Whole Counsel Theology

Responding to Tony Byrne and Peter Lumpkins on Matthew 23:37

2011-02-25T21:34:00.000-05:00

Any church members who may read this post, should you have further questions about any of it, please feel free to contact me at church and/or through Facebook.

This post has been a long time coming, for several reasons, not the least of which is because I really didn't want to deal with it. :) It isn't because the matters Dr. Peter Lumpkins and Tony Byrne raised in this blog post are not important; they are important. Rather, I am one who isn't overly fond of conflict, and sometimes I wonder if there is much point in continuing a discussion since I think to myself, "people aren't going to listen/read anyway."

There is also the issue of being frequently misunderstood. Without a question, I need to be more clear, but it seems that no matter what kind of a context I provide (or think that I do), inevitably I fail to make a point clear, or people refuse to read carefully, or both. A very recent example indicates just this with regard to Dr. Lumpkins, and such examples are not at all uncommon. My point in saying that he significantly missed Paul's point wasn't that he was wrong in saying that the passage was talking to and about believers. If you scroll up a few comments from the previous link, you'll see that I was saying that Peter missed the point that Paul was referring to non-believers when describing those who were in the flesh. Those who are in the Spirit, those who have no condemnation on them, they surely are believers. Paul is writing chapter 8 as a great bit of encouragement to the Christians at Rome rather than making sanctification his subject -- but I digress, as Romans 8 is not the subject of this particular post. I'll address that more fully later, doing a much more complete exegesis of the first ten verses. Anyway, back to the reasons I have delayed posting on the matter relating to the title.

Such thoughts (that is, those of people not listening, my not being understood, my not liking conflict) are truly copping-out, not to mention aren't very respectful to brothers in Christ who, by the Spirit of God, are capable of a great deal more than a lost person in understanding truth and working with another brother. It also isn't respectful to God Himself, the Author of truth and source of love among the brethren, Who is certainly able to make it so that I can be a better communicator. Other reasons for delay are a bit more legitimate, such as church responsibilities (I'm a deacon @ PHBC, teach Sunday School, teach discipleship, am a choir and praise team member, take a few classes from time to time, manage the church website, etc).

All delays aside, I begin my response(s), taking into account the difficulty of the task of polemics. There are a few things I would like to address specifically, the issue of Matthew 23:37, historical consensus and proper hermeneutics, and the importance of all of this. It is to this last point I shall turn first, and may my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, by His inexhaustible grace to His own, sustain and keep me in holiness, righteousness, and graciousness as I write.

The Importance of the Matter

I am not the kind of person who likes to "agree to disagree" on theological issues, especially among Christians. Were I to have an impasse with someone over the issue of how superior pepperoni pizza is to one with toppings of black olives and anchovies, I could let the matter slide. After all, such is merely a matter of opinion, and such a difference is reason to praise God for making us in the ways He did. We are different, and it pleased Him to give us differing tastes in food, pasttimes, music style, etc.[2] However when it comes to theological differences, I am much more resistant to the suggestion that we "all just get along," even on points considered minor, or "Tier 3" as my pastor likes to say.

The reason I do not like to thrown in the towel on matters pertaining to the understanding of the teaching of Scripture (not a bad definition of theology, really) is because God has indeed revealed Himself in the pages of the Bible. Christians, people who truly have been saved by the amazing, unstoppable power of God, are people who (to an increasing degree) desire to know this awesome God. We want to understand Him more, that we may love, worship, serve, enjoy, and teach about Him more and more accurately. This is the main reason, I submit, that any Christian desires to come to the Scriptures: that we may encounter God and do so in a more pure fashion as we see how He has revealed Himself and then obey Him more perfectly.

Because of that conviction, when Christians have disagreement about something that the Bible teaches, it means at the very least that one of them is wrong. Further, again given my above conviction that the Bible is God's self-revelation, and that He had given it to His church to reveal Himself to His people, then if we are not right about part of its teaching we are missing that much of who God is. Such is something that leaves me uncomfortable at best[3]. It is for that reason that I do not understand Peter Lumpkins's comment on the post I referenced already:

I am not here to convince you of anything, frankly. And you are entitled to be unconvinced by Geisler and happy with every subtle nuance James White places upon any passage of Scripture whatsoever. Be my guest.

His comments are in response to my first comment on his blog post/thread. There are other things he said in that particular comment (such as James White being too extreme, something that I do not intend to address here), but the quoted paragraph is my main point of concern.

Of course, I am not satisfied with any subtle nuance anyone would put on a text, whether it be Matthew 23:37 or any other Bible passage. That was largely my point; without solid, consistent exegesis done according to solid hermeneutics, we cannot hope to arrive at the correct meaning of a passage. Further, if we are not predisposed to submit ourselves to the discoveries made following correct exegesis, then we sin and remain in our previous error.

It is also why I desire very much to spend time in exegesis of Bible passages and analyzing things people say in light of Scripture. Ultimately, my opinion doesn't matter, nor does that of Peter, Tony, James White, or anyone else. What the Bible says matters, and simply having a discussion without the Sacred Scripture informing that discussion, there is little more accomplished than wasted keystrokes.

These reasons are why I am troubled when Dr. Lumpkins said that he was not there to convince me of anything. I simply ask, why not? If I am in error about my understanding of, in this case, Matthew 23, then it follows that I am not representing my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, as well as I could be, or should be. Worse, I may well be speaking untruth about God, teaching others to believe untruths. However well intended I may be is irrelevant; instead of helping others worship God more purely, and helping them know Him more and love Him more, I do just the opposite. Such would indeed be the case were I teaching something that is not in line with Scripture.[4]

Historical Consensus and Hermeneutics

The issue of historical consensus came up at one point in the comments. What started the discussion of it was when I made a statement claiming that Scripture is really the only battleground that matters, and that is where we must spend our time if any resolution to a doctrinal disagreement is to be had. Tony added in his comment here that history also was a battleground needing to be considered, in terms of the history of Calvinism. He then went on to cite numerous examples of people who had what he termed a mainstream position on the text of Matthew 23:37, calling it John Murray's position. The links to his list of historical quotes can be found at a couple of links from within the comment I linked to above. He says in that comment, making his point clear:

I repeat: the battleground involves history as well as biblical interpretation. In short, the battleground is the truth in every field of study, and a failure to be honest with primary sources is indicative of Turretinfan and other White associates who are making a concerted effort to downplay God's revealed desire for the salvation of all men.

This is where the point of contention began. I immediately saw a red flag when I read Tony's comments, as it appeared that he was saying that history played a deciding part in our final understanding of the teaching of a particular Bible passage. It lead to my saying that I "care very little for historical consensus," and then him chastising me for that comment[5], even suggesting that I was being inconsistent by holding to the 1689 LBCF.

My point was certainly not to ignore the importance of history in informing our interpretation. I tried to say as much with some of my comments in the thread where I responded to Tony by saying:

You said I was missing the point of what you were trying to say, that you weren't trying to offer detailed exegesis but rather demonstrating a consensus, being in line with John Murray's position. However, I cannot help but think you have missed my point for raising my objection in the first place. I care very little for historical consensus; majority does not rule in biblical interpretation. Agreed of course that if we disagree with the majority on a matter (in this case about a context I think) then we must do so carefully, but since context is the first rule of interpretation, anything that doesn't take it into account is a questionable interpretation at best, no matter how many people say it is true (unless we are working in Proverbs).

My point with the Proverbs comment was that Proverbs often don't have a lot of context, if any, and therefore can often be interpreted in a single-verse manner.

I hope it is clear what I meant by my statement that I care little for historical consensus. It isn't that I don't value how God has worked in history; I surely do. We have tremendous things we can learn from the saints who have gone before us, how they have struggled with the text of Scripture in many different situations. I have had great encouragement from the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, Arthur Pink, John Owen, and even John Calvin, not to mention a host of modern servants of Christ's church, including John Piper, John MacArthur, Sam Waldron, James White, and more. I could expand the list of both without much difficulty. God has given much wisdom and insight into the text of Scripture throughout history, and we would be foolish to ignore it. This is something that students in my classes at church have heard from me more than once. My sentiments on how to view church history, and my laments with regard to those who ignore it, are those of Drs. White and Barcellos in this video interview.

All that being said, however, the usefulness of church history in the interpretation of Scripture is directly proportional to how it properly handles the text of the Bible with regard to proper hermeneutics, first and foremost with regard to the context of a passage. On the right sidebar on my blog here you can read a couple of posts that deal with context. I recommend that you read them, as they form much of the foundation with regard to how I try to approach a Bible passage, prayerfully seeking the Spirit's guidance. So, no matter how many people, modern or historic, say something about a particular passage, if the context is not the main guide in understanding the argument or discussion of a biblical writer, then the interpretation provided is suspect at best, flat out errant at worst. This was my meaning when I said that I cared little for historical consensus; it was merely to say that we cannot allow a majority-rules hermeneutic.

Now, to be fair, Tony was quick to respond when I started speaking of the issues of context and how to understand a passage, agreeing that context was the most important thing:

Of course the bible is the ultimate authority and of course the context of a given biblical passage is of highest priority for understanding the true sense of it. All I am saying is that if you're going to depart from such an overwhelming Reformed and Calvinistic consensus on the text and side with John Gill's hard dichotomy between "Jerusalem" and the "children" and view the text in totally and singularly in a judgment sense, seeing in it nothing of Jesus' yearning love that accords with God's revealed desire for the salvation of all in the city (even those that perish), then you should pause and wonder if you're actually engaging in novel, pseudo-exegesis or the kind of obvious system-driven interpretation that is so common in John Gill, who utterly denied God's revealed desire for the eternal salvation of any of the non-elect.

As I haven't studied John Gill to any significant extent at all, I cannot comment on Gills view. However, Tony's caution (with my emphasis provided above) is a wise sentiment, one with which I agree completely, and one I use to give caution to others. This is clearly Tony's belief, and it is a right one. At the same time, I see a large inconsistency in how Tony presented this principle, and some other things he said.

If you, the reader, followed one of the links I gave earlier to Tony's comments (and then followed his links to many a quote on Matthew 23:37) you will notice something, probably the same thing I noticed. The context of Matthew 23 wasn't referenced at all in any of those quotes he gave. He mentioned that this wasn't the point:

Many of the men cited are not cited because they're offering detailed exegesis in any way, but as testimony to the fact that they are basically in the mainstream John Murray position on the text, which White and those like him have departed from. Then there are other places where I seek to offer some critical analysis.

A quick perusal of Tony's blog in his section on Matthew 23:37 didn't reveal any critical analysis that I could find. Admittedly, I didn't look past the first page of quotes and citations, so there may be some deeper than I checked. Given his statement above, I trust that to be the case. I did find however, a large number of quotes from a large number of people, very few of which referenced much in detail beyond the one verse, none of which took us all the way back to verse 13 or went through verse 39. So, it would seem that Tony considers having a large number of people, even a large number of Reformed people, saying one thing about a passage carries some weight. However, given the fact that none of them went into the context in depth means that their understandings may well not carry any weight. It doesn't mean that they are wrong; in fact, given that so many say something similar about a passage should indeed give one pause should one desire to disagree with them. The fact that the context wasn't considered must tell us that, if we are to agree OR disagree with them, we need to be sure that they have interpreted the text in question aright. If we cannot find support for their conclusions in the context of the passage, but rather find support for understanding the passage differently, then the given interpretation must be rejected. It doesn't matter how many people have said something for however long: if the context indicates something else, then we must interpret the text differently. Traditional understandings may be long lived and popular, yet still be incorrect.[6]

Matthew 23:37 in its Context

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Truly, without biblical exegesis, and conforming to the teaching of Scripture once we understand it, there is no progress in a theological discussion. So, it is to that I now turn!

Often Matthew 23:37 is used as a text that speaks of the desire of God for the salvation of all people, irrespective if they are elect or not. This is nearly always the main focus of people when they approach this text, whether they be Reformed or otherwise. The problem with this focus, even if it were true, is that it ignores the context of the passage and the judgment of God contained in it, of which verse 37 is clearly a part. That being the case, and that the whole of verses 13--39 is a judgment of Israel's leaders, past and present, the main focus of any exegesis of verse 37 must be that of Jesus's judgment against the leaders of Israel before we can talk about any other implications of the passage. Our implications then need to be seen in light of the context and the main focus of what Jesus is talking about. Do they line up, or are they inconsistent with each other? Such questions will be explored to some extent below.

I mentioned to Tony that Matthew 23 was a passage of judgment. His response was as follows:

But White says, "it's a judgment passages! a judgment passage!," as if anyone denies that. Of course the text involves judgment, but not only judgment. Jesus expresses a desire for something that did not come to pass, a desire to "gather the children," which is soteriological in nature.

He rightly agrees that the text involves judgment, and is also correct that it does not only involve judgment. The problem is, I do not believe with Tony that it is absurd to think that anyone denies it. Rather, I think the opposite is true -- that most Christians, especially of the non-Reformed variety, do not even take the judgment context into account when they read this passage. Far, far too often is verse 37 provided without regard to its context, and in doing so, those who quote it engender misunderstanding at best, poor hermeneutical habits tending to follow.

Dr. James White does provide a brief exegesis of some of the context in his excellent book, The Potter's Freedom. It is quite helpful, and I shall cite it below. Tony didn't seem to care for it, saying "White is not "exegeting" Matthew 23:37. He's exploding it, not explaining it." Such a comment, aside from being uncharitable, doesn't address the main reason Dr. White makes the statements he does about this passage being a judgment context: that of verse 13.

It might be helpful to bring out Dr. White's exegesis in full from the aforementioned book, and then review it and provide a further exegesis of the text relying on the context. So, I provide Dr. White's comments on the passage from pages 137--139 in The Potter's Freedom, 2nd edition. All emphasis is in the original.

The first fact to ascertain in examining any passage of Scripture is its context. This passage comes in the midst of the proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews. Matthew 23 contains the strongest denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees in all of the Gospels.

Who, then, is "Jerusalem"? It is assumed by Arminian writers that "Jerusalem" represents individual Jews who are, therefore, capable of resisting the work and will of Christ. But upon what warrant do we leap from "Jerusalem" to "individual Jews"? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders, and it is to them that He refers here. This is clearly seen in that:

1. It is to the leaders that God sent prophets;
2. It was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and those sent to them;
3. Jesus speaks of "your children," differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those the Lord desired to gather together.
4. The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees.

A vitally important point to make here is that the ones the Lord desired to gather are not the ones who "were not willing"! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow Him to "gather." Jesus was not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The "children" of the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish leaders from hearing Christ. The "you would not" then is referring to the same men indicated by the context: the Jweish leaders who "were unwilling" to allow those under their authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse, then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew 23:13:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering in to go in."

John Gill added this insight:

"That the persons whom Christ would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ, were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ, as appears from the vast crowds which, at different times and places, followed him; but the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him; and their belief in him as the Messiah, by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by passing an act that whosoever confessed him should be put out of the synagogue; so that the obvious meaning of the text is the same with that of verse 13 . . . and consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace of God, but of obstructions and discouragements thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the word."

So we can now plainly see that CBF[7] has absolutely no basis for its assertion that it is the "plain meaning" of the text that God wanted "all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved." One of the three primary passages used in CBF is seen, then, to have no connection with the application made of it over and over again in the text.

So, are Dr. White's observations and conclusions about the text accurate? To decide this, we must read the whole passage in question, which would be Matthew 23:13-39. I recommend strongly that you do so now, either at this link or a Bible of your choice, and then examine Dr. White's conclusions in light of the passage. I shall do some of that and provide some of my own conclusions from the text as a whole and on some individual verses, 37 included among them.

First, it is certainly worth pointing out where Dr. White put the emphasis with regard to interpretation -- it rests on the context of the passage. I agree wholeheartedly, and have written on the matter here and here. Dr. White is a far greater and far more capable an interpreter than I ever could be; in fact, it is because God working through him and those like him that I have come to understand the rules of biblical interpretation to the extent that I have. At the same time, it doesn't matter how good a person is per se, but if that person is consistent in the interpretation of a particular passage. Do I believe that Dr. White has done this with the passage in question? Well, I suspect the answer to that will come out as I work through the passage myself. The first stop will be with verse 13:

Matthew 23:13 ESV "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

I won't touch on all parts of every verse, but will focus on the main theme of the passage, that of judgment. This theme begins with verse thirteen cited above. We see Jesus prescribing a woe on them, that is, denouncing them, and calling them hypocrites. Jesus says they "shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces." The idea behind this phrase is that the Jewish leaders, the scribes and the Pharisees in particular here, were doing what they could to oppose Jesus's ministry. They spread falsehoods about Him, and strongly discouraged people from following Him. They attributed His miracles to Satan (more than once), and said that He Himself was demon possessed. The examples could be multiplied, but these should suffice to demonstrate what Jesus meant by His statement.

The next part of what He said is truly fascinating. Jesus says first that the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven. What does it mean to "enter the kingdom of heaven"? Searching through Matthew's Gospel alone identifies this with salvation, both in this life and Heaven itself after this life is over. Jesus flatly says that the scribes and Pharisees do not enter the kingdom of heaven. They are not being saved, and will not be either. Surely, this statement alone must be seen as judgment against them! What a turn of events this must have been in the minds of the Jewish leaders! The Pharisees and Scribes thought they were right with God in opposing Jesus, in doing all that they could to keep people from embracing Him and His teaching. However, in the end, it will be they who end up outside of God's kingdom, not all of those they were deceiving. They shut up the kingdom against others, but entrance to the kingdom will instead be blocked from them.

I say "instead" because, though they shut the kingdom against others, they are truly not successful in their efforts. For all of their lies and opposition to Jesus, in spite of the threats of being thrown out of the synagogue, there were still those who "would enter." A better translation that maintains the participle would be from the NASB, "nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

We know elsewhere from Jesus's words that everyone given Him by God will come to Him:

John 6:37-40 ESV All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (38) For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. (39) And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (40) For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

The Jewish leaders were obstacles to the people coming, but they were obstacles that would eventually be moved out of the way. There were still people who were believing in Jesus, and the Jewish leaders could not stop it from happening![8]

So, we can already see that in verse thirteen that Dr. White's point #4 is seen to be true. Clearly Jesus is condemning the Jewish leaders in verse thirteen.

Moving down through the passage, we encounter several other woes Jesus makes against the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus says that they bring greater condemnation on their proselytes than themselves (15), that they do not understand the value of sacred objects used in worship and swear amiss by them (16-22), and that they are blind guides, unable to lead people after God (16). Jesus says that they have neglected the most important things in the Law of God, which are justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23), and exposes the filth of their lawlessness and hypocrisy (24-28), demonstrating that their righteousness is only skin deep, merely an outward appearance and having no real substance. To say that Jesus is continuing to condemn them is needlessly stating the obvious. Moving further into the chapter:

Matthew 23:29-32 ESV "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, (30) saying, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' (31) Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. (32) Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.

In these verses, Jesus flatly calls the Jewish leaders on their hypocrisy. They claim that they will not repeat the sins of their fathers in shedding the blood of the prophets, but in the process end up condemning themselves. They will, as Jesus says, "fill up the measure of [their] fathers" sins.[9] They have already proven that they are more than the biological descendants of those who came before him; they have been persecuting Jesus, and He certainly held the office of prophet. Further, the Scribes and Pharisees would continue to show this as they would persecute those Jesus would later send in His Name.

Matthew 23:33 ESV You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

This statement of our Lord Jesus to these Jewish leaders is not meant as an invitation; rather, it is rhetorically asked thus making a point. He means to indicate that they cannot escape being condemned. This question is another declaration of judgment. D.A. Carson, an astounding Bible scholar who has probably forgotten more than I'll ever learn (though I'll disagree with him ever so slightly later), explains why what I said is true:

The transition from the preceding verse is clear: if the teachers of the law and Pharisees are filling up the measure of the sin of their forefathers, how can they possibly escape the condemnation of hell?[10]

Obviously, they would not. They were being condemned, and rightly so for reasons Jesus Himself has mentioned before, and would continue to declare.

