Whole Counsel Theology

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Well, it's done.

This morning, my family and I left Calvary Baptist Church in Greenwood, Indiana. We'd been there for a couple of years, and they sponsored us in our church start. It saddens me greatly, but I truly saw no other option given events of last Thursday.

I am going to write a list of reasons and email them to the church staff, hoping to show that I had some real concerns and still do - I will continue to pray for Calvary because of the direction I fear it is heading.

I thought about posting that list here, but decided against it after the wise counsel of some dear brothers at Calvary. There would be little point in it; the world doesn't need to see all of the problems. So, unless I end up getting a lot of untrue accusations (which I doubt will happen), I won't post it.

I will continue to post reviews of statements made in the last sermon I heard from my former pastor. May God use them for the glory of His Name.

Thank you all who have prayed and are continuing to do so.

SDG,
DBH

Labels:

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Does "ALL" Really Mean "ALL" All the Time? Sermon Review part the third.

The original post in this series can be found here which contains the link to the original sermon my pastor preached. In it, he had this statement, and also cited all or part of 1 Timothy 2:3-4. However, before I deal with that passage (which needs a larger context), I wanted to address the aforementioned statement:
When does "all" mean "all"? All the time.

There are a lot of things that can be said about that statement, but I think I'll just agree with it. Yes, you read that right -- I'll agree with it.

You see, that statement is a tricky one. Of course "all" means "all." That's like saying 1 = 1 or 237 = 237 or red = red. It's simply giving the identity of the word, so in that sense, it is certainly true: all does indeed mean all at all times.

...yet, there are two things that we need to remember about the word "all."

First, the word "all" has a similarity with each of my previous examples. If I were to go up to you and start saying, "One! Two-hundred thirty seven! Red!" and keep repeating any of those words over and over again, what would your response be? Well, if someone were to do that to me, I'd have to say, "One WHAT? 237 WHAT? A red WHAT? What ARE you talking about?"

You see, every one of those previous words is an adjective. From www.webster.com (emphasis mine), an adjective is:
a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else

The above words, including "all," are adjectives. Therefore, they MUST modify nouns. You could say "red dog" or "one meal" or "237 people," for example. In the same way, when you say "all" you have to ask "all what?"

Numbers are quantifiers; that is, they tell you "how many" of something. They tell you the quantity of a particular noun or pronoun. "All" does the same thing; it tells you the quantity of a particular thing. The difference between a standard number and the word "all" is that a number is a limited quantifier and the word "all" is a universal quantifier. They both, however, have a referent. That is, numbers and the word "all" are referring to SOMETHING. Numbers are limited quantifiers with a variable referent (that is, what they can refer to changes; you could have 5 dogs, 5 cars, 5 people, 5 books, etc.). The word "all" is a universal quantifier, also with a variable referent. That is, you can have all the keys, or all classes, or all books, or all food, or whatever.[1]

Furthermore, normally when the word "all" is used, there is a further clarification as to what is meant. When I say "all books," do I mean "all books that have ever been, everywhere?" I could be meaning that, but if I am standing in a library, and I say "all the books are interesting," I'm referring to the books in that library, perhaps even one section, or even one of a particular genre. More information, more CONTEXT, would be needed to ascertain what it was I meant, what "all" I thought was "interesting."

I hope you as you read this you are beginning to see the point. Grammar is CRITICALLY important in determining the meaning of words and sentences. To make the statement, "all means 'all' all the time," is to oversimply. We MUST have a referent for the word at the very least, and it is often necessary to determine what limiting factors are present.

When theologians say that "all means 'all' all the time," what they are indicating is usually that when the word "all" is used, it means every person, everywhere, throughout history; that is, past, present, or future. The fact is, that is not usually true.

To be sure, the word can mean that, or better said, can REFER to that. However, in order to determine what the word is referring to, you absolutely MUST have context.

The reason this is important is because it changes our understanding of MANY texts of Scripture that use the word.

Ok, all of that was under my "first" point. :)

Second, the word can be used figuratively or as a hyperbole. Here is what I mean.
I go to school all the time during the week.

