A Biblical Perspective on AIDS

Brother Steve Camp has posted an excellent article about the proper Christian response to the AIDS crisis in the world today, and you can find it here. It is well worth your read!

SDG,
dbh

Sermon Review Part the Seventh: John 6:51

I'm continuing the posts for my review of the last sermon I heard my former pastor preach. You can find the first post in the series here, which contains a link to the message itself. In it, he cited a lot of proof-texts, wanting to use them to support his position against a few tenants of Reformed Theology. However, he didn't provide context for hardly any of them, and didn't exegete them either. That being the case, however altruistic his intentions, the texts really didn't do much for what he was trying to say, especially since words like "all" and "world" really do need context in order to determine what they mean (much like any word) or what they are referring to. I've addressed the word "all" in a previous post, and I'll address the word "world" in my next one. For now though, let's look at John 6:51:

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

My former pastor mentioned that it contains the word "anyone" and suggested then, if I remember him correctly, that any person can come to Jesus. The Greek pronoun is the word tis and can just as easily mean "someone" as "anyone"; Strong's definitions allow for both, though Thayer's don't even contain the word "any" in his definitions. Interesting.

In any case, the point of the text here is not that everyone has the ability to come, but rather that if anyone DOES come to Christ (ie, "eats of this bread") then that person will "live forever." This isn't saying that every person on earth has some innate ability to come to Jesus; rather, it is an assurance Jesus is giving for those who do come. If they really do come, then they will live forever.

The question remains though -- who will come? John tells us elsewhere that evildoers, lovers of darkness (that would be everyone) do NOT come into the light; in fact, they hate it, and therefore do not come to Christ. John then says in the next verse that if people do come to the light, then it may be clearly seen that "his deeds have been carried out in God." God gets the credit if anyone comes into the light, period. Why? He is the one who empowers someone to come into the light; it is His work.

Further, the rest of John 6 parallels verse 51 in many places. The ones who "eat of this bread" are the same ones who believe, the same who are drawn by God, the same who look on the Son, the same ones who are those of whom Jesus shall "lose nothing", and the same ones the Father gives to the Son, the ones He will never cast out. How do we know they are the same people, the same group?

The reason is this: repeated phrases and ideas; that is, these people are the ones Jesus will "raise up" on the last day, the ones He will give eternal life. All of these characteristics apply to the same group of people. Furthermore, the whole point of verses 35-65 is explaining to those people why many of them (indeed, most of them) would NOT believe in Him. The reason Jesus gives for them not believing in Him is this: they were not of those given Him by His Father, the Father didn't draw them to Jesus, and the Father didn't grant for them to come to Jesus. The text is inescapable, and the flow of chapter six cannot be ignored.

...but what about the word "world" in verse 51? Isn't Jesus saying that any single person in the world then can come to him? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. The reason is that Jesus has spent the whole of chapter six explaining who the "world" is that He is referring to. This is a case of a clearly LIMITED use of the Greek term kosmos, and it is not an isolated case. Indeed, John uses the word more than a dozen different ways in his writings.

What are those ways, and can I justify what I just said about the term world (kosmos)? I certainly can, and I'll do so in my nest post, by the grace of God!

SDG,
dbh

We have a church home!

My wife and I joined Pleasant Heights Baptist Church this morning, and we're thrilled to have a church home again. Even though it wasn't that long of a layover between churches, I still didn't like it.

You'll notice that I didn't put a link up for the church's website. Well, I suspect one of my first jobs will be to create it. :D

SDG,
dbh

A Brief Interruption

.....or perhaps not so brief. :) The discussion of the Atonement has come up a lot lately on this blog and in discussions I've had elsewhere, and I wanted to put up a link to this PDF file that contains some interesting items.

I have some difficulties with a few items on the list, though I do think there are some good points made... but I was hoping to garner some discussion here in the comments section of this blog post. In essence, I'm thinking through this and I need some help.

Anything said in favor of or opposed to something, if it is to be taken seriously, needs to be backed up with biblical exegesis. Philosophical meanderings, in and of themselves, don't really help and cannot provide correct interpretations unless the Scriptures lend to said meanderings. :)

So... comment away!

SDG,
dbh

Sermon Review Part the Sixth: Romans 3:23

I'm continuing my reviews of the last sermon I heard my former pastor preach and some of the claims made in it. The first post in the series can be found here, and it contains a link to the audio file of the sermon if anyone wishes to hear it. It isn't too long, and it would give you a lot of context to the conversation at hand.