Matthew 23:34-36 ESV Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, (35) so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (36) Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

The judgment sayings against the scribes and pharisees continue. Jesus said that He would send them prophets, wise men, scribes. These, sent from Jesus, would be killed in various ways by the Jewish leaders. In this, as Jesus has already said, they would be filling up their fathers sins. This is why Jesus lays at their feet the guilt of the righteous men who have walked the earth, those who have been calling to the people to turn in faith and repentance to the One True God. By killing those Jesus would send[11] they demonstrate His words about them to be true -- they are their fathers' children. They persecute God's messengers just like their fathers did, when they should have been leading the people to them. They would be rightly punished for it, as verse 36 indicates, certainly including the destruction of Jerusalem among other things.

From these verses we can see clearly that points 1 and 2 that Dr. White set forth (quoted above) are valid. The Jewish leaders were the ones who were responsible and guilty for killing the prophets Jesus would send to them.

Now we get to the main verse in question, but, having spent the time we needed to in the context leading up to it, we are prepared to give a fair treatment of it in light of what Jesus has been saying all along. Even now, the verse should not be taken without more context, the two verses that follow.

Matthew 23:37-39 ESV "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (38) See, your house is left to you desolate. (39) For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

About this verse, as we noticed above, Dr. White says the following, his 3rd point: "Jesus speaks of 'your children,' differentiating those to whom He is speaking from those that the Lord desired to gather together.' Is this an acceptable understanding of the passage?

On the surface of it, it would seem that he is correct. Jesus speaks to "Jerusalem" and also identifies the children of Jerusalem, and does not appear to be speaking to them. In fact, to suggest that the two different groups are really one and the same in Jesus's words would require exegetical evidence. It would seem D.A. Carson attempted to provide such evidence. If you follow this link, you'll find what Dr. Carson said about the verse over at Tony Byrne's blog. There is a particular section of what Dr. Carson has said that I find to be particularly relevant to our discussion:

There is also a change of number from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem: "you [sing.] who kill . . . sent to you [sing.] . . . your [sing.] children . . . your [pl.] house . . . you [pl.] will not see." The effect is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people.

Dr. Carson is surely right in that there is a change of number, and that the idea is to move from the abstraction of the city to the concrete reality of people. However, why must the change in number be "from Jerusalem to people of Jerusalem"? This is simply stated, and not supported by Dr. Carson's exegesis. Rather, it seems best to see Jerusalem, and this move to plurality, as another way to address the leaders of the people rather than all of the people. We can see this if we compare 23:37 with some of the previous verses, First, look back to verses 35-36. Who is it in these verses who kill the prophets? Jesus is clearly talking about the scribes and pharisees. Compare in verse 34:

"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify"

with this phrase in verse 37:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!"

Given that Jesus is talking to the Jewish leaders in verse 34 and is providing the same condemnation for Jerusalem in verse 37, it follows that again, He is denouncing the Jewish leaders, making more concrete this fact when he gets to verse 38, saying that their house would be left desolate to them. Everything that they loved, the power over the people they abused, and their leadership in its entirety, would be taken from them. They would have nothing.

Further, compare a couple of sentences from verse 13 with verse 37:

"For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."

compare to:

"How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Jesus was seeking to gather people in Jerusalem, and the leaders (that is, Jerusalem in 37) were standing in the way, and opposed Jesus. They would not submit to and obey Him, they would not stop doing all they could to hinder His message.[12] So then, it seems clear that Jesus was drawing the children referred to in 37, and continuing to speak judgment against the leaders of the people. It also seems clear that He was not drawing those against whom He was directing judgment, especially when we take into account the fact that Jesus said in verse 13 that they would not enter the kingdom of heaven, and that they would not escape being condemned to Hell in verse 33.

It would then appear that Dr. White was correct in his assessment of Matther 23:37, when all of the context is considered. Yet I think I would do a disservice to the passage were I to leave it without first metioning something important in verse 39, quoted above. Jesus tells them that they wouldn't see Him again unless they said "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Surely since they would physically see him again (at the crucifixion and at other times) we need to look for an understanding for this statement other than physical perception. Jesus is alluding to something that many of the people did say, and certainly, some truly meant:

Matthew 21:8-9 ESV Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. (9) And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

I find this truly amazing. Our Lord had condemned the Jewish leaders, and He had effectively sentenced them to Hell; they were not going to inherit eternal life. However, even given this, Jesus still tells them what they must do to be saved! To put it in slightly different terms, even though they were not elect, and Jesus knew that to be true, He still proclaimed the truth to them, that they needed to believe Him to be Who He truly was. In this statement, and even though it is not the main point of the context of the passage, we do see Jesus's desire for even those who would be condemned to Hell for all eternity to obey Him and believe in Him. It is a minor point, but still present, nonetheless, and it should motivate us all to proclaim the Gospel to all, no matter what we think of them. We shouldn't try to figure out who the elect are anyway, but considering Jesus DID know that and still told people who would remain lost that they needed to believe in Him, we must certainly do no less.

I do truly hope and pray that this post, exegesis and all, will be beneficial to God's people. May the Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, be magnified.

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

PS -- please read the rules for commenting at the right before doing so here. Further, please also keep comments on topic.

_______________________________________

1. These are not the only issues present in the post, of course. For example, I firmly believe (as does every other 5 point Calvinist I know of) that Dr. James White is not a hyper-Calvinist. I may address that in a different post, I may not. However, for any who wish to comment on this current post, the matter in this footnote is not to be considered "on topic" in the ensuing discussion.

2. This is of course not to say that I shouldn't be thankful for a pizza of olives and anchovies if that is what I had to eat; most certainly I should, but the point I trust wasn't missed.

3. I do realize that eventually, some situations will not be resolved between brothers on theological matters. However, if I am going to arrive at that conclusion, it won't be without a fight to expound the Scriptures and correct understanding, whether it be mine, the person with whom I disagree, or both.

4. This is part of the reason, I believe, that James gives the warning he does about teaching in the first part of James 3.

5. Specifically by saying that I was probably the first self-described Reformed person he had seen make such a statement in this comment.

6. Though I have said this already, it bears repeating, because the witness of history IS important. I would concur wholeheartedly with R.C. Sproul's sentiments on this issue as he is quoted in the Amazing Grace DVD set. I shall paraphrase it, as I don't have my DVDs in front of me at the moment: If your interpretation has been virtually unknown for the past 2000 years of church history or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, then chances are pretty good you should abandon your interpretation.

7. That is, Norman Geisler's book, Chosen But Free.

8. This doesn't mean that the things the Jewish leaders were doing against Jesus didn't have any effect at all; obviously they were standing in the way and opposing Jesus's teaching. However, those who truly were coming, and were not just the crowds coming for a show, would still indeed come. People cannot thwart God's purposes, and for all the deception and opposition, the efforts of the Jewish leaders would ultimately fail.

9. This hearkens back to a passage in Genesis:

Genesis 15:14-16 ESV But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. (15) As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. (16) And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

Why was God going to wait to bring the Israelites into the promised land? In this text, the reason is that it was going to take 400 years for the iniquity of the Amorites, their sin, to be complete. God was going to use His people to bring divine judgment against the Amorites and the other peoples in the land, but they hadn't finished sinning the sins for which they were to be judged. So, when Jesus tells the Jewish leaders to fill up the measure of their fathers sins, He is indicating in a not-so-subtle way that He intends to bring further judgment against them once they do.

10. Carson, D.A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary Frank Gaebelein, Ed. Electronic version cited.

11. The fact that God is the one Who sends messengers and that Jesus is saying He is the one sending them was a fact not likely missed by the Jewish leaders. Again, Jesus was claiming to be the One True God they claimed to serve.

12. It also seems very likely, if not a certainty, that those children of Jerusalem (ie, those over whom the leaders had responsibility) are to be equated with the ones coming from verse 13. That being the case, then verse 37 is speaking of those who were truly coming and would come when it speaks of "the children."

Christian Love

2011-01-01T13:40:00.000-05:00

Recently, I have listened to some absolutely wonderful messages by Arturo Azurdia on 1 Corinthians 13 and what Christian love, godly love, truly is.

I warn you -- these sermons are truly excellent; Azurdia is very eloquent, and his handling of the text is superb, and for that reason, he brings out the voice of God in His word very clearly. The reason it is a warning is because of the necessary application having heard God speak. God's Spirit will convict you, as He did me, with regard to holiness and obedience in love.

I commend these to you highly, and may God conform us all to greater obedience in Christ.

Sermon Series: "What's Love Got to Do With It?"
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

sdg,
dbh

A Most Excellent Prescription for Polemics!

2010-12-24T10:56:00.002-05:00

For anyone who even begins to pretend to wish to communicate biblical truth to others, there will be times when there is disagreement, whether it be between a Christian and a lost person, or between two Christians. The late Dr. Roger Nicole wrote an article on how best to deal with disagreements that has appeared in a recent Founders Journal. You can find the article here, and I strongly recommend its reading. It will bless your soul to the glory of God!

sdg,
dbh

Struggling With Sin?

2010-09-24T07:01:00.003-04:00

Recently I finished reading John Owen's classic work on the putting to death of sin, entitled (in part) Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers. It is truly a wonderful work, one that every Christian should read for a simple reason: we all struggle with sin, and unless we are actively putting it to death by the Spirit, we will fall into it more and more.

It isn't easy reading; John Owen was absolutely brilliant, and he wrote in the 17th century. However, I assure you, it is worth the effort. You can get the book for free by going to the CCEL link I included above and download and print the book if you like. To whet your appetite for such a godly treatise, I am including a paragraph from chapter 11 in which Owen provides ways we can and must vigorously oppose sin, which he often refers to as lust:

Bring thy lust to the gospel, — not for relief, but for farther conviction of its guilt; look on Him whom thou hast pierced, and be in bitterness. Say to thy soul, “What have I done? What love, what mercy, what blood, what grace have I despised and trampled on! Is this the return I make to the Father for his love, to the Son for his blood, to the Holy Ghost for his grace? Do I thus requite the Lord? Have I defiled the heart that Christ died to wash, that the blessed Spirit hath chosen to dwell in? And can I keep myself out of the dust? What can I say to the dear Lord Jesus? How shall I hold up my head with any boldness before him? Do I account communion with him of so little value, that for this vile lust’s sake I have scarce left him any room in my heart? How shall I escape if I neglect so great salvation? In the meantime, what shall I say to the Lord? Love, mercy, grace, goodness, peace, joy, consolation, — I have despised them all, and esteemed them as a thing of nought, that I might harbour a lust in my heart. Have I obtained a view of God’s fatherly countenance, that I might behold his face and provoke him to his face? Was my soul washed, that room might be made for new defilements? Shall I endeavour to disappoint the end of the death of Christ? Shall I daily grieve that Spirit whereby I am sealed to the day of redemption?” Entertain thy conscience daily with this treaty. See if it can stand before this aggravation of its guilt. If this make it not sink in some measure and melt, I fear thy case is dangerous.

My God by His grace, mercy, and power in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit keep us from sin and guide us to dwell in righteousness.

sdg,
dbh

Pray for Our Nation

2010-08-05T19:04:00.002-04:00

Though most of my readers probably also read James White's blog, I read this on there today:

If you were not praying that God would bring whole-hearted repentance (the only hope for a culture soaked in evil), you had better start now. Your kids, your grandkids, and every generation thereafter, will be facing the results of this kind of degradation of our nation. God bless America…with heart-felt, behavior changing, Spirit-borne repentance.

He was commenting about the recent horrible, evil decision a federal judge in California rendered about Proposition 8. You can read the rest of Dr. White's article here. I strongly recommend it, and please, please pray to God for wholehearted repentance in this land, which I recommend all the more.

sdg,
dbh

Most Excellent!

2010-07-02T11:24:00.001-04:00

Everyone should read this.

dbh

The Atonement: How We Are Justified

2010-05-03T22:50:00.004-04:00

I have taken a great deal of time getting to the writing of this particular post, at least in finishing it. I suppose the reason for that is that I am not one who enjoys conflict, especially conflict among Christians, whatever it may be. However, this is something that is quite important, as it addresses the very work of Christ and what He has accomplished on the cross for people, and, more specifically, for all who would believe.

This isn't an article about how God views someone as righteous; that is, my point here is not to contend with the errors of Rome with regard to what Justification actually is. Though I'll cite verses that speak of the wonder of justification by faith, I'll do so as statements to the reality of it rather than arguing for it for the most part. This article is for Christians, and any true believer in Christ will indeed affirm that God views us as righteous by faith, and that apart from works.

The point of this particular post is instead the question of where faith comes from, and what is the ground of it. That is to say, how is it one comes to believe? On what basis does God produce faith, a wondrous righteousness, in the lives of wicked sinners?

The origin and source of faith is the question I shall address, and, by the grace of God, answer from the Scriptures as I complete this long overdue post.

Recently, I have discussed this matter via blog posts with Tony Byrne and via email with David Ponter. Mr. Ponter has been quite gracious in his responses and answering of the questions I've posed to him, and Tony's wealth of information and historical/theological citations have contributed to all that I've needed to make this post accurate and thorough. It is with one of those aforementioned citations that I shall take issue to bring out the differences between us (that is, between me and what Mr. Ponter and Mr. Byrne, both of whom agree with each other against me in this) and to shed some biblical light on what the work of Christ has done with regard to bringing faith to God's elect.

Some time ago,[1] Tony posted this article about faith and the Atonement, citing Henry James Carpenter and something he had to say about this matter. I have reproduced the quote below:

"But I proceed to notice another objection, and one very commonly urged against this doctrine [general redemption]. It is objected, that if our Lord died for all, then it would be unjust to punish any one, for this would be to exact a double penalty for the same offence—to punish the same sins twice over.

No doubt it would be unjust to punish the sinner if Christ had borne his sins, with the stipulation that his sins should be absolutely forgiven—that, in consequence of his sacrifice, all men should be unconditionally pardoned, irrespective of their state of mind, irrespective of their believing or not believing, of their receiving the Gospel or rejecting the Gospel.

But nothing like this doctrine can be discovered in the Bible; the death of our Lord is nowhere in Scripture represented in this light. There we read, as I observed before, that a certain medium is necessary before the benefits of Christ's death can be actually applied to any man. Men must have faith; they must believe on Christ—they must trust wholly in his atoning sacrifice, that they may be forgiven their trespasses. "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." The Lord Jesus is "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood."

It is undeniable that our Lord could have annexed what condition he, in his wisdom, thought fit, in order that man should receive the benefits of the sacrifice he was about to offer; and it is no more unjust to punish the sinner who rejects Christ's offer of salvation than to treat an imprisoned debtor as still liable to his debt, because he refuses to send a petition to his rich benefactor, who freely paid his debt, but stipulated that the benefits of his generous payment should only be enjoyed by those debtors who would comply with his condition, and petition him for their release."

Henry James Carpenter, Did Christ Die For All Men, Or For The Elect Only? A Letter To A Friend In Ireland (London: T. Hatchard, 1857), 21.

This quote from Henry James Carpenter makes reference to John Owen's double payment argument. I thought it wise to dig up the original quote,[2] since it is often referenced and almost never quoted. So then, here it is:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the Lord should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

From John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, pages 173--174.

Tony has observed with some measure of frustration that people tend to toss John Owen's double payment argument around, assuming that it settles the matter of the Atonement in and of itself. He, that is, Tony, makes it very clear with the quote he provided by HJC that he does not believe that Dr. Owen's argument settles the matter of the Atonement in and of itself, as he has disagreed with it publicly on more than one occasion. In fact, there is more discussion on the internet (at least according to Google) that disagrees with and critiques Dr. Owen's argument than agrees with it!

I like John Owen's argument as stated above and in his work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. I find it helpful and useful. However, I also agree with one point that Tony has in his objecting to people using the double payment argument as if it is the end-all argument on the Atonement. I think it is significant that Dr. Owen waited until pages 173 and 174 in his work to put forward this particular assertion. Dr. Owen didn't lay it out without a foundation on which to set it; he had already written over 150 pages of text leading up to this point in his work. For Dr. Owen, it was the conclusion of much arguing from Scripture on which it was founded. Failure, then, to put forward the Scriptures to buttress this "double payment argument" written by this amazing theologian is often a failure to use it properly. The particular section of the argument I address here, and my point of contention with Mr. Ponter, Mr. Byrne, and also Mr. Henry James Carpenter, is that of faith. I do indeed believe that faith is something obtained by Christ in the Redemption, the Atonement that He made, for those He purchased on that tortuous cross, that is the elect, and for no one else. Therefore, the Atonement, the propitiation that Christ made on behalf of the elect, is for them alone, and not for every single person who has ever lived. He provided faith for their unbelief.

This assertion is contrary to what Mr. Carpenter said in the quote Tony provided from him. In the quote from the letter Tony provided, Mr. Carpenter said (emphasis added):

No doubt it would be unjust to punish the sinner if Christ had borne his sins, with the stipulation that his sins should be absolutely forgiven—that, in consequence of his sacrifice, all men should be unconditionally pardoned, irrespective of their state of mind, irrespective of their believing or not believing, of their receiving the Gospel or rejecting the Gospel.

The problem with the above statement is, well, that it doesn't address the argument. It is indeed unjust for God to punish sins that are borne by Christ. That was Owen's point -- but it isn't irrespective of their faith, their receiving the Gospel. It rather guarantees that some men will have faith and receive the Gospel! The work of Christ makes certain that minds will indeed be changed and set aright to embrace the One True God through Jesus Christ -- that such would truly have genuine faith. The sins of the elect are to be absolutely forgiven, including that of unbelief, and the reason for it must be that the provision to remove that unbelief is sealed up in the work of Christ itself.

Mr. Byrne and Mr. Ponter clearly believe that faith is a gift that God provides. In this blog post that Dr. White put up at Alpha and Omega Ministries we can see Tony affirming it as he talks to "brig" and "conviction", using the name "Polhill":

(Polhill) brig, faith is a gift, but it is also the act of the renewed man, as Spurgeon said.

(Polhill) Conviction, the bible doesn't speak of "faith" as a gift that must be accepted. Rather, it is Christ who is the gift that must be accepted through our act of faith.

As Tony seems to suggest here, and as Mr. Ponter clearly affirmed in an email to me, they do not believe that faith is something that Jesus obtained [edit 5-18-2010] and secured for the elect on the cross, though they do understand it to be a gift from God. Those who agree with Owen on the Atonement, however, would insist that faith is something Jesus obtained [edit 5-18-2010] and secured for the elect, as I have stated earlier. Yet, all of this stating this or that is nice, but what does the Scripture say? What does the Bible teach about this aspect of faith? That is where we must turn. Only the Scriptures can decide between us, and lest I run the risk of falling into the error I have already warned against with regard to Owen's double payment argument, it is to the Word of God that we shall now go! First we shall "turn" to Ephesians 2:8-9 and address the issue of faith as a gift before we look more intently into Paul's argument about from where it springs.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

This is an absolutely beautiful passage that demonstrates quite well that our salvation comes to us not as a result of works. Most people would rightly maintain that this passage teaches that salvation is not of works, but rather of grace -- for Paul says clearly that we are saved by grace. He says this is "through faith," as well in verse eight, and then goes on to say that "this is not your own doing." Now, to what was Paul referring when he used the word "this"? It is a (near)demonstrative pronoun, and all pronouns have antecedents. So then, what is the antecedent, that is, the word or words that the word "this" replace(s)?

The Greek language is quite exact, a good deal more so than English. Pronouns agree with the nouns they replace in gender as well as number. In English, words don't have gender; that is, they are not considered masculine or feminine (or neuter for that matter), but in Greek, all of them are. It helps us to determine which words modify what in a given context.

In this case, in verse eight, we have the word "grace" which is a feminine noun. We also have "faith," another feminine noun. Lastly, we have "saved" which is a masculine participle. So, it would make sense for the "this" to be masculine we might think, that it would modify saved....or perhaps feminine, that it would modify one of the two nouns mentioned. However.... we do not have either. The word "this" is a neuter demonstrative pronoun, so it doesn't match any of the three candidates we've given in gender. Yet, all is not lost! Sometimes in Greek, a neuter is used as a catch-all; that is, it is employed to refer back to all of the preceding nouns in a sentence, regardless of their gender.

This is what we have here. Paul is saying in no uncertain terms, that the whole of our salvation proceeds from God -- all of it. Grace, faith, being saved -- all of it is a result of God's work in the lives of the elect to bring about the latter's salvation. The text is quite clear.