Now, is that a true statement? Well, yes and no. :)

If you take it literally, it is not. I only go 5 days, and not all day either. At the same time, if taken figuratively as I intended it to be taken, then yes -- it is true. I am there frequently, and not 24/7.

You see, we use words like "all" all the time -- no we don't. :) We use other words, such as that ones I'm using to type this post. Sometimes we are quiet. Sometimes we're even asleep and not talking (or typing) and therefore using no words at all! It is a figurative use of the word.

Words like this are everywhere...no they're not. They're here, there, and another place perhaps. :)

Do you see the point? In order to determine the extent of the referent of the word "all" you will need CONTEXT. Furthermore, in order to determine whether it is a figurative use or a literal use, you need (that's right! you guessed it!) CONTEXT. Scripture uses it both ways.

These are things your English/grammar teacher should have told you. :)

Next post (part the 4th) I'll review the verses I mentioned in the beginning of this post (that is, 1 Timothy 2:1-7) that my pastor referenced (though he mentioned just verses 3-4), and we'll see how important what I've just said is when it comes to biblical interpretation.



_____________________________________________
1. Of course, adjectives, including "all", can stand alone without a noun in a sentence. It is grammatically correct to say "The five are here," or "All are present." This is called a substantive, and it is when an adjective serves as a noun. However, this doesn't change my argument, because there must be some referent being described by the substantival adjective in any given sentence. In other words, we still need to know what it refers to, and it MUST refer to something!

Labels: ,

Sermon Review Post the Second: Romans 5:6

This is the second post in the series (which I guess is a redundant statement, given the title). The precursor to the series, which contains a link to the sermon mp3 file itself, is located here.

At one point in his message, my pastor cited Romans 5:6, and made comments saying that when Christ died for the ungodly, it would mean *all* the ungodly. The question is, does that interpretation square with the context, even of that verse? I don't think it does, so I'll provide the context (any emphasis added is mine):
Romans 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (6) For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (7) For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- (8) but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I have bolded all of the 1st personal pronouns above, the words "we" and "us." Verse six is paralleled with verse eight, and verse seven is explanatory of them.

Christ died for the ungodly in verse six. In verse eight, Paul says he died for "us." Verse seven explains how evil we are, which magnifies the grace of God that He exhibited toward the "us" who He died for. Given that the elect are ungodly like everyone else in the world, why must this word "ungodly" mean "every single person" especially given the fact that the word is surrounded by those pronouns, and when it is qualified by the parallel statement that He died "for us"?

What we must understand then is who the "us" is. It is a valuable discipline to acquire: Any time we see a pronoun in the Scriptures, we should ask what the antecedent is. Since the "ungodly" is paralleled with the "us" we need to know who the "us" is, and the Scripture in Romans does not leave us without an answer:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
Romans 1:6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

So then, since we have a plural pronoun, we need a plural antecedent. Paul is one party to it, and those who are in Rome who have been called to Christ are the rest of it. Now, since Paul refers to these same "called" as brothers in verse 13, this must be understood to be something more than the general call that goes out to all men in the Gospel. Indeed, this is an "effectual call" that he is talking about here, the call of the Holy Spirit that brings one to faith.

As we can see, context provides us the meaning of the word "ungodly" as it does with any word or text.

So, given the context of the chapter and the book of Romans, I must disagree with my pastor's interpretation of the passage.

SDG,
DBH

Labels: ,

Sermon Review Post the First: How Election Works

Well, this is the first in a series of posts I plan to write critiquing a few things said recently in a sermon my pastor presented at Calvary Baptist Church. You can find the first post in the series here, and it contains a link to the message. In any case, I wanted to focus on one statement he made this time around:
"There are people around us that say that God simply elects who is going to be saved and damns the rest."

The main problem with this statement is that it is backwards. It also seems to suggest that election and reprobation work the same way. I'll unpack both of them below a little bit.

First, it is backwards. What I mean is that it seems to put men in a neutral position, and that God is acting in a cruel manner. The problem is that we all deserved to be damned.