I do want to repeat though, since I have not said it in a while, that I bear no ill-feelings toward my former pastor(s) or my former church. I love them as brothers and loved and still do love Calvary. Yet, given what was said in that sermon and that it went largely unquestioned, I wanted to provide a review of some of the statements and proof-texts he offered.

In any case, the next Scripture he referenced in his sermon after 2 Peter 3:9 was Romans 3:23. He didn't cite the context, so I'll go ahead and grab that real quick (any emphasis is mine as usual):

Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (21) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

There is the context. Now, with regard to that verse, and the word "all" that it contains, he said (referring back to 2 Peter 3:9),

"It is the identical, same word."

Sure enough, it is the identical word used in 2 Peter 3:9. My question is... so what? :) Given that "all" is an adjective, a universal quantifier with a variable referent, just because it is the same word is largely irrelevant. The question that must be asked is this: to what does the word "all" refer to in this passage?

In verse 23 it is being used as a substantive; that is, it is an adjective being used as a noun/pronoun. However, this doesn't resolve the problem, because we then need to find its antecendent and referent; our task is really not much different. There are TWO possible referents for this word back in the previous context.

One of them is in verse 22, which speaks of "all who believe." However, this should be rejected as the referent for a couple of reasons.

First, the "all who believe" is a smaller group from the previous group discussed in verse twenty, that is, every "human being" when the text says that no human being will be justified in God's sight by works of the law.

Second, related to the first, the "all have sinned" fits best with a reference back to verse twenty when it says no human being will be justified by the law. The reason why no one will be justified by the works of the law is that "all have sinned," that is, every human being has sinned. Further, this makes the best sense with the phrase in verse twenty-two, "there is no distinction." There isn't any distinction between who? Between any and every human being, because all human beings have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.[1]

So, as is apparent from the context here, the word "all" does indeed mean every person without exception in verse 23.


______________________________________________________

1. Something else noteworthy is Paul's previous discussion in the preceding verses in the chapter leading up to verse 20 where Paul clearly is speaking of individual people. This added background cements the argument for "all without exception" meant in this verse.

Boyce is BACK!

I saw this on Founders today, and I'm going to order one! Normally it would retail for $29.95 but they are selling them at $12.50 from now until the end of November! The link to the book is on the blog page I linked to above.

If people are wondering about Southern Baptist theological heritage, well, you probably cannot get a better source than the founder of Southern Seminary and early president of the SBC (for 8 years no less).

Highly recommended.

SDG,
dbh

A little more on 2 Peter 3:9

In case the information already posted wasn't enough, The Calvinist Gadfly has posted this article which contains an EXCELLENT video that explains things a bit better.

There is no doubt; 2 Peter 3:9 is referring to God's elect.

SDG,
DBH

Truly amazing...

This morning my wife and I went to Pleasant Heights Baptist Church in Indianapolis. When we walked in, we were greeted, and then treated ourselves to some of the church information literature they had on a nearby table.

Currently they are going through Children Desiring God in the children's Sunday School, and I was thrilled to discover that. The pastor also told me that they plan on getting it for the youth once the curriculum has been completed.

Another of the brochures we read had what looked to be a church motto:

God-centered, Bible-focused

From what we saw in Sunday School and heard from the Pulpit, this was definitely an accurate description of the church. The sermon was the absolute best thing I've heard on a Sunday morning in a long time.

We'll definitely be going back, and, after a few more conversations with the pastor, perhaps we'll join. I'm not setting anything in stone yet to be sure, but it was truly wonderful to be in such a place that holds the Word of God in such high esteem and shows it by their proclamation.

SDG,
David Hewitt

Sermon Review Part the Fifth: 2 Peter 3:9

This is the fifth post in a series I'm doing in review of a sermon my former pastor preached. You can find the original post here, which contains a link to the audio file at a free file server.

In the course of the message, this was another one of the texts he cited to try to demonstrate General Redemption; that is, that Jesus died for the sins of every single person in the world. However, there are a lot of problems with taking this verse that way. First of all, I'd like to quote it here (emphasis mine):

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Most often, that little word that I bolded is ignored. In order to determine who Peter is talking about, to whom the words "any" and "all" refer, we MUST understand who the "you" is. It seems that the majority understanding is among those of a more Arminian slant on the Atonement (if they even address it), and they take it to mean every single person, ever. However, this is certainly a stretch.