That being established, we now move on to the origin of this salvation, the reason God can grant it at all. How is it this grace through faith salvation comes to undeserving sinners? I'm glad you asked, and Paul doesn't leave us without an answer as he wrote the very words breathed out by God:

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (26) It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (27) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (28) For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

In the quote that Tony provided by Mr. Carpenter, we find this statement:

The Lord Jesus is "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood."

This is of course, true. This particular rendering that Mr. Carpenter provides is slightly more literal than the one given by the ESV translators. The word order seems to fit better with it. That being said, however, we have a serious problem, a problem that often arises when a verse (or in this case, part of a verse) is removed from its context:[3] we arrive at a misunderstanding at best, heresy at worst. [4]

One of the greatest doctrines of Scripture recovered in the Reformation was that of Justification by Faith Alone. That is, the means by which God declares someone to be righteous is faith, and that alone. It is a forensic act, a legal declaration. Here indeed, as well as elsewhere in Paul's writings (some of the other places in Romans I'll address here, at least by way of footnote), we see this great doctrine put forth in verse 28: we are justified by faith apart from works. The word translated apart is the Greek word choris which means "separate from" and also "without." This is why we as "Protestants" (and anyone who would claim the title "protestant" for himself must hold to this) insist on the word alone in understanding faith's role with regard to justification. Rome insists that works done in a state of grace merit grace. Yet, Paul makes it clear that we are justified by faith apart from, or without, works. So then, if faith (which is something we do, that is, we are the ones believing) is not a work,[5] then it must be the only thing that is not a work -- it MUST be a grace!

As you the reader I am sure noticed (if not, please read it again!), this fact has not escaped Paul in Romans 3:23-28. In verse 24, we have this statement, the statement that provides the corrective understanding to the quote Mr. Byrne provided by Mr. Carpenter:

and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
-- Romans 3:24, emphasis added

First we see that we are justified by grace. Justification comes by the grace of God, yet as we have seen, it is by faith[6]. Faith is part of the grace of God that comes to us in salvation! It is right to say then, as Paul does, that we are justified by grace,[7] and also justified by faith. Given that the inspired apostle is the one writing is, such is a given.

Now, however, is where the real meat of the argument comes, and why Mr. Carpenter's interpretation, as well as that of Mr. Ponter and Mr. Byrne must be rejected. Through what does this justification by grace/faith come? How does any grace come to us? Paul tells us that it is "through the redemption" that is in Christ Jesus. To unpack this and get the fullest understanding, we must discern what is meant by the word translated "through" and that of "redemption."

Paul says we are justified by grace through the redemption that is in Jesus. The word rendered through is the Greek preposition dia. Making a theological case on a preposition is shaky ground most of the time; prepositions in Greek (and in English for that matter) are notorious for having a myriad of meanings; pinning them down to one particular understanding can sometimes be difficult. Here, though, I think we tread fairly safely.

The word is used 509 times in the New Testament according to Bibleworks (and my addition). Of those 509 times, the top two meanings are "through" (225) and "because" (111). If something happens "through" something else, then that something else is the means by which the first thing happens. If I speak through an interpreter, then my message is not understood by my audience without that interpreter; he or she is a necessity, and is the means by which the message goes forth. When Paul says we are justified by grace "through" the redemption, he is saying that we are justified in this manner "on account of" or "because of" or "through the agency of"[8]. This justification by grace/faith comes to us by means of the redemption -- that is where it comes from. Faith comes out of the redemption!

So then, what is this "redemption" then? It is "a release effected upon payment of a ransom." What Jesus did on the cross was to guarantee the setting free of the elect by the payment of a ransom! They would indeed be released! A redemption is a releasing as much as it is a payment. When Jesus provided this redemption, He achieved propitiation (next verse), absorbing and satisfying the wrath of God on behalf of all who would believe. I say it that way because of what we've already seen: justification by grace (or say it justification by faith; Paul as we have seen, does both) comes on account of the redemption. It doesn't happen apart from it. This means then that faith is something Jesus obtained in His work on the cross, and since not all have faith, then not all are released. Since not all are released, then (given the meaning of redemption) not all have had payment made for them. Since not all are released and not all have had payment, then God's wrath has not been satisfied on behalf of every single individual, but only against those who will believe -- the elect.

That being the case, the phrase "set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood" needs to be understood as how God applies this propitiation to the elect. Before the point of salvation, even an elect person is not justified. God applies the work of Christ to that person, and the grace that He uses to do so is the faith we've been talking about for some time now. :)

I welcome interaction on this issue, on this text. Please, however, if you comment and wish to take issue with what I've said, bring your exegesis with you. Man's opinions ultimately carry no weight, but only what God has said.

May God use this to the glory of His Name and the edification of His Church!
sdg,
david b. hewitt

_____________________________________

1. When I started this post I could have said "recently" but well, such is not the case now. :)

2. Ok, I confess: it was actually TurretinFan who found the link for me. :) I am indeed indebted to God for men like him.

3. This, of course, is not to say that we can never cite a verse or two (or even part of a verse) to make a valid theological point. What I am trying to draw attention to here is what tends to happen when we do this. Extreme care must be taken to avoid error when quoting verses without their contexts.

4. For the record, I believe this situation to be of the former, not of the latter.

5. Paul brings this out beautifully in Romans chapter 4 with his discussion of Abraham:

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (3) For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." (4) Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. (5) And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, (6) just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: (7) "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; (8) blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

Please note that the one who trusts God to justify the ungodly is the "one who does not work." If faith is something that one hasn't worked to get, then faith must be of a different nature than works. Faith must be of grace; it necessarily follows.

6. Another oft quoted verse to describe justification by faith is from Romans 5:

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

7. Paul mentions being justified by grace elsewhere in his corpus, Titus to be exact:

Titus 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, (5) he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8. This is another way the word dia is translated, though admittedly only once. I put it forward here as part of the argument to suggest more connotation than denotion. If someone were to ask, "What does Paul mean by 'through,'" then one could respond, "He means 'through the agency" of," in response.

A Brief Interlude

2010-03-20T15:52:00.001-04:00

I've been involved in some discussions regarding Dr. James White, hypercalvinism, Tony Byrne, Peter Lumpkins, and comments from them all about Dr. White and HC (HyperCalvinism) in particular. I wanted to post the information here for reference and if anyone was interested in what was said. Comments on this post will not be allowed, as it is for information rather than discussion, and as it is a bit different from what I normally address here.

I posted a few other comments about this issue as well on Committed Christian's blog, and I would encourage the reader to follow the link there and note the links I provided. After I provided the first links and comments to Committed Christian a few days ago, I noticed on my visit today that Tony Byrne posted many comments there regarding Dr. White and some things that he said during our exchange over at Peter Lumpkins' blog (link to that below). It was these comments that prompted my response, and though I admit it is a bit lengthy, it seemed good to provide it.

I hope it helps the issues in the discussion, to the glory of God.

___________________________________________

Good afternoon again.

I do not wish this to become yet another exchange similar to the one Tony, Peter, and I had over on the latter's blog a while back, so I shall attempt to be brief, state the issues as I have been able to interact with them (and specifically, Dr. White in particular).

Tony is a master of compiling information; I know of no one else who is able to put together so much on a theological topic and arrange it in a relevant and informative manner. My hat is off to him for that.

At the same time, certain things can get lost in the mix, some things about which I may be in error, but some which do indeed confuse me. There are others still which I have information about given that I have interacted about these things with Dr. White personally.

Firstly, I wanted to say that back in 2008, it was not a new thing for Dr. White to begin to believe that God commands all men everywhere to repent, and, that God truly does desire all of them to repent, and, further still that God wants all men everywhere to be saved.

It is nothing new.

I addressed this issue with him shortly after the debate he had with Steve Gregg in his chat room. Though I didn't think I did, I have the chatlog from that exchange. I didn't post it in the thread from the discussion I had with Tony and Peter, because I didn't know I still had it. I migrated a chat program from one system to another, and low and behold, I found it. Dr. White goes by the moniker "DrOakley" and I use my real name in his chat channel. TurretinFan chimes in as well with some helpful remarks. Timestamps are included.

From April 15th, 20008:
[18:08] [DaveHewitt] hey Doc, are you around?
[18:08] [DrOakley] Sorta.
[18:09] [DaveHewitt] I've been thinking about something that was a topic during your debate and the DL last Thursday.
[18:09] [DaveHewitt] The question came up about God's desire for all to be saved, whether or not there is some desire there in any sense.
[18:09] [DaveHewitt] Perhaps I can help a little -- well, maybe.
[18:10] [DaveHewitt] I didn't disagree with what you said at all.

{{NOTE}} This addresses what I believe to be the main issue of misunderstanding here, which I will explain later, how I can agree with him completely and yet continue to affirm everything I've said so far.

[18:10] [DaveHewitt] Though, perhaps one can still say in the sense that God commands all men to repent, in that sense, and perhaps that sense alone, He desires all men to be saved.
[18:10] [DaveHewitt] Simply because God desires perfect obedience to His commands.
[18:11] [DaveHewitt] ...or am I not making sense? :D
[18:11] * DaveHewitt notes that such a thing is common.
[18:11] [DrOakley] No, I thought of that.
[18:12] [DrOakley] But that is saying nothing more than "God wants all drunks to stop being drunks."
[18:12] [DaveHewitt] True.
[18:12] [DrOakley] And that is not what these folks are looking for. They want something more....
[18:13] [Tur8inFan] it is, more to the point, like saying "God does not want an innocent man to be killed by Pilate"
[18:13] [Tur8inFan] i.e. it is against the moral law
[18:13] [DaveHewitt] Do you think that part of the problem is that people don't see the fact that God desires His glory manifested in His justice?
[18:13] * DaveHewitt nods at Turretinfan
[18:13] [Tur8inFan] it's a "sense" but not a helpful sense - which is why Doc didn't bring it up
[18:13] [DrOakley] Tur8inFan: how do you handle this issue?
[18:14] [DrOakley] There are some who make it a tenet of orthodoxy to affirm, positively, an unfulfilled "desire" on God's part that runs counter to his decree.
[18:15] [DaveHewitt] Aye, I can think of at least one off the top of my head.
[18:16] [Tur8inFan] God desires perfect obedience to the moral law, in the sense that he judges variance from that
[18:16] [DaveHewitt] Though I mention it I suppose because I was wondering if it might help the issue a bit, for someone just to hear that. I could be wrong; wouldn't be the first time.
[18:16] * DaveHewitt shrugs.
[18:16] [Tur8inFan] but God desires history to occur as it does in the more full sense of the word desire
[18:17] [Tur8inFan] God accomplishes His purpose - the word of God does not come back empty
[18:17] [DrOakley] So how would you have answered Gregg?
[18:17] [Tur8inFan] Same as you.
[18:17] [DaveHewitt] O.O
[18:17] [DrOakley] Heh.
[18:17] [Tur8inFan] Talking about God's displeasure with sin was totally irrelevant to the debate
[18:17] [DaveHewitt] ....ok, I thought that was directed at me. :)
[18:17] [DrOakley] How do you think Calvin, or, especially for you, Turretin, would have answered?
[18:17] [Tur8inFan] You mean, if there were unlimited time, and you could answer in writing?
[18:17] [DrOakley] I mean, aside from having Gregg burned anyway? :-)
[18:18] [Tur8inFan] lol
[18:18] * DaveHewitt chuckles.
[18:18] [Tur8inFan] I don't think Gregg is a unitarian
[18:18] [Tur8inFan] anyhow
[18:18] [DrOakley] A borderline Socinian I would say, but anyway....
[18:18] [DrOakley] No, not in writing....I just don't read anything in Westminster, or in Calvin or Turretin, about God having unfulfilled desires that run counter to His decrees.
[18:19] [Tur8inFan] DrO: of course not
[18:19] * DaveHewitt agrees.
[18:19] [DrOakley] Those guys are not just affirming that God's law commands perfect obedience; they want some kind of affirmation of a semi-salvific, yet unfulfilled, desire on God's part.
[18:19] [Tur8inFan] There's a passage in Turretin that has been translated "desire" but it is a bad translation
[18:19] [DrOakley] And I just can't figure out the source of it outside of 2 Peter 3:9....
[18:19] [Tur8inFan] God deems morally upright behavior acceptable
[18:19] [Tur8inFan] and in that sense of "desire" desires it.
[18:20] [Tur8inFan] but that sense is not helpful
[18:20] [Tur8inFan] because God does not desire (in the more normal sense of the word) that the moral law be constantly observe
[18:20] [Tur8inFan] In fact, God intended the evil of Joseph's brethren
[18:20] [DrOakley] I can name a number of folks though that will immediately suspect you of hyperism if you don't grant that God positively has such a desire.

As I can hope you can see from this exchange back in 2008 that the issue that Dr. White nearly always addresses when talking about God’s desire is God’s ultimate desire, that is, what He has decreed. Dr. White is very careful how he uses the term desire out of concern about appearing inconsistent. Given when he does in the field of apologetics, perhaps it is understandable why he is so careful. Yet he affirms here, along with TurretinFan, (and I hope it is clear that this is something that he held prior to this conversation given the comparison with God’s commands and desires with wanting all drunks to stop being drunks) that God indeed does desire, in the sense of the moral law and will of God, that all men be saved. Combine this log with the videos I linked you to earlier, and I cannot help but think the conclusion comes out.

In that sense, it is clear why White hasn’t retracted his statements that he made on the Diving Line with Jason among other such comments (the DL discussion I did reference at Peter Lumpkins’ blog discussing it in a similar manner as this). White normally refers to God’s decree when talking about God’s desire in the salvation of all men – and no Calvinist will say that God desires that in terms of the decree. Yet, all Calvinists who are not Hyper Calvinists (which James White is not) will readily affirm that God DOES desire the salvation of all men in the moral will/preceptive will of God (which White also affirms, here and in those videos I’ve referenced in prior links here).

Shortly after Dr. White and I had this exchange he started changing the way he communicated when he would talk about these things, I suspect in a sincere effort to try to be clearer about them. It wasn’t that he changed what he believed, but that he, like I said, was making an effort to clarify his position.

I do apologize that this comment is not brief; it is the length of an entire blog post in and of itself. In fact, I may post it on my own blog for future reference.

Thank you for your patience; also, if you were still wanting some more clarification, I would recommend dropping into Dr. White’s chat channel and asking him. He is usually there and often is available to answer sincere questions. He’s accommodated me numerous times, this but being one example. :)

SDG,
dbh

Overlooking Offenses

2010-03-19T21:57:00.001-04:00

We should make all reasonable efforts to be reconciled to those who have taken offense at our words or actions. I say all reasonable efforts because not every offense people take is warranted. Jesus would have done nothing else with His life if He had to seek out every individual Scribe and Pharisee personally who was angry with Him.

- John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, page 231

That particular quote may well have been a good thing to include in my previous post that I wrote about the Christian character we ought to have when corresponding with each other. Piper is of course correct; we ought to make every effort to be reconciled to those we offend, should that offense be warranted. After all, Paul indicated as much himself.

However, it is the issue of reasonableness that Piper mentioned in his book that I want to address here. He goes on in that chapter to mention that people are far too ready to take offense at many a thing nowadays, and I couldn't agree more. The reasons for this are many I am sure, not the least of which are the realities of our post-modern age that balk at the idea of certainty about anything, especially truth.

My aim here in this post is to admonish my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ to hesitate to take offense. I mean that universally; that is, hesitate to take offense from things that unbelievers say or do to/about you, but even more so, greatly hesitate to take offense from something a believer says or does. I think such a priority is warranted, as is the principle of overlooking offenses. Proverbs greatly helped us in the last post I wrote, and I pray that God will use that wonderful book of wisdom once again to bring conviction, correction, and/or instruction to us in this matter:

Proverbs 19:11
Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. (ESV)

A man's discretion makes him slow to anger, And it is his glory to overlook a transgression. (NASB)

A person's wisdom makes him slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense. (NET Bible)

First we shall begin with the last part of the book. It is the glory of a person to overlook an offense, or as the NASB puts it, "a transgression." The word means more than just offending someone with one's attitude, personality, or demeanor. It communicates the idea of "rebellion" or a "breach of trust" or "rebellious acts." So, given that meaning of the Hebrew word pesha, it seems clear that it is good for a person to overlook it when people sin against him.

We should always be ready to forgive, my brothers and sisters, and not to take offense when others wrong us. Proverbs tells us that it is our "glory" when we do such things![1] The word translated "glory" is the Hebrew tipharah which means "beauty." It is a beautiful thing when we let such things pass! Furthermore, since this is true for things that are indeed rebellious and sinful, how much more ought we be willing to overlook things that bother us, things that people say and do, that are NOT sin but are rather peculiarities we just don't like very much? I think the answer is obvious.

Now to the beginning. What kind of a person is it that does this, that doesn't take offense but rather overlooks them? Such a person has "discretion;" he has "good sense" and "wisdom." All are great ways to express the Hebrew word sekel which means "prudence" or "insight."

May God make us into that kind of a person, and not allow us to continue in the sin of failing to overlook offenses.

SDG,
dbh

EDIT (3/20/2010):
P.S. -- I think it also beneficial to note that the person described in Proverbs 19:11 who is wise, has good sense, and overlooks offenses is one who is "slow to anger." Indeed, if we are slow to anger, it surely makes it easier to overlook offenses, and since good sense/wisdom is what leads to one being slow to anger, if we are not slow to become angry, it follows that we lack the good sense and discretion spoken of in this verse. Let us all remember what James said about this as well.

May God grant us such wisdom!

_______________________________________

1. This of course is not to say that we shouldn't call such a person to repentance for a sin or think of sin as something other than a heinous crime against our Holy and Awesome God. That is not the writer's point here; the writer of this Proverb is extolling the wisdom and prudence of a person who beautifully rich in forgiveness.

Announcement!

2010-03-12T20:47:00.000-05:00

Just thought I would let everyone know that I am praising God for the newest edition to our family! Joshua Andrew Hewitt was born today @ 1416 hrs. 8lbs 4 oz 21.25 inches.

Thanks be to God!

sdg,
dbh

Contemplating Christian Character in Correspondence

2010-02-27T22:16:00.001-05:00

May our glorious God and Savior, Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, keep sin from me and guide me into righteousness. Please, Lord, make it so. Amen.[1]

Perhaps this post would be better titled, "A Cry for Prayerful Self Examination." I am a preacher, however, so perhaps alliteration runs strong with me.

Not that long ago, Dr. James White posted a video on his blog that challenged some claims Dr. Ergun Caner made on the Pastor's Perspective radio program (at least I think it is a radio program; perhaps it is a webcast; I am not sure) put out by Calvary Chapel. Dr. White called what Dr. Caner said about Reformed Apologists and their debates "dishonest," and Dr. White took what Dr. Caner said to be directed at him. Here is a link to the video if anyone is interested in viewing it; I would recommend it if, for no other reason, than it would give the appropriate information and background to what I am saying here.

Picking up on this video, Pastor Tim Rogers posted an article over at SBC Today here. The post seemed to take the form of a defense of Dr. Caner's credentials.[2]

Shortly after the post on SBC Today, Peter Lumpkins followed with this post.

There were many, many blog posts that were fired off from supporters of Caner and supporters of White; all of the supporters for these men claim the name of Christ.

Dr. White posted another article on his blog dealing with the issues on SBC Today and Peter Lumpkins' blog here, and then posted an article here, addressing Dr. Caner and the ongoing question about the statements Dr. Caner made regarding his own words in the videos Dr. White included in his own. In this last post by Dr. White (which includes a link to Caner's partial explanation, here), Dr. White presses Caner further with the issue of Caner's documented statements about many things, as well as wishes him success in opposing missional strategies that compromise the Gospel.

I write this blog post not to critique Dr. White, Dr. Caner, Peter Lumpkins, Tim Rogers, or anyone in particular. I write it so that we, as Christians, will be more inclined to critique ourselves.

