfulness to God, why should you continue on in rebellion? Truly God is imploring us to turn back to Him while there is time. Repent therefore, and show forth your repentance in true good works. For God does not take any pleasure in the death of anyone. So repent and live! (Ez. 18:32)
Well, I have just made a new banner for my blog. Hope it looks fine, though it didn't turn out as I have expected, due to problems with dimensions. But then, anyway, my graphic skills are not great. And I have updated the rules again, just FYI.
I have just finished reading a very interesting book written by Dr. C Matthew McMahon, which is incidentally his doctoral thesis. The book is entitled The Two Wills of God — Does God really have two wills?, and it is a dissertation on the lofty and sacred topic of the will of God. More specifically, it addresses the topic of "common grace", the "well-meant or free offer", the will of God towards the elect and the reprobate, and of course the proclamation of the Gospel. This is done through proving the biblical position from the Scriptures, and then showing from the writings of the Reformers and the Puritans, as well as the major creeds and confessions of the Chuch, that this is what the Church and the giants in Church history also believes, though of course there is no total unaminity on all points under contention, but by and large they reject the relatively modern novelty introduced by people such as John Murray and Ted Stonehouse.
After reading the book, I can say that I would highly recommand it, if you are interested in the topic of course, which I am after having interacted with the common gracers.
That said, I would like to take a step back. I would suppose that probably some people who may attempt to read the posts on this topic may be confused, as I have presupposed a lot of rather complex doctrines when discussing this issue. So for those who may want to know more, I have presupposed the Doctrines of Grace aka Calvinism, the immutability of God, the omniscience and sovereignty of God, assymetrical double predestination, the Covenant of Redemption, that God works everything out for His own glory, that the difference between God and man is not by way of analogy but of degree, and thus logic epistemologically applies to God and His decrees too (though logic ontologically depends on God).
As it could thus be seen through my posts on the topic so far, my starting point is the glory of God, not the love of God. As to why such is the case, the short answer is that the glory of God is the magnification of His person in ALL His attributes, while focusing on the love of God may cause us to pit this against His other attributes and unbalance the emphasis placed on His various attributes. This is especially the case since it is very human to import our human notions of what love is, even sub-consciously, and impose it on God.
[continued from here]
Rob Bell
With regards to Rob Bell, I am having problems accessing the entire article, so I will just take it thatRick's quotes are in context, and I don't see why not. If that is the case, then Rick does have a point. That said, I do not think Pastor Ken is totally wrong here. Examine that entire statement that Bell made:
Jesus was killed because of how He confronted a particular socioeconomic religious system. He’s a first-century Galilean revolutionary who proclaimed a Kingdom other than the kingdom of Herod,
Given that Bell's article was on why his church is nonpartisan politically, does he need to write such a statement which is clearly wrong. Regardless of hos you slice and dice it, how can the Gospel square with the statement that Jesus 'confronted a particular socioeconomic religious system'? The Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom, not a political kingdom. The most you can mention the Pharisees, who most definitely feel threatened, but being threatened ≠ Jeus being confontational. Next, althouh Jesus is from Galilee and is probably considered a revolutionary by the religios leaders, is it proper even to call Jesus as a "Galilean revolutionary"? And theworst pat of the entire statement is that he proclaimed a "Kingdom other than the kingdom of Herod". Although that phrase is technically correct, when placed together with the phrase "Galilean revolutionary" depicts Jesus' kingdom as being political and challenging Herod's one on the political level. And that is liberalism. Just because Bell uses error to teach a relatively benign point (of being nonpartisan) is no excuse as if his error is minor.
Erwin McManus
Here is where Rick in my opinion relly blundered. Pastor Ken Silva here is using satire against McManus, who was criticising the lack of genuine compasson in serving and reaching people who are lost, within the churches. I have no idea what Rick means as to what he thinks Silva is saying, but you can read it for yourself below:
Wait! Isn't what McManus saying true? Isn't the self-indulgence in American churches an issue? Isn't that one of the things Silva also takes issue with? So what is McManus saying that is wrong. Based on Silva's remark it seems it is only that it is McManus saying it and therefore McManus must be a hypocrite.
What Pastor Ken is saying is that McManus' words are just like the pot callin the kettle black. In other words, McManus is rightly criticising such a lack of genuine compassion in reaching the lost in the churches, yet he himself does not have genuine compassion in reaching the lost and is in fact leading them astray through his embrace of the Emegent heresy.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the allegations against discerment ministries in general and Pastor Silva in particular are baseless. It is regretful that such things should happen, and it is hoped that discernment should be promoted through this exchange. Also, we should stop shooting those on the front line and shield the enemy within, but realize who are the true enemy instead. May more people come to agreement and attack the wolves within in the Emergent heresy, and stop all such infighting which impede the growth of the truth Kingdom of God.