I'm not going to go into it too much here, since I've already written about it briefly before. Others also have done excellent work on this verse as well, which includes this article by Alan Kurshner from which comes this quote:

The Arminian who quotes this verse either does not want you to hear the phrase before it, “He is patient with you,” or they are so entrenched in their tradition that they are not aware of what the verse says in its entirety. The context demonstrates that the word “anyone” and “everyone” is limited to the “you.” Who are the “you”? Peter is writing to Christians, the “beloved,” the “elect.” Peter’s point is to contrast unbelievers who will receive judgment, with the elect who will be brought to repentance during the course of time preceding, and up to, the Lord’s Coming, hence, the delay. It is an exegetical leap to say that this text teaches a universal desire on God’s part to save every single individual. This notion does not square with the context that Peter is dealing with as noted; but this context is frequently ignored and this notion of “universalism” is assumed by the Arminian.

....and another excellent post is this one by Dr. James White, from which comes this quote:

Since this is so, it becomes quite clear that the Arminian is badly misusing this passage by ignoring what Peter is really saying. The patience of the Lord is displayed toward His elect people (the "you" of verse 9). Therefore, the "not wishing any to perish" is logically and contextually limited to the same group already in view: the elect. In the same way, the "all to come to repentance" must be the very same group. In essence Peter is saying the coming of the Lord has been delayed so that all the elect of God can be gathered in. Any modern Christian lives and knows Christ solely because God’s purpose has been to gather in His elect down through the ages to this present day. There is no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person come to repentance. Instead, it is clearly His plan and His will that all the elect come to repentance, and they most assuredly will do so.
Further, it should be noted that if one suggests that there is no referential connection between "you" and "any/all," the text is left making no sense. Consider it. The phrase "but is patient toward you" is left hanging in mid-air, disconnected and undefined. Obviously, what follows is modifying and explaining how this patience is expressed. And if this is the case, then how can God's patience toward "you" (in the context, the elect) be exemplified by simply stating some kind of universal salvific will? How is God's patience to the elect demonstrated by stating God wishes every person, elect or non-elect, to come to repentance? An Arminian might say that since election is based upon foreknowledge God's patience gives men with free-will a chance to repent, but the Arminian is not making the non-referential argument to begin with. We will see this is the argument of certain modified Calvinists.

With that said, this text cannot be interpreted to mean that God doesn't have an elect people, or to be taken to affirm a general atonement. The context simply doesn't allow for it, and the context must always be given primary consideration.

For the Glory of Jesus!
David Hewitt

Sermon Review Part the Fourth: 1 Timothy 2:1-7

Yes, this is the fourth part of the series. :) I don't know how many there will be, but I'm not going to cap it. The first post in the series can be found here, and I might put them all together at some point.

Others have done some excellent work on this passage, others who I look up to a good deal (and you can find such posts here and here and I encourage reading them/listening to them), but I wanted to do some exegesis on the text myself so I have something to post here rather than just redirect people around the Net.

In any case, since I've explained in some detail the grammatical uses of the word "all" (Greek: pas), we can now go into one of the most commonly used proof texts those who hold to a general redemption use to support their case: 1 Timothy 2. However, nearly always when I've seen this passage used to defend General Redemption, only verses 3-4 are cited (which is what my former pastor did). This is insufficient context to determine the scope of what Paul is saying to Timothy; to get the full understanding, we need to consult verses 1-7, which I have cited below in the ESV (any emphasis is mine):

1 Timothy 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (7) For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Ah, there it is! There is that word all! Many jump to the conclusion that, because we have the word "all" present, that every single person is meant by the word. However, as seen in my previous post, that is an irresponsible thing to do without closer examination.

We need to ask ourselves what the context is here, and where verses 3-4 (not to mention 6) fall. Paul begins this chapter in his letter to Timothy exhorting him to pray for "all people." Now, what does this mean?

First, we have our universal quantifier. It has a referent: people. Some translations render the word "men," but "people" will certainly suffice. So then, we have "all people" as the objects Timothy is to intercede for, to pray for. Yet, is that all Paul wrote regarding this group, this "all people"?

No, it is not. Paul qualifies this even further in verse two, saying Timothy is to pray "for kings and all who are in high positions." These are the KINDS of people Timothy is to be praying for, and for the purpose of being able to live quiet, peaceful, godly lives.

Paul was telling Timothy (and subsequently, the people over whom Timothy had authority) to pray for people that he wouldn't normally pray for. "Kings and all those who are in high positions" would be people who would be oppressing Christians, as would become increasingly the case as history tells us. Instead of getting a harsh attitude and neglecting to love his enemies, Paul gives him a very practical way Timothy can do so, just as Jesus did: praying for them, and even thanking God for them.