I would encourage everyone reading this post to have a look at the comments sections of the SBC Today blog and Mr. Lumpkins' blog. Read through them, at least some of them, and I suspect you'll see the same thing I did. If you find yourself siding exclusively with one set of comments regardless of how they are presented (say, the Calvinists against the non-Calvinists, (which generally would be White's supporter against Caner's supporters), read this quote and look again:

Do not delight so much in a person's viewpoint that you become corrupted by an un-Christian spirit.
-- John Piper, from the audio of a sermon he preached on 1 Peter 2:13-17

I am of course not saying that we shouldn't take any kind of a position, or if you will, a side in such matters. I am not one opposed to correcting others, and as I've mentioned in my own rules for engagement, welcome correction to me if I am in error.

What prompted me to write this post was the manner in which people commented, which in many cases, clearly demonstrated an un-Christian spirit. From both sides there seems to have been a lack of gentleness in general, something that we most definitely ought to have toward one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, before reading any farther in this post, I want you to click this link and read the page in its entirety, including the link to Dan Phillips' post on TeamPyro in it, if you have not already done so. Yes, I know it is long, but it is important and quite worth your time, I assure you. Please be sure to read it and the rest of this post before commenting.

We Are a Sinful People

As a Reformed Baptist, and therefore a Calvinist, I claim to understand the horrid nature of man's depravity, and sin in general. All Christians, if they truly are Christians, understand sin enough to know that God hates it, and they needed to repent of it and have faith in Christ to be saved. Calvinists, by our own profession of doctrine, ought to understand it even more. Sin is a horrible, evil, permeating wickedness that is ever present, assailing us in a myriad of forms. We war against it constantly; it is a bitter enemy, and though it is true that in Christ we are continually gaining ground against it as the Spirit works sanctification in our lives, we must never grow slack in the battle against the flesh. Never be naive as to think that sin is not with us, looking over our shoulders, whispering in our ears, desiring to have us betray our Lord and Master at any moment. The apostle John said it well:

1 John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

We should also remember that the Apostle Paul struggled against sin greatly, and I doubt any of us would claim a level of holiness equal with him.

Such a realization should give us pause, drive us to our knees, and cause us to cry out to God any time we open our mouths or allow our fingers to brush across a keyboard. We should ask and beseech our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to keep us from sin and to grant us that we would show forth His majesty and wonder as we speak or write or do whatever, knowing our own tendency to do the opposite.

We Must Be Accurate in What We Address

Proverbs 18:13
If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.

I have this Bible verse printed out and hanging over my computer. It is a constant reminder to me when I am sitting at this machine, always admonishing me to have all of the facts about something before I make a statement about it. It reminds me that I need to be about asking questions about things when I am not sure before coming out with a statement that sounds like I am sure. All of us should hear, and hear well before giving an answer.

Anything less is a violation of Proverbs 18:13.

Anything less, therefore, is sin.

I truly think that we as human beings, even as Christians, are very prone to the error warned against in this simple proverb. We would all do well to ask a lot more questions before making statements about things or assuming something about an event or person. It would go a long way in avoiding offense, and even better, in avoiding sin.

Now, am I saying that Tim Rogers or Peter Lumpkins or James White or Ergun Caner or Tom Ascol or any of the dozens of commenters on those blogs are guilty of this violation -- this sin?

Let's just say, given my own failures in this area, it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case with much of what was said. Further, for those who are not guilty of it in this situation, not a one of them, if they are honest with themselves and humble before God, wouldn't appreciate this reminder to remain steadfast against this sin and others; I shall trust that is how my post will be taken.

So then I ask, no, plead with anyone reading this post who has any kind of public ministry, whether it be in a blog or elsewhere: war against sin! Think twice, even a third time before you speak. Honoring our God by obeying His Word and loving our brothers and sisters is our highest priority.

May God grant us grace to obey Him,
David B. Hewitt

_______________________________________________

1. I hope such is the prayer for us all as we dare to enter into the blogosphere as Christians. How easy it is to stumble.

2. Whether or not the video Dr. White produced had anything to do with Dr. Caner's credentials is irrelevant to my post, so I won't go into it.

Blog Activity Expectations

2010-02-25T17:47:00.001-05:00

I'll probably post 1-2 blog articles a week unless I am out of town or preoccupied (read: baby due to be born March 16th! Number 4!). I'll also usually mention subjects I'm working on in shorter posts (like the last one). Currently, I am working on an interaction with recent events at the SBC Today blog.

I appreciate your prayers as I resume this ministry, that I would be biblical, humble, and that God would mortify sin in me that I would produce things that are free from its effects as much as is possible in this life.

SDG,
dave

It's Been A While...

2010-02-22T09:27:00.001-05:00

...and it is time to do some housecleaning on the site. :) For too long have I been away, and have not kept up with reading and studying (and often those result in blogging, which is why this blog has remained silent for so long). Such is beginning to change, and I am thankful for it!

I'll be tidy-ing up the blog over the next few days, and produce a post or two on subjects such as Creation, grace in Christian discussion, or a few other things based on some blogs/articles I've read recently and a few discussions I've had.

Sorry for being gone for so long.

David Hewitt

What Is The Gospel?

2008-04-27T14:15:00.003-04:00

I know, I know, it has been a long while since I've posted anything. In fact, some have postulated that I'd forgotten my blogger password. :D Thankfully, I remembered it when I wanted to log in just now, and I thank the brother who made that comment for his prodding to get back into posting...even though it's been a few weeks since he made it. :D

I haven't been keeping up with blogs like I used to, but do find time to keep up with James White's blog and Tom Ascol's blog for the most part. Today I read this post on Dr. Ascol's blog which referred me to this post over on Dr. Nathan Finn's blog. I found the article, like I think all of the commenters there, very insightful, and I think quite discerning with regard to the current state of the SBC and a lot of what people are truly thinking about it today. I, for one, saw myself in much of his description of the relevance of the SBC.

The SBC exists as a large, varied conglomeration of a lot of different kinds of people and certain theological perspectives. For those interested in labels, I'm a Reformed Baptist (Soteriologically Calvinistic, Baptist-style Covenant Theology [1689 LBCF]), and Amillenial in my eschatological views, putting me in a bit of a minority in the SBC. Yet, that being the case, there has always been something that has united Southern Baptists (and someone stop me if I am wrong please), and that has been Missions. Central to missions, of course, is the Gospel.

It has been said for some time now by eloquent, well-reasoned (and I might add, I think accurate) voices such as those of Dr. Ascol that the SBC has lost the Gospel by and large. We are therefore in grave danger, not just by losing the precious treasure of the Gospel, but also by producing many a false convert in our churches, people who think they are saved. We also endanger our very means of unification; if we don't understand or agree on the Gospel, then we have no basis for banding together in the first place.

In the article I linked to above, there was a very short exchange between Dr. Finn and Nathan White. What Nathan (White) commented I thought to be a decent question, though perhaps it could have been worded differently to have avoided offense and to have communicated what I think was his intention more clearly. Indeed, his comment I think begs the question I have asked as the title of this post.

What exactly is the Gospel? What critical elements would you present as part of a presentation of the Gospel to someone who you believe is lost, and therefore that you would hope would repent of sin and believe in Christ for salvation?

I do believe I know what the Gospel is, and I present it to people when I have the opportunity; surely, I need to notice more opportunities than I do. At the same time, I have to wonder if a more semi-pelagian or Arminian brother or sister would think my presentation of the Gospel to be too "Calvinistic." I, however, am not willing to change my presentation, given my understanding of Scripture.

I invite you all to comment; I would love feedback. What is the Gospel? What are critical elements of a Gospel presentation, and how would you word them?

I hope people from differing theological perspectives will answer; I see this as a serious issue.

SDG,
dbh

...and provide He does!

2007-09-05T14:12:00.000-04:00

I just got back from a job interview and it appears that I'll be working as a field technician replacing computer parts in end user systems and making about $150 a day doing it. Thanks be to God! This will provide for our needs to be sure.

Let's rejoice together in the God Who Provides!

SDG,
dbh

..but we need Him to provide more.

2007-09-03T15:04:00.001-04:00

The washing machine overflowed today and will not always spin; it is dying.

The dryer is making a terrible noise that has gotten worse and will likely stop running in the next couple of weeks, perhaps sooner.

We don't have the money for the mortgage payment when it comes.

I still don't have a job, and applied today to Steak and Shake in desperation.

I find myself saying, "How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?" (Psalm 13:1)

I feel like a fool though, for many have been through worse situations than mine, but it pains me to no end that I cannot find work to take care of my family.

SDG,
dbh

Thanks be to God.

2007-08-20T23:23:00.000-04:00

It is such a blessing to see God providing.

Some of you reading this are aware that I am still without a job. So far we are holding out, and I know that God will continue to meet our needs. How He does so, however, is truly amazing, and it brings many a tear of thanks to my eyes to see it when it happens.

At church this past Sunday, one of the men asked to see me for a moment. He then handed me a large number of Kroger gift cards. We went shopping today and I found out that they are also good at the gas pumps out in front of the store. So, my family has money enough to eat for over another month and also to put gas in the car, just because of some gift cards.

Thanks be to our AWESOME God, who meets all our needs in Christ Jesus[1].

SDG,
dbh

______________________________________

1. It's also worth to note that this is just the latest in how God has met our needs. Others from our church have been blessings as well to be sure, but this last one I guess added enough weight to prompt the post. Praise be to GOD in Christ for His provision.

The Attributes of God

2007-07-25T22:34:00.000-04:00

You will want to get this book and read it for yourself. Dr. Pink did a wonderful job presenting the characteristics of our Awesome God, and is doxological[1] as he expounds on the wonder of God. The book is short, but it contains gold to be sure. Well worth your time!

SDG,
dbh

_________________________________________

1. By that I mean that the author intentionally mixes praise to God with his discussion of God's attributes. I have to say, I found it delightful, and I do truly believe that if we are doing theology correctly, we'll be praising God in the middle of it!

I Preached On the 8th!

2007-07-21T19:37:00.000-04:00

Due to some server problems with the file server our church uses to store sermon audio, I have not posted a link to them until this point. It would seem that the file server problems are solved, and all of the sermons, including my recent ones, are available again!

With that in mind, God granted me the opportunity to bring His Word to my church during both morning and evening services, the first on Galatians 1:10-12, and the second on Psalm 119:1-8, and you can find both of them at this link, and at the time of this posting, they were at the bottom of the page.

May God be glorified as His Word is heard, and may that always be the goal of every preacher.

SDG,
dbh

Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ

2007-07-21T08:25:00.000-04:00

I have spent a lot of time over the past week reading through this book, and it has been time well spent. My understanding of Baptist Covenant Theology has moved from infant stages into adolescence you might say, and I understand much more the issues of types and the church (whether the True Church [often referred to as the Israel of God in the book] or the "Jewish Church") in the Old Testament.

It isn't the easiest read[1], as it contains two works from the mid 17th century. One is a book on the Covenants by Nehemiah Coxe, one of the contributors to the 1689 LBCF. The other is John Owen's exegesis of Hebrews 8:6-13, and if you didn't know better, you'd think John Owen was a Baptist given how he [accurately] handled the text![2]

For those interesting in learning the basis of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, this book is an indispensible resource, and is very helpful for those of us Reformed Baptists who were looking for a good study of the Covenants to deepen our understanding of them. Highly recommended.

SDG,
dbh

__________________________________
1. The editors did a very good job transcribing the works contained in this book into modern English with modern spelling and grammar, and provided many helpful footnotes explaining what would otherwise be difficult to understand words. At the same time, following the trains of thought takes patience and work, though the reader will eventually get used to it.

2. I'm well aware that John Owen was not a Baptist, but given his exegesis of the passage, one would wonder why he was not.

A Reformed Baptist Manifesto

2007-07-10T15:15:00.000-04:00

This was truly an excellent book. It is short, but Sam Waldron puts a lot of good information into its few pages. I highly recommend it to anyone, especially those who are wondering where Reformed Baptists get their moorings.

Further, other titles by Sam Waldon can be found here. I hope I'll be able to read them all eventually. :)

SDG,
dbh

The Roman Catholic Controversy

2007-06-26T14:29:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White. It's an excellent and thorough analysis and refutation of many Roman Catholic doctrines and a presentation of the biblical position on many of the same issues.

I have to admit though -- the book made me a little angry. It wasn't because of what Dr. White said in the book at all; in fact, I thought his presentation to be wonderfully thorough and his analysis and argumentation to be biblical. I am glad he wrote the book and glad that I read it. What made me angry was the thoroughly unbiblical position that Rome takes on so many issues, even creating doctrines that are completely foreign to the Bible's teaching (such as Marian devotion, purgatory, indulgences, etc.). I'm also a bit frustrated that I didn't research this information years ago when it would have been incredibly helpful in talking with my brother. Perhaps God will grant us some good conversation in the future.

In any case, I highly recommend the book for anyone wanting to see what the differences (and they are critical) between Rome and the Bible are. Further, if you have Roman Catholic friends who you have been talking to about the Gospel, and who think that their church's doctrines truly are biblical, this is a book you should get for them. Dr. White is not antagonistic in his presentation at all, and his conclusions are inescapable.

For the Glory of Christ,
David B. Hewitt

"Praying to the Dead" and Rome

2007-06-25T22:33:00.000-04:00

My brother a couple of years ago joined the Roman Catholic Church. Before he did, we had a brief conversation about Deuteronomy 18:10-11 regarding contacting the dead, and I likened it to praying to saints. He was quite upset that I would make that connection, saying that the passage was addressing witches and the like and that it didn't apply. Well, the passage does indeed address witches and such, but it appears to be a list of things that are prohibited rather than making them all refer to each other. I didn't press the issue at the time.

Yet, Dr. James White recently wrote this article that deals with the matter quite well, providing good exegesis of the passage and applies it well to the Roman practice of prayer to saints. It's worth your read, especially if you have Roman Catholic friends you are witnessing to. I might point my brother to it too. :)

SDG,
dbh

Interview Audio from the Recent SBC

2007-06-22T16:06:00.000-04:00

I was interested to find out that these audio files have been made available! They are interviews of many a person in SBC life on various topics that happened at the latest Southern Baptist Convention. I haven't listened to them yet, but recognizing many of the names in the list, I expect I'll find many a thing to smile about... and perhaps a few things NOT to smile about. :)

SDG,
dbh

Something worth giving to!

2007-06-18T18:09:00.000-04:00

For those who might be aware of the issues related to Calvinism in the Florida Baptist Convention as of late, you might want to check out this link. Dr. Ascol has organized what I think is a most appropriate response! May God be glorified!

SDG,
dbh

Video of Dr. Ascol's Resolution Being Discussed at the SBC

2007-06-15T09:40:00.000-04:00

During the recent SBC annual meeting Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries brought a resolution on Integrity on Church Membership to the floor of the Convention, which was, sadly, defeated again as it was last year.

There was some interesting discussion that went along with it, and Tony Kummer has made available a 14 minute video of the proceedings. It is worth your time to view it if you are a Southern Baptist who is concerned about this issue.

SDG,
dbh

Another Noteworthy Response to Calvinism Misrepresentations

2007-06-10T16:22:00.000-04:00

Roy Hargrave is the pastor of Riverbend Church in Ormond Beach, Florida. Recently, he published an open letter in response to events in the Florida Baptist Convention regarding some sermons (one of which was anti-Calvinistic) that were sent out to all of the pastors in the state by the state convention. It's worth your time to read through it!

SDG,
dbh

Baptist Covenant Theology

2007-06-09T15:23:00.000-04:00

For the longest time, I really didn't know what Covenant Theology was, especially not Baptist Covenant Theology. I had heard some objections raised against CT in general, and looked up a chart[1] that explained a few things. However, it wasn't until I ran across these audio files from the 2005 SBC Founders' conference (not to mention some of Sam Waldron's recent articles) did I really understand it properly, and I'm definitely convinced by it. I'm happy to say that I'm a real Reformed Baptist now, not just in my soteriology. :)
In any case, these audio files are well worth your time, and if you are looking for some good, modern information about Reformed Baptist CT then you're in for a treat!

SDG,
dbh

UPDATE (June 13, 2007): Please see the comments section for an important update.

____________________________________
1. The chart is available in PDF format here. It was a document from the website of the church listed in the document, but that website is no longer on the internet.

Dr. Morris Chapman and Calvinism

2007-06-02T21:29:00.000-04:00

Dr. Morris Chapman is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee. Recently in the May 2007 issue of SBC LIFE he had a Q&A column over several issues that are pressing concerns to Southern Baptists today. Not the least of those concerns is what was called a "resurgence of Calvinism" in the SBC and the controversial nature of it.[1] There are some things that he said in his answer to the following question that I wanted to address, because they contain some common errors with regard to thinking about Calvinism that seems to exist in many areas of Southern Baptist life nowadays. In any case, here was the question asked of him:

The resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC has been a controversial issue in some ways. What is your perspective on the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC?

Now, I mean no disrespect to Dr. Chapman whatsoever in my writing of this post. He is my loved brother in Christ Jesus. He has been, from what I can tell, an excellent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention for many years. Many of the things he wrote in his responses on other topics in his article (such as the Emergent Church and an important theological issue confronting this generation) I thought to be quite good and helpful.

Yet, at the same time, many of the things he said in response to the above question seem to be the norm of thinking regarding the increasing numbers of Reformed people (or at least Calvinistic people) in the Convention. That being the case, I saw this as an opportunity to address some of the issues he raised.

I realize this was merely a short answer to a brief question meant to be a small part of a Q&A session that addressed several topics in brief, and I don't want to read into it too much. Quite likely then, the answers he gave were likely not as detailed as he would have given had he more time and space to discuss them. With that in mind, I'll simply work with what I have and go through his entire column, addressing what I saw as misrepresentations of Biblical, Calvinistic theology.

Dr Chapman stated:

The resurgence of Calvinism is largely a reaction against the shallowness of Baptist doctrinal instruction during the era of moderate-led seminaries coupled with a strong interconnection of the principle of sola scriptura ("scripture alone") with Reformed doctrine during the Protestant Reformation. Since the principle of sola scriptura resurfaced during the inerrancy debates of the Conservative Resurgence, it is only logical that its relationship with Reformed Doctrine would also emerge.

I heartily agree with Dr. Chapman that there has been a lot of shallow doctrinal instruction in the SBC in recent years. I still think that the problem remains; the seminaries have been largely corrected it would seem (though not completely), but there is still a large theological vacuum that exists in our churches. Solid, expository preaching is very much lacking, and our people in our churches are not hearing what the Bible really teaches for the simple reason that they are not being consistently confronted with the text of the Word of God. Furthermore, it would also be wise for pastors to teach the fundamentals of the faith on a regular basis (maybe Wednesday nights?) so that we can consistently give a response to those who would ask us what we believe and why -- but I digress. :)

His comments about sola scriptura are interesting. He appears to be saying that since the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC focused so much on the inerrancy of Scripture, and that the Reformation principle of sola scriptura was strongly connected with that, it would lend to other Reformational theological distinctives resurfacing as well.

This overlooks a key point, however; yes, the principles are related, but why? Just because they happened to be rediscovered during the same time period of the mid 16th century? Or was it perhaps the application of sola scriptura that led and is leading many people to embrace Reformed Theology (TULIP first and foremost, among other things)? When we let the Scriptures speak for themselves (and of course receive the word of the Spirit through them) and not interject our own ideas and presuppositions, indeed we will arrive at doctrines such as the Total Depravity of man and Unconditional Election, among other things. That, I would submit, is the reason why there has been a resurgence of Calvinism; instead of merely claiming that Scripture is inerrant and leaving it at the claim level, people are digging into it and seeing that their long-held beliefs about things such as man's autonomy and libertarian free-will are not to be found in Scripture.[2] More on that later.

Dr. Chapman further stated:

An additional reason for the resurgence of Calvinism is that a wide-open Arminianism under the guise of Open Theism must be refuted. Generally, where a heresy surfaces its closest theological polar opposites will appear and gain a relatively wide following.