Second, God's election is a gracious choice of some to salvation, even though these people would hate Him and would deserve His wrath and eternal punishment in Hell. Reprobation on the other hand is merely God passing over others, leaving them in their sins to die and suffer the punishments of their rebellion. Reprobation then is an act of God's justice, while election is an act of God's grace and mercy. They certainly do NOT work the same way.

This election is Unconditional in that there is nothing better in me than there was in someone who is reprobate. We are both rebels, and God would have been perfectly just to condemn us both, God-haters as we are/were. The only reason I'm NOT a God-hater now is because of His grace toward me, which started with my election from before the world was created.

The statement I quoted above from my pastor, whether this was his intent or not, paints God in a negative light if someone were to believe that He elects some and not others, wanting to get people to ask the question, "How could God do that to so many," or "How could anyone believe that?" In the same way, it seems to put man in a favorable light, as innocents who don't really deserve to be damned. Thus, the focus is on the people who would be damned rather than on the Holy God Who is righteous to do so.

In any case, that is the first statement. I didn't use much Scripture here on this comment because he didn't. :) Fear not, there is a lot of exegesis coming.

SDG,
DBH

Labels:

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Some thoughts on responsibility.

I can't remember all of the examples that made this seem so timely, but Carla Rolfe has posted an excellent article on her blog about the views of some with regard to what they claim they can do with their freedom in Christ.

It's worth your time.

SDG,
DBH

Labels:

A few things about that sermon....

Well, I met with two of my pastors today hoping to discuss some of the points of the sermon, but we never did get into the Scriptures - they didn't seem to want to, which honestly confused me. In any case, that was a meeting between me and them in private, so I won't elaborate on it any more here.

In any case, the sermon is available at Calvary Baptist Church's website, but I went ahead and uploaded it to my personal (and free!) file server, so you can get it here. This way we don't tax them too much in the bandwidth department.

Since I wasn't able to go into the Scriptures while I spoke with my pastors, however, I guess I'll go ahead and do it here. There will certainly be some disagreement. However, just because I am disagreeing with what was said does NOT mean that I'm attacking the man. There will be no personal attacks nor insults. If people cannot tell the difference between a critique of one's position in the spirit of biblical discussion and a personal attack, then well, I'm sorry but I can't help you much there.

So, after I review many of the texts he used in the sermon, I hope to finish my posts on "free will" theism, as well as post some thoughts about the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that dropped in here last week. :) May God grant me more opportunities to share Christ with them and then grant them salvation.

May God be glorified as His Word is opened and becomes the final judge in all we say and do.

SDG,
DBH

Labels:

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Does God REALLY love people more than ANYTHING?

Point of Grace came out with this song of yesteryear a while back called "God Loves People More Than Anything." It's a beautiful arrangement, containing excellent harmonies and has a catchy tune. In fact, the song is difficult to get out of your head once you hear it, even if it is for the first time in a long time. :)

Recently I heard a duet of this song. It sounded great, both men being incredibly talented vocalists. Their performance was met with applause, and then I heard a speaker who followed it say, "It's true. God does love people more than anything," thus adding affirmation to the song that was just sung.

There is only one problem with this picture, and when I say this, I am not accusing anyone of trying to deceive anybody. However, this fact remains:

The song AND the statement are NOT TRUE. To say that God loves people more than anything is a falsehood.

This might come as a shock to some people, but the truth of the statement remains. God does NOT love people more than anything. God is not man-centered; He is God centered, as we ought to be.

How can I make this statement? Well, without the Bible teaching this, I'd be up a creek without a paddle, so to speak. However, God makes it abundantly clear in His Word that in everything, including the salvation of souls, His goal is the Glory of His Name, the magnification of the wonders of His grace. Let's look at the Scriptures then a bit. Everything I quote below is from the ESV, and any bolding added is my own emphasis and not in the text.
Ezekiel 36:19 I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. (20) But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.' (21) But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came. (22) "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. (23) And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. (24) I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. (25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. (26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (28) You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. (29) And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. (30) I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. (31) Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. (32) It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

Often this passage is cited by people who wish to speak of God's work in the New Covenant, in that He gives us a new heart, and rightly so. God's Spirit comes into those who are in the New Covenant, those who are believers in Christ. We have new hearts, hearts that obey God (v26). Of course, those same people often don't like to quote verse 27 in their proclamation of this truth, the verse that indicates God causes those who receive the Spirit of God and the new heart He provides to obey Him. The reason people obey God is because He causes them to do so, which is in total agreement with Philippians 2:12-13. "Free will" theists run into problems here, but I'll address this more in future posts (when I get around to completing my series on "free will").