To suggest that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single individual in Ephesus also doesn't seem to make sense, given that he wouldn't have known every person in the city, and he clearly wouldn't have known every person in the entire world. However, he COULD pray for different KINDS of people in the world, such as kings and other rulers. The context would suggest that this "all people" in verse one (and the subsequent description in verse two) then refers to just that -- all KINDS of people rather than every person individually.

Paul then goes on to give the basis for his for his urging in the first verse when he goes on to verses three and four: God is pleased by this, and He desires all people to be saved.

In order to understand what Paul means by "all people" here we need a bit more context than is provided. Just like the example I used of my being in a library (see previous post regarding "all") and making a comment about "all the books," we have to ask what Paul is saying by "all people." Has he established some sort of limiter by what he was talking about before, or does he mean all people without exception?

The context indicates to us that the former is the case. If I were to say "I want to read all the books," while standing in a library, it would be understood that I would want to read all the books in that library, and not every book in the entire world (which wouldn't be possible anyway). Furthermore, there is no reason at all to think that Paul is using "all people" differently in verse from how he is in verse one. He's simply building on his idea, and therefore, since he was talking about "all kinds" of people in verse 1, he's doing the same thing in verse 4 and throughout this passage.[1] Truly, God does indeed want people saved from every kind of person in the world. How can we know this? He BOUGHT some from every kind of people in the world and proved it. So then, it is fairly clear that not every individual is meant here, but rather, every kind of person.[2]

Verses five through seven finish off Paul's thought for this section, indicating that there is only one mediator (Greek: mesites) between God and men, and that is Jesus. Paul then says that He is the ransom for "all," with the word standing alone, and thus being used as a substantive. So, we must look around for the referent, and we find it in verse 5 -- the word "men," which is the same Greek word used for "people" in verses one and four. So then, we see "all men" or "all people" again, though it is spread over two verses rather than being contained in one. To be consistent, we must understand that Paul is talking about Jesus's ransom on behalf of all kinds of people (or "men"), rather than every individual person. This is further corroborated by the use of the term "mediator" in verse five (since a mediator only acts as a go-between for people who actually are in covenant with each other, which is NOT every individual but IS every kind) and Paul's statement about the Gentiles (a KIND of people) in verse 7.

So then, to read this passage as if it is talking about every single individual in the world is to read our presuppositions into it rather than getting out of it what Paul put it. The former is very easy to do, which is a large reason why I think it is the majority viewpoint; the latter requires slowing down and exegeting the text to get at the author and Holy Spirit intended meaning.

May God be glorified by the proper understanding of His Word.

SDG,
David Benjamin Hewitt


________________________________________________
1. This comes into play when we examine the word "this" that begins verse three. It is a neuter, singular, demonstrative pronoun, and it refers back to the whole of what Paul was talking about in the first two verses. Since Paul's point there was all kinds of people, it seems quite clear that he's not changing his train of thought from what he meant by "all people" from verse one to verse 4 (not to mention the rest of the passage).

2. This is of course not to say that God takes delight in people's destruction and doesn't want them to come to Him to avoid it. Indeed, the Bible tells us that God doesn't take any pleasure in the death of anyone, and we see that in Ezekiel. Yet, there is another passage that forces us to realize that this is not all of the picture, and that is Deuteronomy 28:63 (with the larger context of Deuteronomy 28:58-64). The word used for God's delight here in Deuteronomy (both times it is used) is even stronger than that used over in Ezekiel. So then, we are forced to say in one sense, God does not desire nor take pleasure in the destruction of anyone. However, there is another sense in where he DOES take delight in it, in punishing them for their sins in their evil, willful rebellion against their Creator Who has been kind to them with sight to their eyes, breath to their lungs, and rain for their land (among countless other things). What is God's ultimate purpose in this? The Bible doesn't leave us without an answer, though, sadly, many don't care for it.

Tom Ascol on the "Calvinist Problem" in the SBC

Though I mean no insult or offense to anyone by saying this, I am really getting tired of hearing that "Calvinism" is a "problem" in the SBC. Tom Ascol wrote this excellent article about a recent statement to that effect by the chairman of the SBC Executive Committee in an interview recorded by the Christian Index in Georgia.

Truly, those who say that "5 point Calvinism" (as it is often called) is an "extreme" belief or that it "kills evangelism" are out of step with history.

SDG,
DBH