My lack of historical acumen will prohibit me from interacting with Dr. Chapman's statement of polar opposites, though it doesn't surprise me that this is the case. However, I see one problem with his observation: where are the Open Theists/Process Theologians in the SBC? Off the top of my head, I cannot remember a single serious internal controversy of late relating to Open Theism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Further, I don't recall even one article in Baptist Press News[3] about it either, and I check it frequently. On the other hand, I have seen MANY articles on Baptist Press (BP) and more than a few in SBC Life address the issue of Calvinism, not to mention speaker after speaker mentioning (and, sadly, misrepresenting), Calvinism from the floor during the SBC annual meeting. So, given then large amount of talk about Calvinism in the SBC and the almost complete lack of discussion of Open Theism, it would seem that Dr. Chapman's analysis here is in error.[4]

More from Dr. Chapman:

The Scriptures reveal numerous "antinomies" (apparent contradictions between two equally valid principles).

Here Dr. Chapman goes into several examples of what he calls "antinomies." This, from my experience, is a common definition of the term. Indeed, the Bible contains many things that would appear to be contradictions, but really are not. However, if something appears to be a contradiction, we should consider two things.

First, we must always go as far as the Scripture does when dealing with a perceived contradiction. The Bible often explains what we see as a contradiction very well by giving explanations. We shouldn't stop too soon.
Second, where the Bible stops, so must we and leave something as a mystery in whatever sense the Bible doesn't explain it. We mustn't go here too quickly though; laziness never gained anyone anything, and laziness in searching the Scriptures will net us theological error.

All of that said, let's go into Dr. Chapman's examples:

For example, how can Jesus be fully human and fully divine?

This is an excellent question. Jesus maintained 100% of His divine nature, but was 100% human at the same time. How is this possible? Part of the biblical explanation will tell us that He intentionally made Himself nothing intentionally, choosing to become flesh and dwell among us. However, as Dr. Chapman rightly noted I think, much of this remains a mystery, but the Scripture clearly indicates the truth of what he has said, what theologians have often called the "hypostatic union."

Dr. Chapman continues:

How can Scripture be fully the Word of God and a work to which we must give all diligence?

I must admit, this question confused me a good deal. What does he mean that we must give all diligence to it? Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but God came to man during the times of the writing of the Scripture and spoke through them, moving them along by His Holy Spirit so that everything in the Bible would be perfect, without error, the very Word of God, and useful for all correcting and equipping. What we have to do with it being the Word of God is, well, nothing. It is whether we want to believe it or not. We of course must study it, and this is perhaps what Dr. Chapman was saying, but if it is, the wording he used was a bit ambiguous.

Dr. Chapman continues:

Similarly, how can salvation be totally an act of God, independent of human means, and a human response to a divine initiative? Calvinism, drawing heavily on a logical system of thought, seeks to address these questions through the lens of Divine Sovereignty.

Here I am afraid I must take great issue with Dr. Chapman's statement. The simple answer to his question is that God CAUSES the human response. God removes the old heart of stone, replacing it with a heart of flesh with regeneration, causing us to be born again through the Spirit of God and the Word. Coming with this regeneration is a new will which immediately repents and believes (the ability to have faith[5] and to repent are both gifts of God). When we repent and believe in Christ, we most certainly do it willingly, but this is completely dependent on God's work in us. We don't bring anything to the table, and this is why it is completely an act of God, and, in the strictest sense, not merely a human response (though there is a response). Reformed Theologians such as myself like to call this "Effectual Calling" or "Irresistable Grace" because God always succeeds in bringing His elect to Himself. Furthermore, simply saying that Calvinism draws "heavily on a logical system of thought" doesn't quite cut it. Surely, Calvinism[6] is logical in its thought and development, but mere logic is not the reason it is true. The exegesis of biblical texts shows us the truth of each of the points of TULIP, and such exegesis must always be the determiner of what we believe, because it reveals the meaning of Scripture.[7]

Dr. Chapman continues:

The resurgence of Calvinism is both to be expected as a historical reality that surges in popularity every few generations and as a healthy conversation about the sovereignty of God in comparison to the responsibility of man.

This is something that has confused me since I have heard people say things such as the above. Calvinists by no means deny man's responsibility. I have NEVER denied my responsibility for my sin nor anyone else's. For anyone who ends up in Hell, they have no one to blame but themselves and their evil, God-hating, sin-filled hearts. They hate God, and they end up with what they deserve, which is what ALL of us deserve! God choosing to save ANYONE is a tremendous act of His grace. I cannot look to myself at all for anything related to my salvation; I was in rebellion, but God saved me -- ME! Praise God for amazing grace! But back to what I was saying....
Scripture likewise confirms the responsibility of man in his sin and God's total and complete sovereignty -- even over sinful actions of creatures. If ANY chance is allowed to exist in the universe, then God is not sovereign, and He is not God. God has ordained everything that happens, including the fall of man and the sins of man. Note that God doesn't DO the evil -- the PEOPLE do the evil, spurred on by the evil in their own hearts which, left unrestrained, would be a horrid sight indeed.[8] One of the best examples of this is the death of Christ Himself, and how Peter reflects on it in Acts: (all emphasis is mine)

Acts 2:22-23 ESV "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- (23) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:8-12 ESV Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, (9) if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, (10) let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by him this man is standing before you well. (11) This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. (12) And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 4:24-28 ESV And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, (25) who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? (26) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'-- (27) for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, (28) to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Here is the point, very strongly stated. Who was held responsible for the death of Christ? The people who crucified Him and delivered Him over to death! However, why was it done at all? It was all done according to God's predestined plan, period. Even the sin of murdering the Author of Life was planned out by God -- but the ones who did it, who plotted and desired it -- they were the ones guilty of the sin. This is the consistent teaching of the Word of God, and we must accept it, even though it can be difficult to understand.

Dr. Chapman continues:

One danger is that pastors are tempted to accept church pastorates in churches that are not Calvinistic, and then strive to drive them into the Calvinistic camp, thereby destroying an otherwise strong and healthy church.

This is an oft stated warning in the Southern Baptist Convention today. The problem is that, unless I am mistaken, the majority of graduates from at least one of our seminaries (perhaps two) are leaning Calvinistic. Given that most churches in the SBC right now are NOT Calvinistic -- what are we to do? Calvinists must accept pastorates in churches that don't share their soteriological convictions, and yes, in a slow, compassionate, gracious, biblical fashion, teach the Scriptures to them so that they can see that salvation truly is God-centered and that the beliefs he espouses are nothing short of the exegetical teaching of the Word of God.

I am not so ignorant, however, to fail to realize that sometimes people come in and try to change things in too rash a fashion. Failure to be gracious and compassionate is not acceptable, ever.

Wiser men than myself have commented more and better on Calvinistic pastors going to non-Calvinistic churches, such as Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders' Ministries. You can find two particularly good (and relevant) articles he wrote about this very thing here and here.

More from Dr. Chapman:

Another danger is that the truly warm-hearted "evangelical" Calvinists often are misunderstood by second-generation successors, potentially resulting in a decline in evangelism and missions. As long as the conversations can remain cordial and warm-hearted, we always have been able to work together for the missionary, educational, and benevolent needs of the Convention and the world.

Here it seems we have the idea that Calvinism, real Calvinism, kills missions and evangelism, or at least has the potential to do so. The truth of the matter is that all real Calvinists are "evangelical" Calvinists. Those whose theology isn't allowing for evangelism aren't real Calvinists at all, but have drifted into the realm of the error of hyper-Calvinism, which I wrote about some time ago and referenced in a previous foot note.

History is full of men who believed firmly in these doctrines and also were staunch evangelists, such as Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Lottie Moon, John Knox, John Calvin (yes, CALVIN HIMSELF), Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and moderns just as John Piper, D. James Kennedy, and more and more and more! The list could go on for a good long time. To say that these doctrines take away evangelistic initiative is to fail to understand history and what the doctrines actually mean and entail. I've written (and referenced) some previous articles about this very matter, and they can be found here and here. Take the time to read them and the links from them, especially the link to the post from the Calvinist Gadfly in the second one. :)

However, just being out of step with history isn't the only problem I think we have when it comes to the accusation that Calvinists aren't evangelistic. I think the accusation often comes when we are not willing to employ the same, man-centered techniques that so often passes for evangelism nowadays as well as not being that interested in numbers. Evangelism is GOD's work, as is salvation, and the current mass decisionism and revivalism that exists today which often seems to tell a man the benefits of salvation without telling him that he is a man dead in his sins who will forever bear the wrath of the Thrice Holy God because of his sin unless he repents and trusts is Christ, is largely responsible for the unregenerate church membership of the SBC. We need to get back to the evangelism of Spurgeon and Whitefield, using the Law of God to show people their sin. Evangelism as it is now has actually become an idol in some SBC circles, and we need to regain our God-centered focus in it.[9]

And now the last paragraph in Dr. Chapman's response, emphasis mine:

The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man both are taught in the Bible Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an antinomy) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say. Man's system will be inferior to God's system now and forever. Why is it so difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain? After all, He didn't begin to tell us everything He knows, but what we need to know to be redeemed and live righteously.

Agreed, man is tempted to design such theological theories, and it is for some reason difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain. The thing is, it is the semi-pelagian/Arminian/synergist who is the one devising a theological theory of his own, not the Calvinist.

Of course, Dr. Chapman and others would strongly disagree with what I have just said. I expect that. However, none of this will ever be resolved by "strongly disagreeing" or ultimately even "agreeing to disagree." What we need to do is sit down, open our Bibles, and exegete the text of Scripture together using proper hermeneutics. I know Dr. Chapman didn't say this, but I'll include him here since it is pretty clear that he doesn't like Calvinism very much: If Dr. Chapman and others wish to get rid of Calvinism, then the way to do it is through the proper exegesis of the Word of God, period. Emotional claims, cries of ruining churches, warnings of the loss of evangelism, appeals to current SBC popular opinion -- none of these is authoritative. The text of SCRIPTURE is authoritative, and we are all bound by it. So then -- let's get to it!

SDG,
dbh

________________________________
1. Another issue that he addressed was "elder rule" which I may discuss at a later time.

2. By "libertarian freedom" I mean the supposed ability of an unregenerate, unsaved person being able to choose anything he is commanded that he must do outside of the direct intervention of God changing him. As is not surprising, I reject this tenant. :)

3. I could of course be wrong; if someone can point me to one I'd be grateful.

4. I do not mean to say that a refutation of Open Theism is completely absent from some of the rationale of Calvinism's resurgence. At the same time, since Open Theism doesn't really exist in the SBC, any refutation of it would have to be in response to external sources. Furthermore, I have never heard any of my Calvinist brethren list "refuting Open Theism" as one of their main reasons (or any of their reasons at all), for embracing Reformed Theology.

5. It is important to note that the "this" or "that" in these verses (follow the hyperlink) is in the Greek neuter, and there is no neuter antecedent, but only masculine or feminine. The neuter is employed in a collective sense, referring back to the whole of salvation, the grace and faith combined. Faith is a gift in the sense that it is God who enables and causes us to believe.

6. I should point out that when I say "Calvinism" here I mean TRUE Calvinism, and not hyper-Calvinism, which is a perversion of biblical Calvinism.

7. Under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, of course.

8. The fact that God restrains sin in our hearts is clearly demonstrated in the Bible in Genesis.

9. I have written a Gospel tract which I think addresses critical matters of the Gospel properly. You are welcome to use it if you wish, and it is available in PDF format at the bottom of this post.

I'm among the ranks of the unemployed for the moment.

2007-05-25T19:33:00.001-04:00

I would ask that you pray that I would find another job soon (before the end of July; that's when I receive my last paycheck from my previous job) so that there would be bills paid and food on the table.

Many thanks!

SDG,
dbh

I Preached Again!

2007-05-22T16:14:00.000-04:00

....twice in one day even! It's something that I've never done before, and it was a lot of work getting ready, but it was a wonderful privilege and responsibility. I spoke on The Gospel from Galatians 1, and also about God's glory in salvation from Ephesians 1. You can find both of them at this link for the date of May 20, 2007!

May God be ever glorified,
dbh

Our Singular Focus

2007-04-02T14:59:00.000-04:00

A while back I read a book by John Piper called Don't Waste Your Life, and it is a book I can wholeheartedly recommend to anyone. He has a chapter in it that makes reference to the cross of Christ being the "blazing center of the glory of God," and spends a lot of time dealing with the following verse from Galatians:

Gal 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

With Piper, I ask this question -- is Paul serious? Everything? We don't boast in anything except the cross of Christ?

Paul was serious.

We owe everything we have to Christ's work on the cross, every joy we experience, every provision we have, and especially the salvation God brought to us.

Today is a beautiful day outside -- sunny, Spring weather, lovely breeze -- and I owe every bit of its enjoyment to God; all blessings flow from Him. Yet, I boast that I can enjoy it in the Cross, for only because of that work can I enjoy it at all![1] And the fact that I even WANT to give God glory for such a day[2] is also because of the work of the Cross, on which I was crucified with Christ, and through which God's grace came to me.

Indeed, let us think often of the Cross, especially in this season of celebration of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

_____________________________________________________
1. This is with regard to Common Grace of course. :)

2. See Philippians 2:12-13!

Bill Webster on the Canon of Scripture

2007-04-01T13:43:00.000-04:00

Dr. James White has been posting several video clips from his past debates on his blog in recent days. Most of them have been with Roman Catholics, and as such, as created a bit of a stir in the RC apologetic community. One of those debates was with a man by the name of Gary Michuta over the issue of the canon[1] of Scripture, and there have been a lot of posts attacking what Dr. White has said. Bill Webster put together a wonderful response to those attacks which Dr. White has posted on his blog in three parts, here, here, and here. They are worth your time, and also worth pointing any Roman Catholic friends to who think that the deutero-canonical (or Apocryphal) books belong in the canon.

SDG,
dbh
________________________________________________
1. That is, which books belong in the Bible.

I Preached Again!

2007-03-04T21:24:00.000-05:00

God blessed me with another opportunity to preach His Word to His people for His glory at my church tonight! If you are interested in the audio, click here, and if you want the video, it should be posted at my church's website soon. Go to the sermon archives section!

SDG,
dbh

I preached tonight!

2007-02-25T21:41:00.000-05:00

I preached this evening at my church on Ephesians 1. If you like, you can find the sermon here. The file is audio only atm, though a video will be posted in the next few days. You can find the latter at my church's website then!

May God be glorified!

SDG,
dbh

More on the Atonement

2007-02-17T22:21:00.000-05:00

Nathan White over at Strange Baptist Fire has written this article about some passages in Hebrews that deal with the Atonement. It's worth your time, and won't take that long!

SDG,
dbh

Sermon Review Part the Last: The term "World" and the Atonement

2007-02-14T13:30:00.000-05:00

I've decided that there will be but one last post in this series, and then perhaps I'll go on to posting other things, hoping to bring glory to God in them as well as this, and that the people of God would be encouraged by them.

You can find the first post in the series here. Sadly, the .mp3 file for the message I've been reviewing is no longer available because my free file server has bitten the dust it would seem, but you can run through the posts in the series if you look at my archives over the past few months.

In any case, there are two statements and a lot of Scriptures that I'd like to address in this final post, so expect it to be long. You might want to grab a Coke and some popcorn. :) I'll quote one statement, address it, and then the other and spend some time there. So, on I go, and may God be glorified!

Statement #1:

There are books out there, there are teachers out there, that say "world" doesn't mean everybody. In the Greek it does!

I find this to be a very interesting statement, and if taken at face value it seems to be misleading. I'll explain.

Surely, the word "world" (Greek: kosmos) can in fact mean "everybody." What the statement I quoted from my former pastor could be saying is that the people he referred to are saying that it never means everybody. I hope that wasn't his intention, because it wouldn't be accurate. Reformed people such as myself readily agree that the word "world" can and does mean every single person at times, though if we are honest with the Bible and the contexts in which that word is found, we'll readily discover that this is not the only meaning of the word. Good Greek dictionaries also tell us this. Strong's Greek Dictionary, for example, defines kosmos this way (emphasis mine):

[an] orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

Strong makes it clear; the word can be used in a wide OR narrow sense, referring to the inhabitants of the world in such a way. It can also be used in a figurative sense.

Thayer's Greek Dictionary tells us similar things, but is more thorough:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1Pe_3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom_11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:17; Joh_6:33; Joh_12:47 1Co_4:9; 2Co_5:19

As you can see, Thayer includes a lot of definitions for the term, many of which have nothing to do with people. Interestingly, he also makes reference to several passages in his eighth definition which limit the use of the word to believers only. I'm not convinced of all of his examples, but my main point seems to be proven: The word "world" (kosmos) is NOT always used to refer to "every single individual on the planet," and it would appear that, more often than not, it is used in a more narrow sense. There are a few examples from Scripture that I wanted to look at specifically[1]:

Romans 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

In the context here, it would seem that the term is being used to contrast Jews to Gentiles to some extent. In fact, this is a common use of the word, and I would argue that John does so frequently in his writings (yes, I'll address 1 John 2:2 in a bit). One example of John's clear use of the term meaning something other than "every person" is found in chapter twelve:

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him."

Here the Pharisees have noticed that a lot of people were following Jesus, and many were telling of the wonders He was performing. The Pharisees were irritated about this, and then made the above quoted statement. Now, they used the term "world" in what they said -- do they mean "every single person?" Of course not! For one, they themselves were not following after him, so they were excluded. Secondly, not everyone else in the world other than the Pharisees were following Him -- there were parts of the world that hadn't even heard of Jesus at that time! Thirdly, not even everyone in the city was following Him there, as the reference for world is the large crowd, and not every city resident (from which, again, the Pharisees would be excluded). So, here we see the term "world" being applied to people, but in a narrow sense, meaning a group of people less than the whole of the world's population.

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world.

Wow, John really used the word a lot here. He tells us not to love the world -- but this cannot mean "every single person" here. The reason is a command from Jesus over in Matthew 5. We are commanded to love our enemies, and of course elsewhere are admonished to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Given those two biblical mandates, John cannot be meaning world in the sense of everyone in those verses in 1 John 2. Rather, he is meaning Thayer's definition #7 that I mentioned above; John is telling us to avoid things in the world that will seduce us from devotion to the One True God, and not to love them. Very clearly we have an example then of the term "world" (kosmos) that does NOT mean "all people everywhere." One more example (though there are many others) before I continue on:

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

Here we must understand that the term is being used figuratively or we have errors in our Bible. The decree didn't reach the Americas, for example. Nor did the people of China register to pay taxes to Caesar. Rather, what Luke was trying to tell us is that the entire Roman world should be registered. So here, we have a use of the term that means a collection of people, and not every single person.

I have to conclude then that my former pastor omitted important information about the term "world" from the message he preached that I've been reviewing now for some time. Far too much confusion can result from what he said if more information about the term is not presented.

Statement #2

There are words out there, folks, that say "not for everybody." There are words out there that say "select." If Jesus meant to die only for the select and the elect, then why didn't He say so?

First, it is important to note that the fact that other words exist that can communicate those meanings is largely irrelevant. For example, other commonly employed terms in our modern vernacular are readily available to assist readers to ascertain my meanings in this post....than the ones I used in this sentence. :) Just because other words exist does NOT mean that the biblical writers had to use them. The Holy Spirit inspired them to use those particular terms, and it behooves us to know the full range of meaning for said terms, both literal and figurative, so that we can determine the correct understanding for any word in its given context.

Second, Jesus DID in fact say that He died for only a select group of people, and they were in fact the elect. In John 10 we read the following:

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, (15) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (16) And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Here we clearly see that Jesus said that He lays His life down for the sheep. These are the same who know Him, the same who will listen to His voice. The ones who will listen to His voice are the elect; no one else will do so. So then, the sheep are equated with the elect, and those who are not the sheep do not receive salvific benefit[2] from Jesus laying down His life.

Of course, I would immediately have an objector who would say something along the lines of, "Wait! This passage says that Jesus lays His life down for the sheep. Sure, those are the elect, but it doesn't say that He didn't do it for someone else. Just because one is included does not immediately mean that another is excluded." Such a person would also be correct; I have not supported my premise with only that passage. However, context is a beautiful thing, and in using it, we do indeed establish the exclusivity of Christ's death for His chosen sheep. Let's read on a bit later in the chapter:

John 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (25) Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, (26) but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (30) I and the Father are one."

Ah... now we get to the heart of the matter. This is a LOT like what Jesus said back in John 6 about the people who didn't follow him; ultimately, the reason that they did not was because they were not of those given to Him by the Father.