The thing I wanted to highlight the most from these verses was the reason God chose to rescue His people. What it for their sakes? Was it because they were returning to Him? Was it because He valued them more than anything?

The answer to all of the above questions is a resounding NO. God goes out of His way to tell the people that they had PROFANED His Name (just as we have) and the He is saving them because of His concern for HIS NAME. God's Name was at stake, and these people had profaned it, insulted it. God was going to work because He was not going to allow His Name to be profaned any longer, and there is NO other reason given here. The repetition of this theme throughout this passage should make it very clear, not to mention the fact that in verse 32 God flat out states that it is NOT for their sake that He would act, and that the people should be ASHAMED of themselves. Would this act be God showing love to them? Most certainly it would be, but the motivation behind it has nothing to do with them and EVERYTHING to do with God's Name.

No, God does NOT love people more than anything. He loves His NAME more than anything. Other Scriptures make this just as clear:
Isaiah 48:9 "For my name's sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. (10) Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. (11) For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another."

This should look familiar. Again we see the reason God acts and restrains His anger against His people. In fact, in verse eight, God says that He knew they would surely act treacherously and that even before they were born they were rebels. So then, God would have been completely just to destroy them all, just as He would be right to burn this entire planet up and consume everyone in an instant because of our sin. However, He does not do this -- why? Why does He defer His anger?

Isaiah, like Ezekiel, tells us that God acts for the sake of His NAME. He desires praise; He wants His Name to be made known and honored. This idea is repeated TWICE more in verse eleven, driving the point home forcefully. The thought of God's Name being profaned is, well, unthinkable. It cannot happen.

This is exactly why the Doctrine of Particular Redemption is so important in this area. Jesus HAS REDEEMED a people at the cross. God WILL bring all of those people (the elect) to salvation, and what is the ultimate reason for it? God has purchased them, satisfied His wrath against them, and has promised them to His Son. God will NOT go back on His Word and thus profane His Name. It will NOT happen. All of the elect, whether it is early or late in their lives, will indeed come to Christ (John 6:37). It is certain.

With that, I move to the final set of Scriptures:
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love (5) he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (6) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (7) In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (8) which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight (9) making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ (10) as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (11) In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, (12) so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (13) In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (14) who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

There is a repeating theme throughout this passage, and I have bolded it above in verses six, twelve, and fourteen. The whole work of salvation, from election to adoption to redemption to sealing is a work of God for the purpose of magnifying God's glory. The love of God is clearly portrayed; however, the purpose of it isn't the love of the people, ultimately; it is the glory of God.

May God use His Word to correct our theology and practice.

For the Name of Jesus,
David B. Hewitt

Sunday, October 22, 2006

An Interesting Lord's Day

My pastor delivered a message today that attacked the Reformed interpretation of several passages (including 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 3:9). He also made a comment about "free will" to the extent of if we chose what clothing to wear, then we have free will, and the case is closed.

This came after he read some of Dr. James White's book, The Potter's Freedom. I'm still wondering how he came to such conclusions afterwards, but well, I just don't know very much. :)

God willing, I hope to procure a copy of the sermon (and make it available here) to make sure I'm citing him correctly, and then to go through it point by point. Further, this is only telling me how important it is to understand "free will" theology, and also tells me that I need to finish my posts on the matter.

SDG,
DBH

Labels:

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

GOSPEL tract revision!

I've updated something about the tract -- now there are two available! I have one in English, and the other in Spanish. The link at the right side of my blog's main page will take you to both, but you can also find the latter right here.