Further, who are those who will hear His voice? The sheep. Who are they who will follow Him and get eternal life and never perish? The only answer is that the sheep, and the sheep only get this eternal life. Does anyone else get eternal life? I don't know of any Christian who would say so. Yet, when we use this same passage where it teaches that Jesus lays down His life for the sheep, we try to say that some who are not sheep get the benefit of that! The laying down of His life that Jesus speaks of here culminates in eternal life for those for whom His life was given. That requires us, if we are to be consistent with this biblical passage, to believe that Jesus only gave His life salvifically for the sheep, the elect, all of whom will come to Him and be saved. For this to happen, His life had to be a propitiation for them as well, a satisfaction and substitute for the wrath of God against sinners, so that all for whom Christ died no longer have God's wrath on them eternally. Jesus took it upon Himself. This is why Substitutionary Atonement is such an important doctrine.

Yet, I do know that there is one further objection to such a statement[3], and I will address it here briefly.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Someone might say, "Ah hah! There is that word "propitiation" and it is being applied to the world! What you say then cannot be true!"
This fails to take into account the multiple meanings of the term "world" as I mentioned above in this article, first of all. Second, it fails to take into account the Double Jeopardy argument that I think was introduced nicely by John Owen[4] over 300 years ago. The Elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis have restated it in modern language in one of their theological documents. I've quoted the relevant part here:

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

To that I say, AMEN! However, it doesn't completely address the issue of who the "world" is in 1 John 2:2. Simply saying it is contrasting Jews and Gentiles here doesn't quite cut it. Surely the thoughts of the two groups of people are included in John's meaning, but there is more than that.

The answer comes when we compare this verse to another passage in John's writings, John 11:51-52.

John 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, (52) and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Evan May of the TriaBlogue team wrote this article a while back and includes a wonderful discussion of the relation between the two texts. I have included the relevant part:

Notice the parallel:

1 John 2:2
And
He Himself
is the propitiation for
our sins
and not for ours only
but also
for
the world

John 11:51-52
he prophesied that
Jesus
would die for
the nation
and not for the nation only
but also
that He would gather together in one
the children of God scattered abroad

Who, then, is the world? The children of God scattered abroad. Jesus didn’t just die for Jews but Gentiles as well (ethical distinction), not just for those in Asia Minor but from every nation (geographical distinction), not just for those who lived in the 1st century but for all ages to come (time-age-related distinction). In short, with his blood he redeemed a church “from every tongue and tribe and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).

There it is for all who wish to see. THAT is the proper understanding of the word "world" in 1 John 2:2. Truly, the more important word is "propitiation," and if there wasn't so much emotional baggage attached to the word "world" in modern evangelicalism, there would likely be better exegesis of this verse.

Anyway, so ends my sermon review series. May God use it to honor His Name and build up His church.

SDG,
dbh
__________________________________________
1. Once again, all Scripture I cite in this and every post on my blog will come from the ESV Bible version unless otherwise noted.

2. I am fully aware of (and agree with) the theological statements that there were many things that God intended in the death of Christ, such as providing common grace. However, the Atonement itself was limited to the elect, which this passage teaches.

3. OK, there are likely many further objections, but the most common one appears to be 1 John 2:2, so that is what I'll address here.

4. There have been those who have said Dr. John Owen's argument is lacking. I've read some of those objections, but have not been swayed by them. If you are curious as to what some of them are, please feel free either to comment here in this post about them or email me. :)

D. A. Carson sermons

2007-02-10T22:46:00.000-05:00

A wonderful brother in #prosapologian informed me of this excellent link to a list of D.A. Carson's messages available online. Carson is one of the greatest theologians of our time, and I can recommend his messages highly!

SDG,
dbh

One more post on the sermon series....

2007-01-15T10:19:00.000-05:00

After seven posts, and also since I have been happily in my new church for a while, I think I'll just post one more time in this series and then leave it at that. As I said, my next post will be on the word "world" and what my former pastor said about it.

I do hope to get it done soon, perhaps even today, but I have a couple of sermons to work on today and some grading to do as well, so we'll see how that goes. :)

May God be glorified,
dbh

Finishing the Sermon Series

2006-12-25T13:23:00.000-05:00

For a while I've been working on a series that I started right as I left my old church on the last sermon I heard my former pastor preach. I'll be finishing it over the next two weeks, perhaps attaining a bit more closure.

If anyone is wondering, no, I am not blogging against him or the church. I'm examining the things he has said in the light of Scripture, the rule against which all things ought to be measured. If (and sadly, I must say when) I say something contrary to the Word of God, I can only hope people will come to me about it and desire to dialogue with me in the Scriptures about it to show me my error so that I may repent.

I went to my former pastor to discuss the Scriptures with him (the ones I have posted about and a few more) and we never once cracked a Bible; he wasn't interested in doing it. So, I have come here to present the truth. If this is construed as a personal attack, well, it is not. I love my former pastor and church and desire only the best for them; however, if things do not change there in the near future, then I fear the worst for them.

In any case, I wanted to mention this as some rumors have flown around that I've been blogging against my former church or trying to teach hypercalvinism or something. Neither is true of course, and I would ask if there is any substance to those rumors that people would come forward, either here or in person, to confront me. And, if and when they do, to present evidence that I've been doing either of those two aforementioned items.

May God Himself judge between us.

...one other thing of utmost importance before I close this post:

Merry Christmas, and may God bless you as you celebrate the Incarnation!

SDG,
dbh

Criminal Mishandling of the Word of God by Rome

2006-12-22T17:32:00.000-05:00

Strong words, but there is more to them than just a title or an eye catcher. Recently, James White completed his work on his latest book called Pulpit Crimes, which I have had the privilege of reading through already. It is an excellent work, though I suspect that many will be offended by it. The reason is that it makes its arguments from the sufficiency of Scripture, and anyone who is not willing to take the Word of God seriously at all times in all ways will not appreciate the book that Dr. White has put together.

With that said, one example of such a person who mishandled the Word of God in a rather cavalier manner is one of Rome's leading apologists. I read this article on Dr. White's website recently that addresses a rather glaring instance of what appears to be common play in the world of Rome.

Don't take my word for it; I'll let you read it to come to your own conclusions. :)

SDG,
dbh

Another Nail in the Coffin....

2006-12-08T22:48:00.000-05:00

....of the erroneous thought that "Calvinism" makes light of evangelism or man's requirement to repent and believe the Gospel. Alan Kurschner over at the Calvinist Gadfly has posted this EXCELLENT article written by John Reisinger that explains the matter very well.

If someone is not sharing the Gospel in some way and therefore also insisting that people repent, that person is being disobedient to God, and I've known a lot more non-Calvinists who fit that category than Calvinists.

Perhaps articles such as the one I linked to will help quash the irresponsible repetition of the aforementioned falsehood, that "Calvinism" is anti-evangelistic.

Let the truth be known.

SDG,
dbh

A Biblical Perspective on AIDS

2006-11-30T17:22:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-25T20:51:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-11-19T17:00:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-18T13:21:00.000-05:00

.....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

2006-11-11T10:25:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-11-09T19:27:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-08T23:00:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-11-05T14:26:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-02T23:06:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T21:06:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-01T16:42:00.000-05:00

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

Well, it's done.

2006-10-29T15:20:00.000-05:00

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

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

2006-10-28T23:01:00.000-04:00

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!

Sermon Review Post the Second: Romans 5:6

2006-10-28T01:24:00.000-04:00

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

Sermon Review Post the First: How Election Works

2006-10-28T00:39:00.000-04:00

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

Some thoughts on responsibility.

2006-10-26T23:57:00.000-04:00

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

A few things about that sermon....

2006-10-26T22:07:00.000-04:00

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

Does God REALLY love people more than ANYTHING?

2006-10-25T23:59:00.000-04:00

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

An Interesting Lord's Day

2006-10-22T20:58:00.000-04:00

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

GOSPEL tract revision!

2006-10-10T17:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Sunday School lesson, 9/17/2006

2006-09-17T13:28:00.000-04:00

Since most of our class was not able to attend this morning, I recorded the lesson! I've posted it HERE, and it is in mp3 format, about 56 minutes long. The first 5 minutes are taken up with prayer, and the remaining are mostly discussing Joshua chapter 7. There were some great lessons to be learned about what to do in times of crisis, why it was so important that Joshua appealed to God's Name in his cry to help, and also how serious the matter of sin is.

My wife and I were in attendance, along with Seth Tripp, Carissa Lancaster, and Jeffrey Dunn!

SDG,
David B. Hewitt

Defining and Analyzing "Free Will" Theology, Part I

2006-09-10T23:16:00.000-04:00

I've had a particularly rough day today, but God is gracious.

That said, and though I know the latter part of the above statement to be true, my mind is a bit more engaged in "justice" mode rather than "mercy" mode. Maybe that's why I felt like posting this tonight. :)

In any case, recently I've been involved in several discussions about what "free will" means and whether or not we as human beings have it. There is an answer to this, but before this discussion can ever get off the ground, whenever it happens, there must be agreement on the definition of what "free will" really is.

From what I can tell, people tend to use three definitions of free-will that they ascribe to people. If there is another that I've missed that is important to the discussion of the topic, I'd be happy to be corrected and add another post. This post is the first in a series of what I can see at the moment of being FOUR in length: this one, and then three more explaining each of the following definitions of Free Will.

1.) Free will means that human beings are ultimately self-determining. That is, our choices are the final and ultimate (or first) cause as to what happens with us (barring some freak accident).
2.) Free will means that, in and of themselves, human beings can do things that are good in God's sight; in other words, we have the power in and of ourselves to do SOMETHING pleasing to God (such as have faith in Him).
3.) Free will means that I can freely do whatever it is that I truly desire to do.

I would maintain strongly that the first two above definitions (which seem to be the most common) are unbiblical, heretical beliefs that raise man to some high standard of power or morality that the Bible does not permit. I would agree with the third definition (in other words, accepting it), though I'd qualify it a little, which I plan to do.

Stay tuned, biblical/theological corroborative evidence forthcoming!

SDG,
David B. Hewitt

A Powerful Quote

2006-09-03T20:04:00.000-04:00

"Sin is what you do when your heart is not satisfied with God."
-- John Piper

Anyone who is a regular reader of this blog knows that I'm a big fan of John Piper (not to mention James White and Tom Ascol), and this is another reason why.

Comments are welcome. I'd love a discussion, though for the record, I agree with Dr. Piper. :)

SDG,
David B. Hewitt

My First Sermon in a Long Time

2006-08-31T19:02:00.000-04:00

I had forgotten how much I enjoy preaching, how much I crave it. I'm definitely a pastor/teacher, and being able to preach today at our school chapel (I'm a teacher at Greenwood Christian Academy) was a wonderful privilege and blessing, as well as a responsibility. I recorded the message with my DVR/mp3 player device I have. The recording isn't the best quality, but if you listen closely, you can hear it. :)

If anyone is interested, you can get the file here. The sermon text was Philippians 2:12-13.

Some Down Time

2006-08-26T18:37:00.000-04:00

In case anyone hasn't noticed (as I'm sure all of you out there who read this blog have), I haven't posted anything in a while. :) The reason is that school has started again, and since I'm a highschool teacher, I've been pretty busy getting my act together for the new semester.

That being the case, my blogging time will be pretty small for the next few weeks. I do hope to post some things from time to time, but they will be few and far between.

Just thought I'd offer an explanation. :)

SDG,
Dave

The Envoy Saga Concluded

2006-08-11T16:15:00.000-04:00

To listen to this blog post, click here.

Well, it would appear that the envoy saga is over. Even after that last post I made, they refused to agree to the definition, arguing for another one because of their experience with it (at least one person did). That's not the whole story, but it is a lot of it, and I didn't want to continue there.

In any case, I also am trying something new here. Carla Rolfe had an EXCELLENT idea to record blog posts into mp3 format and give people the option of listening to them as well as reading them. I like many can read faster than I can listen, but it can be helpful in that some people don't, and that this way you can hear the inflections in my voice to understand some of my feelings as I write certain things. I plan to do this with the rest of my posts as well as all of the "Noteworthy Posts" I have over on the side, and anything else I link to over there to one of my posts.

I hope it proves useful to you!

Soli Deo Gloria!
David Hewitt

My Continued Posts over at Envoy

2006-08-10T07:47:00.000-04:00

Over at Envoy Magazine (link in the previous post) there has been an ongoing discussion about the sufficiency of Scripture and it being the only infallible rule for faith and practice. In any case, the people over there were using an incorrect definition of the term Sola Scriptura (at least many of them) and because we weren't agreeing on a definition, the conversation wasn't going anywhere. With my post below, I think some of that changed.

________________________________________________________

Patti said:

Dear Shawn,
I do believe it might be wise to do a little honest examination of sola scriptura here, or at least your take on it. Does it really even exist? Do people really read only the Bible and take it alone as their rule of faith?
Did you take a Bible study course, whether formal or on your own? Did it contain material to help you understand the Bible, especially with difficult verses? Did it teach you that any and all tradition must be viewed with suspicion or rejected because it isn't the Bible?

Patti, you have underlined a major issue that is cutting the legs out from underneith this whole discussion. What you have described above is NOT what Sola Scriptura means! It's really not.

Do some people read only the Bible and nothing else and get the right answers and interpretations? Sure, some of them do, but this is not the meaning of the doctrine.

Have people such as myself (and Shawn I suspect) taken courses on the Bible, and read books to help us understand it better? Yes! Have I studied some Greek and read exegetical commentaries? YES! Have I studied grammar so that I can identify certain parts of speech and how words fit together so as better to capture the thoughts of the Scripture's writers? Absolutely!

Do I have my own traditions? You had better believe that I do!

However, any and all traditions that I may espouse and respect are to be submitted to Scripture, because Scripture, and only Scripture, is the infallible rule of faith. Confessions and traditions are only useful when they are based on the Scriptures in that they serve as a summary and explanation of what the Bible itself teaches. Where a confession or tradition fails to interpret the Bible correctly (in its textual, historical and cultural contexts according to the rules of grammar and language) then that tradition (at least at that point) must be rejected.

THAT is what Sola Scriptura means. THAT is why Protestants (such as Reformed Baptists like myself) and Roman Catholics have such a disagreement -- because of doctrines that the RC church holds like Papal Infallibility -- which flies in the face of the Scriptures being the sole infallible rule. The pope, being a man and not God, is capable of error (just like Paul and even Peter). Because of that, we must study intensely into the Scriptures, begging God to get our traditions and presuppositions out of the way when we come to the sacred text so that by His grace we can interpret it properly (of course not ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit will work through knowledge of things like grammar and context).

If we cannot settle on this definition of Sola Scriptura then this discussion will go nowhere, because all people will be doing is attacking a doctrine and belief system that doesn't exist.

Statements like "James White doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura anyway" (at least I think that is how donnatoo put it) are unhelpful. Even if you don't think he's holding to the right definition of it, the one I provided in my last post, that is really irrelevant. The reason is this: it is the definition that he is using, and it is the definition that I am using. So then, that is what must be argued against. We say there are no other infallible rules. If you say there are (and I am 99.99% certain that you do) then that is our point of disagreement.

Agreeing on a definition is critical. As a Reformed (Calvinistic) Baptist, I have to fight against a lot of incorrect presuppositions that many people in my denomination have about what "Calvinists" believe. Many think, as a Calvinist, that I believe this or that which really isn't true, and isn't what it means to be a "Calvinist." I also recently worked to arrive at a common understanding about what someone thought was "free will" so that we could have a mutually agreed to definition to further the discussion. Without it, then we go no where. You will think that we are avoiding the issue, when it is not the issue we were trying to engage in the first place. :)

In any case, I hope this had clarified a few things.

For Jesus, My Lord and Savior,
David B. Hewitt

________________________________________________________

After that post, I think things finally started going the right direction, though I am unsure exactly. So, I responded to Patti again as well as a newcomer to the thread below.

________________________________________________________

Patti said:

Dear David,
So, too, is our Sacred Tradition measured, and it is also used to protect Scripture. That was how we established the New Testament canon used by Christians. I'm glad we have some common ground. Thank you for clearing up things.

Ah, but here lies the difference. I would say that any and every tradition must be measured by Scripture by the means I mentioned above. This included the so-called Sacred Tradition of the RCC. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees quite soundly when they allowed their traditions (which they considered sacred and authoritative) get in the way of the requirements of Scripture. So then, that is what protestants seek to do... at least, that is what they ought to be doing, though I'll readily admit most do not, which is why we have a lot of the problems we have in our churches, which I'll explain briefly below.

Just_Robbi said:

To me, the crux of the matter is that Sola Scriptura gives each reader to come to his own understanding of Scripture. Theres no need for bible classes - the Holy Spirit will guide you. If you go to bible classes the teacher then becomes your authority? No?

No. A lot of people think that, but it is not true, at least not all of it. For sure the Holy Spirit guides in interpretation; without the Spirit's guidance then we'll never get the full thrust of the Scripture and it will not impact us as it should.

That being said, the Holy Spirit, when He inspired the writers of Scripture to write, they did just that -- write. They used language. Therefore, the Holy Spirit communicates in Scripture through the language that the original writers used to write. This is why we must understand the rules of language in order to interpret it properly! We need to understand context and grammar, vocabulary and historical setting so that we can grasp the way that the original writers of the Holy Scriptures were used by the Spirit to write.

This is why we need Bible classes. The professor doesn't become the authority in those cases; rather, the authority is still the Scripture. This is true because the professor is going to communicate to us the things needed to understand the Scriptures properly, how to escape presuppositions and use grammar, context, etc.

Just_Robbi also said:

How do you know the teacher is instructing you correctly in those bible classes. Many protestant churches have differing doctrines, no?

If the teacher is training you how to use language/grammar and context properly, then he is doing a good job. Once we have those tools in our hands and are fully submitted to the Holy Spirit, we can be confident we are arriving at the correct interpretation of a passage. Of course, if we do NOT know the language as well as we ought (as most of us do not) then it would help us to seek out a person who knows more than we. Then, when that person gives an interpretation, question them as to how they have arrived at it. If that interpretation squares with the context (the MOST important interpretive principle, and arguably the one you can learn with the least amount of schooling), then it should be accepted.

Many protestant churches do have different doctrines, yes. The reason for this is threefold:

Failure to distance oneself from traditions and presuppositions before interpretation. When we come to the Scriptures we must beg the Holy Spirit to speak from His Word and that we would not do violence to the text as we interpret it. Traditions (ALL of them) must be subimitted to the rigorous scrutinization of the Scriptures.
Failure to user proper hermeneutical (interpretive) methods. This is first and foremost the context, but also includes other nuances of language (vocab/grammar/culture).
Sin. If we are unrepentant of our sin and are in rebellion against God, then even IF we arrive at a correct interpretation, we won't care. We'll reject it and then maintain our erroneous lifestyle and convictions.

One or more of these is always present when interpretations do not agree.

I hope this has been helpful!

SDG,
David Benjamin Hewitt

A Response to Some Roman Heresy

2006-08-08T00:01:00.000-04:00

Ok, this is going to be a bit of an unusual post.

Recently, I have been reading some information over at www.envoymagazine.com in one of their forums, located here. They are a Roman Catholic apologetics organization (headed by Patrick Madrid I think) and the discussion has been pretty heated lately, with Dr. James White being mentioned in a particularly negative sense. By the way, anyone who thinks that the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics have been resolved is out of touch with reality. :) The Roman church is just as rejecting of sound, biblical doctrine as ever it would seem, especially denying the five solas that I have printed on this blog over to the right.

In any case, there are several people over there who simply misunderstand important doctrines, and they are being good Roman Catholics it would seem and appealing to the authority of the Roman church for their interpretations rather than the exegesis of Scripture. I'll be posting several names in this article too, names you likely won't be familiar with, but they are just the usernames of people over at the forum, and I'm simply attributing to them the very words that they typed. Their usernames will be placed in bold when I come across them.

Dr. White has responded extensively over at his blog, here, and here (with another forthcoming), but I wanted to write something myself that I could put directly into the forum. They don't seem to like him very much (hmmm, maybe because he has successfully used Scripture against them?), and I figured perhaps they would read my post if I were to do something more than provide a link or a bunch of quotes. So, with that in mind, here I go. :) The text of this post will also be posted on the forum I linked to here, from this point forward.

____________________________________________________

Jerry-Jet said:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the LAMEST overused text that proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about sola scriptura.

Really? Well, nice of you to say so. :) However, in saying that, you have failed to provide a proper exegesis of the text at hand. Now, I know that you have made your opinions on words like "exegesis" known:

Notice folks--all you have to do is quote from the Bible and Jesus' own words and it strikes Satan so hard that he tries to trot out all the big time LIARS with MORE lies and even tries to dress them up as being THEOLOGIANS or EXEGETES or use big words and say that the plain words of Jesus and the Bible mean things OPPOOSITE (sic) of what they say.

Art Sippo has had no problem expressing himself on the matter too, referring to it as paganistic and eisegetical, I believe (I think he was referring to Dr. White's work at that point, but the issue remains). However, there is one thing that any rational person must agree to when interpreting ANY text, and that is the issue of CONTEXT.

It is simply not possible to understand anything spoken or written completely (or sometimes at all!) without it being in its proper context. The words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc. (which I discuss in much more detail here) around it give it its meaning in the broader discussion. If we fail to do that, then we miss it (that is, the meaning).

I prefaced this particular post with a large introduction (the one that ended up at my blog). If I had not, those who were not readers of this thread on envoy would have had no idea why I was writing this to begin with if they were to drop by my blog. However, since I set it in its context, then it makes a lot more sense as to what was on my mind.

In the same way, the Bible has to be taken that way. Before I address 2 Timothy, I'd like to mention what is REALLY meant by Sola Scriptura in a nutshell. We (including James White) do NOT mean by it that we do not use any other confession or "tradition" at all for anything. Rather, it is the only infallible rule, the rule against which everything else must be tested. Dr. White explains it well:

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.
From his website, specifically http://www.aomin.org/SS.html

So then, when donnatoo said:

I’m not sure why any of us would care what James White has to say on this subject. However, since you are here and I’m betting so are many of James’ fans, doing a bit of lurking. Is this being chatted about in #prosapologian? I thought that I’d point out that James doesn’t believe in sola scriptura either.

I was naturally confused. I thought she had her definition out of order, or that we were using different definitions and/or she was mistaken, and I said as much. She then said:

No I’m not mistaken. James believes in scripture as he interprets it.

I didn't really know what to say after that, but I still maintain, based on the definition above, that we are using different ones. :) James White has defined Sola Scriptura in the quote above. I concur with his definition (not because he's James White, but because that is the historical meaning of the doctrine and it is what I believe). Also, I have disagreed with Dr. White in the past, and will do so from time to time I am sure -- it's just not that frequent. :)

Now, with the definition of Sola Scriptura firmly in our grasp, let's go on to the text that Jerry-Jet raised in his first part of his post. All quotations will be from the ESV version of the Holy Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: (2) preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Now, with the text of Scripture before us, we can begin to go forward. :) You'll notice that I included two extra verses, and the reason for that will become very clear in a bit.

First of all, the Apostle Paul indicates that the Scriptures are "breathed out by God" (verse 16). Then, he indicates that they are useful for several things, and then gives the purpose in verse 17 why the Scriptures are useful for these things -- "that (hina) the man of God may be competent (complete, perfect), equipped for every good work." When a clause is introduced with the word "hina" it is often a purpose statement, which it is here. Furthermore, when the subjunctive is used in conjunction (grin) with a hina clause, what is communicated is that this thing will indeed happen. It isn't meant to introduce the idea of uncertainty; it is merely the stylistic way Paul was writing (which occurs throughout the New Testament I might add). It is like me saying, "I turned on my computer in order that I might post a message to the forum." If I were to say, "I turned on the computer in order to post a message to the forum," I would be saying the same thing. There isn't an introduction of doubt here; there is the stated PURPOSE as to why I turned the computer on.

That is the idea that Paul is communicating here in verse 17.

Furthermore, the emphasis of this purpose is critical. Paul says (as I have emphasized above) that the Scriptures are profitable (useful), so that the man of God would be equipped for EVERY good work. This is not just some good works; this is every good work in the sight of God.

If the Bible is able to to equip us for every good work, then there is something important to put forward here -- it is infallible, or inerrant, as Jerry-Jet himself has said. Furthermore, it is then sufficient for every good work as well. Paul puts the statements in apposition to each other in verse 17:
** "so that the man of God may be"

"competent" (complete, perfect - Greek, artios)
"equipped for every good work."

Since the Scriptures make the man of God competent, then there is no need for anything else -- he is complete with what he has, which is further emphasized by Paul when he says they equip for EVERY good work.

This again is not to say that other "traditions" and "confessions" cannot exist (I personally like the 1689 LBCF). However, since these confessions are not the Scriptures, coupled with the fact that the canon is closed, all traditions/confessions/whatever must be scrutinized by the Scriptures to see if they are valid, and NEVER the other way around.

In the beginning two verses of the next chapter, Paul's exhortation to "preach the word" removes any speculation as to what he means about what is sufficient. The reason for that is that in 4:2 he gives verb forms of many of the same words he used in 3:16. So then, when the Apostle said "preach the word" he was saying "preach the Scriptures." And why does he say to preach the Scriptures? Because they are "God-breathed," and the result of which is "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." There is no room in this passage for an interpretation leading to Magesterium or Tradition, and according to this passage, nothing else would be needed anyway (not ignoring my comments about confessions of course).

Anyway, on to more comments by Jerry-Jet:

What happened until all the scriptures were written--was there NO authority? What kind of sense does that make? At EXACTLY what point did God say to the world--this right here is the exact scripture and it is all you need--have a nice day?!

Well, no, of course not. :) However, God has spoken differently in different times, as the Scriptures themselves tell us. Furthermore, some of the writings (jumping ahead to the New Testament) were available pretty quickly (such as some of Paul's writings), and of course they were a rule of faith. I'm confident that the Holy Spirit worked in such a way through those writings (and the others once they were written and assembled) which truly were inspired that His people were encouraged by them, even before there was an official canon. Nowadays, we are better off than they, simply because we have the entire canon before us.

Besides, the question doesn't really apply to our current situation very much, since all of us agree that we have the canon and that it is closed. So, at whatever point it happened is not as important as the fact that it has happened, and we have the Bible.

Jerry-Jet also said:

2 John 1:7 'For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.'

Mr. White and all the other Protestants in the world who reject that Jesus IS come in the FLESH in the Eucharist are simply ANTICHRIST--not because I say so but because God's INERRANT word says so!

You either believe Jesus IS come in the flesh or you don't--and for all you protestants who have Bibles that have been changed in wording because Satan wants the scriptures to lie read the King James Version--it uses IS COME in the flesh just like the Douay Rheims.

The only way that Jesus IS COME in the flesh in the PRESENT tense when 2 John 1:9 was written would be IN THE EUCHARIST! I really believe that once a Protestant has been taught the Catholic faith and continues to reject it that at that point they should be treated like a publican or a sinner because they don't accept the teachings of the disciples and if they don't accept the teachings of the disicples then they don't accept Christ because that's what Jesus SAID!

First of all, the King James Version, while it is a good translation, is not the best. It was written in 1611 (or at least put out then), so the translators didn't have the luxury of more modern discoveries (including more [and better] Greek Texts than the Textus Receptus and also the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran community). All that said, what you wrote fails to take the context in which John was writing into account.

His whole point in making the statement had nothing to do with the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion. Nothing at all. What John was doing was refuting a group of gnostics (called the docetists I believe)[1]. These people were denying a critical doctrine and reality -- that Jesus actually came in the flesh, the very thing John teaches in the Gospel account that bears his name.

Furthermore, using the author's own context, and understanding that he used the same phrase (though with a different tense) in 1 John, also addressing the heresy of the gnostics:

1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, (3) and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Here we have "has come in the flesh," and the ESV renders 2 John 7 as "those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh." Both of these statements are consistent with John's theme in this epistle: the refutation of the gnostic heresy. To say otherwise is to divorce these texts from their contexts and arrive at erroneous interpretations.

I'll deal with one more quote from Jerry.

Jerry-Jet then said:

Read john chapter 6 if you are Protestant and then TRY to tell anyone that you don't believe the words of Jesus! Tell me that Protestants aren't like all those disciples of Jesus that fell away from him because He has given them "a hard teaching". Will you also go away to grape juice and crackers like they did in John 6:66 and reject the very FLESH and BLOOD that Jesus redeemed you with and also COMMANDED you to Eat?

Oh, I very, VERY much believe the words of my Lord and Savior in those verses. The problem is that Jesus isn't talking about the mass or the Eucharist at all. I am certain of this. How, you might ask? Context. Let's look at a few verses from that chapter (any emphasis added is mine):

John 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. (33) For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (34) They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." (35) Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (36) But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
John 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. (48) I am the bread of life. (49) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. (50) This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. (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."

Can you not see it? Jesus parallels believing with eating! He is using a metaphor, and a powerful one at that. He said that God gave the bread -- Himself, and that those who eat of it (believe in Him) will have eternal life (live forever). The context tells us exactly what Jesus was saying!

Besides, we can't say that every example Jesus gives ought to be taken literally. If we do, then we'll have a Jesus that has hinges, boards, maybe even a lock! Jesus often used metaphors to make a point, and the point here in John six is that we must believe in Him to have eternal life. Verse thirty six helps that as well, given that he was saying these things and people were still not believing in Him.

Context my friends, context. THAT is the means by which to understand ANY text, and since the Scriptures are inerrant, we can know that the writers assembled the context perfectly (unlike some of our [as humans] mindless ramblings).

May Jesus Be Glorified!
David Benjamin Hewitt

___________________________________________________

1. I got that information from one of Dr. White's blog posts, located here. Furthermore, if you read something here that looks similar to something there, then it is most likely because I consulted his posts strongly as sources.

Working on Another Long Post

2006-08-07T09:31:00.000-04:00

Due to some recent discussions I've been having and monitoring over at a Roman Catholic discussion forum, I'm working on a lengthy, Scriptural response to much of what was said over there.

Expect it within the next couple of days, assuming I get my other work done. :)

On another note, Carla Rolfe has posted a great article on women in ministry over at her blog, and you can find it here. Some of my friends were curious about the role of women and headship in blogs and comments, and I think she and her first commenter answer the issue pretty well.

Soli Deo Gloria!
DBH

Phil Johnson on the "Emergent Conversation"

2006-08-05T07:24:00.000-04:00

After the things I've seen over the last couple of days, seeing Phil Johnson's post about the emergent church stuff over at TeamPyro was refreshing. It was clear that the man didn't have a personal axe to grind in his brief review, and he pointed out some good things about Driscoll's differences with the predominant emergent culture.

In any case, it isn't very long, and is worth your read!

SDG,
DBH

**** UPDATE **** 10:30pm 8/5/2006

Phil Johnson updated his article at noon today (after I linked to it). It has much more information than before. So much for it not being long. :)

A Confession

2006-08-04T11:45:00.000-04:00

I do hope this is the last time I refer to my post on Erwin McManus. As I have been thinking about it and talking about it with Andrew and Patrick a bit over the last few days, I have come to three conclusions, and they are as follows (with elaboration):

1.) There wasn't anything wrong with the facts that I stated -- that is, WHAT I said. Even though I surely could have had more information about McManus, that wasn't my goal. I reviewed a short interview, and I interacted with the statements he made within that interview. It was not meant as a comprehensive analysis of the man's ministry. Yes, I said in the article that it seemed that he has his priorities out of order with regard to doctrine, but it doesn't necessarily follow that his actual doctrines are in error from that. If I am wrong in my analysis of his attitude toward doctrine, I'd love to be shown to be in error. So far, that hasn't happened.

2.) It appears that I used a proper format in the critiqure -- that is, HOW I said it. I made much effort to be gentle, and even lauded Erwin in a few areas that were revealed in that interview that I thought were excellent. There were some criticisms, but I do feel that the way I handled it was in line with the Scriptures. Again, if someone can show me from the Scriptures how I've erred here, I'll repent publically.

3.)I wrote the review, in part, because of Patrick our youth minister, giving a book by Erwin to our students -- the reason WHY I did it. Here is where I made a BIG MISTAKE, and I want to repent of that publicly since the error was commited publicly. Patrick didn't say I had to do this; he was content to receive my repentance in private, but I wanted to bring this to the forefront.

When I wrote the post, I had received a link from a friend in #prosapologian with the information I reviewed. So then, I went to work reading through the article, and saw some things that were objectionable and decided I finally had something I could write about. My motivation was to raise a red flag, so that people who read this blog (some of our youth included) would see that and have some discernment when reading the books Patrick was giving out.

In the process, unwittingly (I know, total doofus that I was) I was in effect saying that Patrick had no discernment, and that he couldn't be trusted.

Patrick is the youth pastor at our church. Therefore, he is one of the elders of our church (though we don't call them that or give them the proper authority they should have). Furthermore, I am under his authority both as a member under an elder and the fact that I teach a youth Sunday School class. Beyond that, I asked him a while back to review content on my blog and hold me accountable to it, so that this blog would be a ministry of our church and thus under the authority of it (which I thought was appropriate). And here I am saying that he didn't know what he was talking about and was haphazardly recommending things for our students to read.

There is but one way to describe what I did in that regard -- I was wrong. I sinned; it is really that simple. God has placed him over the youth ministry, not me, and therefore I was out of line. I realize that now.

Anyway, there you have it. I do now hope the discussion of the post will end for all parties involved. :)

A Worm Redeemed by Christ,
David Benjamin Hewitt

A LONG Review of "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller

2006-08-04T11:32:00.000-04:00

Ah, Blue Like Jazz. This book has been very popular in discussions recently, partly because I think of its widespread impact on people of my generation. The moment I saw it I had reservations about it, some sort of an uncomfortable feeling you get when you are uneasy about something but don't really know why. Knowing, however, that I cannot trust my feelings, and that I didn't have a copy of the book at the time, I began to scour the internet in search of reviews of the book from people I could trust.

Another problem arose very quickly. I found about as many good reviews as I found bad. Some I found gave strong recommendations for the book, and others were positive though not quite as universal in their affirmations. Both of the people who reviewed this book in this light are people I love and respect very much.

On the other end of the spectrum, I went around the net and found this review by Tim Challies which left me with a cautious and somewhat negative impression. Furthermore, I dropped into 9marks, and read this review by a member of their staff. I referred a friend of mine to it, and his response was very negative toward the review, and in some way I can see why I think. He indicated that the reviewer over at 9marks got it wrong, not being true to what Miller was actually saying. Miller never intended to write a theology was the gist of his argument, I think (If he reads this and I'm wrong, please correct me; I couldn't find the quote).

I'll agree that Miller's intent wasn't to write some kind of Systematic Theology or something. In fact, the very subtitle of his book, "Non-religious thoughts on Christianity," conveys that entire idea. However, the reviewer over at 9marks made a point of identifying several theological implications in Millers book (though he didn't provide any quotes). Why did he do this?

I think that he did it because it was appropriate. The reason I say so is that no matter what we are saying our intentions are, when we begin to discuss the Christian life and God in any aspect, we are doing theology. When we express what we believe, even when we are telling it as part of our story (whatever it might be), we are explaining God as best as we understand Him. That being the case, Miller's theology *IS present in this book, though it is often embedded in his personal reflections and accounts of particular events.

So then, I read this book and decided to write a review of it -- a lengthy one at that. The other reviews I've read on it, both positive and negative, didn't analyze his statements directly (with a couple of exceptions). Most of the time, sweeping statements were made, summarizing what Miller had said, but didn't provide interaction with his statements on a point by point basis.

That last statement is my intention here. I must admit, I did find many things in this book that were good; however, I also found many that were not, and I think the latter outweighed the former.

I will go through the book chapter by chapter, making page references in each quote I identify. I won't do each chapter or review all of the items I made (thought this my original intent), simply it because it will take too long. I do hope that I will be able to provide a fairly accurate overview of much of the content from the chapters I do review.

With every citation I make, I will scrutinize each quote against the teaching of the Bible, often providing scripture passages and corresponding exgesis for each. This is likely be the longest post I've ever done, but I think it is necessary. Despite the good in the book, to give it a sweeping thumbs' up is, I believe, irresponsible, and I think that will come out clearly. So then, let's begin.

Chapter One -- Beginnings
My first note comes from Miller's retelling of an incident in his childhood relating to him not turning in homework:

"Where is your homework?" my teacher would ask.
"I lost it."
"You lost it yesterday. You lost it last week."
"I am terrible about losing things. I need to learn." (Always be self-deprecating.)
"What am I going to do with you, Donald?"
"I am grateful for your patience." (Always be grateful.)
"I should call your mother."
"She's deaf. Boating accident. Piranha." (Always be dramatic. Use hand gestures.)
page 5

This quote has absolutely no theological significance. :) It was merely amusing, and the truth is, we all need to laugh a little.

Chapter Two -- Problems

I believe the greatest truck of the devil is not to get us into some sort of evil but rather have us wasting time. This is why the devil tries so hard to get Christians to be religious. If he can sink a man's mind into habit, he will prevent his heart from engaging God. I was into habit. I grew up going to church, so I got used to hearing about God.
page 13

There is some good information in this quote. Simply going through the motions in some religious exercise is not true Christ-likeness. This quote can serve as a warning against such things.

"What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say."
Tony took the pipe from his lips. "Pretty much, Don. It just explains a lot, you know."
"Actually," I told him reluctantly, "I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don't think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, 'cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, there there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe."
Page 17

I had a problem with this statement, and a big one. He says that we have a sin nature, but not like the "fundamentalists" say we do. Well, he didn't explain what that meant completely, but he did elude to it with his statement that he thinks that a lot of people do great things.
The problem here is the difference in man's way of looking at the "good" things people do over and against the way God sees it. The truth is, we are all sinners, rightly under the judgment of God because of Adam's sin. Not only that, how can he maintain the view he has in light of Scriptures that clearly indicate that NO ONE does good, such as this one, and that without faith we CANNOT please God? The Bible makes these things clear, and I've written about this on this blog before. There are serious implications from what Miller said here, and they are not good. On the other hand, this next quote was very good:

The genius of the American system is not freedom; the genius of the American system is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else. It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse.
Page 18

Indeed, the founding fathers did know this. Many of them were Christians, with many of them coming from a biblical, Reformed perspective on man's nature, and that is a large reason why we do have our checks and balances. They saw how a system of government without such balances ended up in England, and didn't want it here.

I felt so far from me upbringing, from my narrow former self, the me who was taught the Republicans give a crap about the cause of Christ. I felt a long way from the pre-me, the pawn-Christian who was a Republican because my family was a Republican, not because I had prayed and asked God to elighten me about issues concerning the entire world rather than just America.
Page 19

...issues like what? Issues like bringing the Gospel to the nations so that they may know and worship the One True God, glorifying Jesus? Of course, this isn't the goal of either political party (sadly). However, I don't think this what Miller is referring to.

Given what else Miller talks about in this book, it would seem that he is meaning helping out the poor and taking care of the downtrodden. Apparently, the Republican party doesn't do this to his satisfaction. Of course, the Republicans and Democrats both are not perfect in this arena or any for that matter, but to make such a harsh statement and suggest that the Republicans don't care at all is unwarranted and not true. Are there some Republicans that don't? Well, probably, but I would contend that the party as a whole does not conform to Miller's negative portrayal (as I would contend that for the Democrats too). Miller over-generalizes here, and does so in a crass manner; not good.

With that said, it is good that he realized he needs to consult God in prayer for the right view of matters rather than just be a certain way because of the kind of family he was born into.

Chapter Three -- Magic

This quote bothered me a lot:

I associated much of Chrisitan doctrine with children's stories because I grew up in church. My Sunday school teachers had turned Bible narrative into children's fables. They talked about Noah and the ark because the story had animals in it. They failed to mention that thius was when God massacred all of humanity.
Page 30

Ok, granted his teachers could have done a better job explaining the narratives of the Bible, but what on earth is he trying to say with the term "massacred"? The modern definition of the word would suggest that Miller was saying that he thought God was being cruel or that He had committed an atrocity! That is pretty much tantamount to saying that God wasn't just in doing what he did. Of course, this might fits Miller's understanding of our sin nature that I referenced in a quote above. If this is not Miller's meaning here, he sure wasn't very careful to communicate the opposite. At the very least, and I say this out of concern for him and his readers, he was careless with his words.

Chapter Four -- Shifts

"Racism, not an issue?!" she questioned very sternly.
"Well, not that it's not an issue, only that it is a minor issue."
"How can you say that?" She sat back restlessly in her chair. "Don, it is an enormous problem."
I was doing a lot of backpedaling at first, but then I began to explain what I meant. "Yeah, I understand it is a terrible and painful problem, but in light of the whole picture, racism is a signal of something greater. There is a larger problem here than tension between ethnic groups."
"Unpack that statement," Laura said.
"I'm talking about self-absorption. If you think about it, the human race is pretty self-absorbed. Racism might be the symptom of a greater disease. What I mean is, as a human, I am flawed in that it is difficult for me to consider others before myself. It feels like I have to fight against this force, this current within me that, more often than not, wants to avoid serious issues and please myself, buy things for myself, feed myself, entertain myself, and all of that. All I'm saying is that if we, as a species, could fix our self-absoprtion, we could end a lot of pain in the world."
Pages 40-41

This was a very good statement. Our problem is definitely greater than any one sin, and the problem comes back to the major issue -- we are looking out for ourselves, and want to do things for ourselves, and apart from Christ, that is ultimately our goal. Without faith, we cannot please God, and we don't do anything for His glory apart from it. It takes an act of God to change that about us too; we as a species cannot change it. However, God, through His Gospel, does change people.

Next, he is recounting a story a friend of his told him, and I think it was part of her testimony. Anyway, part of it was very insightful as to how her friend, Nadine, talked about God:

"Nadine and I would sit for hours in her room," she began. "Mostly we would talk about boys or school, but always by the end of it, we talked about God. The think I loved about Nadine was that I never felt like she was selling anything. She would talk about God as if she knew Him, as if she had talked to Him on the phone that day. She was never ashamed, which is the thing with some Christians I had encountered. They felt like they had to seel God, as if He were soap or a vacuum cleaner, and it's like they really weren't listening to me; they didn't care, they just wanted me to buy their product."
Page 46

I found that VERY good and very insightful. Do we, when we share the Gospel, reduce God to a product? Do we have to force ourselves to do it?

I understand that at times, everyone has periods of dryness. I've been going through one lately, and I continue to pray and repent of my sins and attitudes in it. God is gracious and loving to me in the midst of it as well; He's never left me, and I am comforted greatly by that.

That said, however, it shouldn't be the general rule. We should desire to share Jesus because of His infinite worth out an an experience of some of that worth. have we experienced this awesome, holy, righteous, powerful God or not? Do our words we share with others, and the truths from Scripture we declare say the same thing as our lives? Oh, that we would know Jesus so well that we about couldn't help but talk about Him! Oh, that the discipline of evangelism would be just getting ourselves around lost people to talk to them rather than having to beat ourselves up all of the time just to convince ourselves we should be sharing Jesus.

Chapter Five -- Faith

"I don't either really," I told her. "But I believe in God, Laura. Theer is something inside of me that causes me to believe. And now I believe God is after you, that God wants you to believe too."
(skip a few paragraphs)
"I can't get there. I can't just say it without meaning it." She was getting very frustrated. "I can't do it. It would be like, say, trying to fall in love with somebody, or trying to convince yourself that your favorite food is pancakes. You don't decide those things, they just happen to you. If God is real, He needs to happen to me."
Page 53

This was a pretty good quote. Miller was witnessing to a friend of his, and he makes a good observation; indeed, there is something inside of him that causes him to believe -- the same "thing" that caused him to believe when he trusted Jesus. The Holy Spirit of God indeed did that, and still causes true believers to continue to believe! Thanks be to God for that, or I would never have believed, and if He didn't sustain me, I would have fallen away a long time ago.

I had no explanation for Laura. I don't think there is an explanation. My belief in Jesus did not seem rational or scientific, and yet there was nothing I coudl do to separate myself from this belief. I think Laura was looking for something rational because she believed that all things that were true were rational. But that isn't the case. Love, for example, is a true emotion, but it is not rational. What I mean is, people actually feel it. I have been in love, plenty of people have been in love, yet love cannot be proved scientifically. Neither can beauty. Light cannot be proved scientifically, and yet we all believe in light and by light see all things. There are plenty of things that are true that don't make any sense. I think one of the problems Laura was having was that she wanted God to make sense. He doesn't. He will make no more sense to me than I will make sense to an ant.
Page 54, emphasis mine

There are a few problems with this statement. Miller's topic sentence for this paragraph is at the end, and I have emphasized it. However, the analogy isn't complete. We're a lot more intelligent than an ant, but at the same time, proportionately, we'll know less about God than an ant will about us.

The reason is that the ant and I are both finite creatures. So then, since both are finite, there can be some standard of measurement between them. However, when you compare anything to God, the comparison immediately breaks apart, for He in infinite. There is no comparison, and since I am finite, God is infinitely greater than I am, while I am "XYZ" amount greater than the ant.

With that said, everything about God is not hidden, and there are certainly rational elements to faith, things we can surely understand. Who would argue that Paul knew a great deal about God compared to about anyone else who has lived since him? Inspired by God, Paul wrote a large portion of the New Testament. Surely these things (not to mention the rest of the Bible) are written for us to understand and to obey! James says as much in the first chapter of his letter. We have to understand the Word in order to obey it. Further, Paul made this powerful exclamation in his prayer for the Ephesian Christians:

Ephesians 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,

At the same time, we need to strike a balance here. Even though Paul dripped with intelligence and understanding of God, an understanding far beyond mine, he said in probably his most important letter:

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

No matter how much we know about God we'll never know it all. However, while we are in this life, we should seek to know and understand Him as much as possible, for His glory will be increased when we do; understanding more of Him will lead to greater worship. If somehow it doesn't, than we haven't truly understood more.

The whole emergent/post-modern idea that we can't have true knowledge about what the Bible says or about God is really nonsense. We can know things about God and also can know what the Bible really means. We can know these two things for one simple reason: the Bible tells us we can. In that sense, there is nothing irrational about it. :)

And with that, I think I'll end my citations.

I have found that I agree with Tim Challies in the end. I'll let him say it, as he said it in his review of the book on his site I linked to at the beginning of this post:

While I can say that I did receive some benefit from reading it, I would be hesitant to recommend it to others. There is some value to be found, but one has to dig deep beneath layers of rambling untruth and poor theology to find them. There are many other books that contain far more treasure than this.

So then, I do not think I can recommend the book. Clearly there are many good things in this book -- but there are many bad things as well. Far too much bad theology is present that is only too easy to accept since there are some good things mixed in with it. Though I am sure Miller's intention was NEVER to deceive, this book has great potential to do just that, especially in a generation and a culture that is getting increasingly biblically illiterate and less comprehending of what is truly sound doctrine.

For God's Glory!

Rules for Engagement

2006-08-03T20:33:00.000-04:00

There are a few things that I'd like to put forward here as rules for commenting. Really, the comments that people have put here have never been bad to my knowledge. Part of the reason I'm doing this is because of some things that I've encountered recently in regards to correcting theology here and there that I've witnessed on other blogs, and should I post a few things here, I wanted to clarify a few things. Be assured however, these rules apply for any post I write. :)

1.) I usually write about the things that I am dealing with right now. That is, I'll post on theological issues that I am currently thinking about. If you're curious what brings on my thoughts, well, there you go. :)

2.) I welcome correction. That is, if I am wrong about something I want to know, and if I publicly say something in error and am shown to be in error, I'll repent publicly. However, there are rules for correcting me (or anyone who comments here), and I fully expect ANY disagreement to be done with the full control of how Scripture says we ought to rebuke each other. If you want to object to something I'm saying, do NOT violate these premises. Read the article I just linked to, all of it, and be aware that if you do NOT post in accordance with the gentleness the Scriptures require you'll likely have your post deleted. You've been warned! :) In addition, if you are going to say more in a post than "Nice post" or a simple short comment and want to bring something to the discussion (disagreement or otherwise) please read the ENTIRE post before commenting. If you say something in a comment that was addressed in the post directly and it doesn't seem like you paid attention to what has already been written, I'll probably just point you back to the original post. :) So, quoting the part (using quotes, italics, bold, etc.) you wish to discuss is probably a good idea.

3.) Any argument you have against a position I or someone else takes needs to be supported with the teaching of Scripture in its proper context. Of course, you can post one or two verses and have it support your argument, but you need to make sure the context of those verses supports the interpretation you are giving them. If you are not a Christian and coming here, you probably shouldn't respond much except to ask questions. :)

4.) No cussing or profanity whatsoever. That should be pretty straightforward.

5.) I expect everyone who posts here to be open to correction just as I stated in section 1 for myself.

6.) No attacking people, period. If you disagree with someone, either here or abroad, then say so, and do so with the Christian charity I've already mentioned. Under no circumstances will insults be tolerated against anyone (stupid, moron, negative remarks about a person's intelligence or character, etc.). If something a person says is not biblical, then attack what they said (BIBLICALLY), and if a person is set in an unscriptural habit/practice/belief, then pray for that person. Not even Michael insulted Satan, and since he's (Satan) worse than any of us, I expect that people will treat each other with respect.

7.) Do NOT get defensive. If and when someone disagrees with you, keep your cool. When you're defensive, you're just probably airing your own sinful desire to save face, thinking "how DARE he say this/that about me/what I believe!" To help, try to keep this perspective: the very fact that you were able to think, read, breathe, and whatever else you needed to do to understand the comments that upset you -- those things were God's grace toward you. You deserve much worse than that person said, and such should be the motivation for praise and thanksgiving to God for His mercy. Respond with that in mind, please.

8.) "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." -- 1 Corinthians 10:31

9.) Personal preference here, but when you site Bible verses, if you don't link to them, please include an abbreviation for the translation you are using, (ie, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, CEV, ASV, etc.) Unless otherwise noted, for myself, I'll be using the English Standard Version (ESV) for everything.

Thanks you for dropping by, and I look forward to how God will encourage us through each other!

For the Glory of Jesus,
David Benjamin Hewitt

Grammatical Exegesis

2006-08-03T00:26:00.000-04:00

This post over at StrangeBaptistFire is an absolutely stellar example of grammatical exegesis, probably the best I've ever seen.

It is a long read, but it is worth your time for sure!

SDG,
DBH

The "Recommended Links"

2006-08-01T08:49:00.000-04:00

These are here because I have found their content useful and uplifting. Like the blogs, I don't agree 100% with everything there necessarily, but again, the high 90's are the norm. Check them out; I'm sure you'll be blessed!

Furthermore, if you haven't downloaded E-sword yet, you are missing out on a wonderful FREE blessing. Get to it!

Also, if you haven't dropped into Alpha and Omega Ministries Chat, you should come by. Be well aware of the rules though before you do!

SDG,
DBH

My "Recommended Books"

2006-08-01T08:45:00.000-04:00

Every one of the books over here I have read and can recommend to you for their content. I truly believe each of them to be biblically orthodox in their theology, and they are immensely helpful for your Christian walk. If you would like me to give you more information about any of them, shoot me an email!

For the Glory of Jesus,
David B. Hewitt

The "BlogRoll"

2006-08-01T08:41:00.000-04:00

All of the blogs I have over here I have on my RSS feed and read them regularly. I can recommend each of them to you for reading. I cannot guarantee that I'll agree with everything all of them say, but they are over there fore a reason. :) I will agree with most of them, and I expect it to be in the high 90%'s all of the time.

If you don't know what RSS is and want to set it up, let me know. It is a VERY helpful way to keep track of a lot of blogs quickly. I personally recommend SAGE for use with FireFox.

May God bless you as you are encouraged with what you read here and in those other blogs!

David B. Hewitt

The Grace that Brings Us Faith

2006-07-31T11:15:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, I was reading through the New Testament (something I recommend doing!) and came across a verse in Titus that I had overlooked for a long time.

Since understanding the TULIP doctrines, I have read the Bible more carefully, seaching for doctrines in it, particularly those relating to God's sovereignty. Since I hadn't read through Titus since before I understood what I now know about the Bible's teaching regarding God's working out our salvation according to His perfect plan (and doing that perfectly), I missed this critical teaching regarding Paul's doctrine of justification.[1]

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Do you see it? We are justified by His grace, which is the logical conclusion to what Paul was saying in verse five about us not being saved because of works. This is an amazing statement! Our justification is by God's grace and His grace alone!

...but wait! There is an a critical doctrine called Sola Fide that states very clearly that justification is by FAITH alone! In fact, Paul says that justification is by faith over in Romans:

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are justified by faith! Yet, Paul also says we are justified by grace! How can the two both be true?

Everyone agrees that we are the ones who put faith in Christ, and that He doesn't do the believing for us. We are the ones who do the believing. The question is, how do we believe in Him and how do we get the ability to do it since we are totally depraved? Since we cannot do anything pleasing to God apart from His work in us, how can we put faith in Him, since that is surely pleasing to Him?

The answer (as you might have guessed) is that the faith we need to put in Christ is given to us by an act of God's grace in regeneration! Read that Titus passage again, and then move on to the next one from Paul:

Romans 3:23 for all have inned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

So then, we see that we are justified by God's grace -- as a gift! Furthermore, we also see that this is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus! For those who will be saved (the elect) the grace of their justification (and therefore the faith they would need in order to believe) was purchased for them by Christ when He died on the cross for sins.

Lastly, there is another Scripture that merges the two together.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ah, Paul brings it all together in these two verses! The "this," being a Greek neuter demonstrative seems a bit out of place, since the only antecedents are either feminine (grace and faith) or masculine (the participle "have been saved"). It is common in Greek to use a neuter demonstrative to refer to group of antecedents, whatever their gender, which is exactly what Paul did here. The "being saved" is not of ourselves; it is God's gift. The "grace" is surely not of ourselves; God is gracious to us. The "through faith" also is not of ourselves; as we have seen before, the faith is part of the act of God's grace on His elect.

The Scripture is truly unified in the matter! Praise God for His indescribable gift!

SDG,
DBH

_________________________________________________
1. As always, any Scripture quotation I use comes from the English Standard Version of the Bible, and any emphasis in the text is added by me.

John Piper on Gospel Doctrine

2006-07-30T16:20:00.000-04:00

I've started reading God is the Gospel by John Piper, and like any other book of his I've read, it is turning out to be a wonderful, God-centered read.

On page 22 of this book, he explains beautifully why doctrine matters and how it relates to the Gospel and how we should respond in the midst of it. I thought it a good follow-up to my post that involved doctrine's importance that I put up a couple of days ago:

Gospel doctrine matters because the good news is so full and rich and wonderful that it must be opened like a treasure chest, and all its treasures brought out for the enjoyment of the world. Doctrine is the description of these treasures. Doctrine describes their true value and why they are so valuable. Doctrine guards the diamonds of the gospel from being discarded as mere crystals. Doctrine protects the treasures of the gospel from the pirates who don't like the diamonds but who make their living trading them for other stones. Doctrine polishes the old gems buried at the bottom of the chest. It puts the jewels of gospel truth in order on the scarlet tapestry of history so each is seen in its most beautiful place.

And all the while, doctrine dos this with its head bowed in wonder that it should be allowed to touch the things of God. It whispers praise and thanks as it deals with the diamonds of the King. Its fingers tremble at the cost of what it handles. Prayers ascend for help, lest any stone be minimized or misplaced. And on its knees, gospel doctrine knows it serves the herald. The gospel is no mainly about being explained. Explanation is necessary, but it is no primary. A love letter must be intelligible, but grammar and logic are no tthe point. Love is the point. The gospel is good news. Doctrine serves that. It serves the one whose feet are bruised (and beautiful!) from waslking to the unreached places with news: "Come, listen to the news of God! Listen to what God has done! Listen! Understand! Bow! Believe!"

Wow. Brother Piper, that was uber-cool.

I do hope you all pick up a copy of this book (and James White's book, The Potter's Freedom, but I'll be talking about that a bit later) and revel in the wonder of God as Dr. Piper leads you through the Scriptures with that as the aim.

SDG,
David B. Hewitt

Gently "Throwing Rocks" (i.e. the Correct Way to Correct) and the Importance of Doctrine

2006-07-28T16:00:00.002-04:00

After my recent post on Erwin McManus, and the encouragements related to it that my wife suggested, and the chastising I received from two beloved, trusted friends, I definitely wanted to address these issues soon. Of course, it has taken longer than anticipated to get here, but I do hope my readers will forgive me, and I hope and pray that this post will be encouraging to you to live for the glory of Christ in all your interactions with people.

This post will have there sections, the first dealing with gentleness, the second with correcting and the third with doctrine and critical matters pertaining to all of them.

An Admonition to Gentleness

It is never a fun thing to correct someone, or, for that matter, to be corrected. I've noticed that, many times, when Christians correct each other, they often do so with a correct desire -- at least one. Far too often the truth is maligned nowadays, and when that happens, those who desire to see God honored and glorified jump out with apologetic zeal to defend the truth of the Word of God. Defending the truth of the Bible is important, and there are many people who devote entire ministries to that cause, ministries that are to be supported financially and prayerfully by the saints of Christ. A dear brother, Dr. James White, has such a ministry, and is quite good at expounding the Scriptures and showing their accuracy over and against many of the heresies of the day.

However, zeal for the truth is not the only thing we must possess. When someone desires to correct a brother or sister, a strong desire for the truth to be proclaimed ought not be the sole motivating factor for our action.

Quite frequently, people that spend their time correcting false teaching are labelled as "mean-spirited" and nasty. They are called arrogant, offensive, and some worse things. I've had such comments directed at me, as has Dr. White (though knowing him a little and his gentle spirit I'd have to say those throwing such accusations are nearly always incorrect) and many others. If you're reading this blog, you've probably experienced it as well, perhaps just in trying to help a brother or sister in Christ out with a particular understanding in Scripture.

Surely, at times, we are called mean because people don't like to have their views challenged and are unwilling to be examined by Scripture (as I believe is the case when people criticize Dr. White). I'll deal with this nearer the end of my post. However, I do think, more often than not, if we are honest with ourselves we'll find that some of the criticism is true. Have we been as gentle as we ought to have been?

There is an internet award going around called the "mean-Calvinist" award. I'm sure it's meant as a bit of a joke, but the fact that such an award exists at all seems to indicate that this problem is real. Are we called mean because of our stand for the truth? The answer is often yes. However, is it because the accusers believe our stand itself to be mean or the way in which we stand to be the offense?

Too often, I believe, the problem is the latter. The fact that God has granted us knowledge by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, (not to mention the fact that we have salvation at all), should drive us to be the most humble and gentle people on the face of the earth. The Scriptures have a lot to say about being gentle, and I'd like to address a few of them, beginning with Galatians 5:22-23.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, (23) gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Those of us who have the Spirit of God will manifest His fruit in our lives. One of the characteristics of that fruit of the Spirit is gentleness.

It is useful to note that the word for "fruit" in this passage is a singular noun in the Greek. That being said, we are not talking about multiple different fruit(s) that the Spirit gives us. Rather, when we receive this one fruit, we should have all the characteristics that come with it. If we do show some patience, peace, and love, but fail to show kindness and gentleness along with self-control, we are failing to show forth the Spirit's fruit.

Galatians 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (2) Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Later on, Paul addresses how to restore someone who is caught in a transgression. He doesn't tell us what that transgression is (which is helpful, since then it can be applied in more ways than we might otherwise), but he does tell us how we are to approach such a person: we are to "restore him in a spirit of gentleness." We have the same word here used in chapter five. The message is clear: when we restore someone, we should do so gently. I'll address a couple of passages in my next block:

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; (16) yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, (25) correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

In the contexts here, it would seem Peter and Paul are addressing believers how to respond to non-believers when they (the Christians) are involved in conversations with them, and when they are being confronted for the hope they have in Christ. Paul and Peter both were exhorting their readers to respond in a gentle manner to those who opposed them.

Now, you might have thought (and I DO hope so!), "If these texts are about addressing unbelievers, how does that apply to people IN the church?" Well, that is a good question. I do believe Paul answers it in Galatians 6:

Galatians 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

See that little word "especially"? If we are exhorted to do good and be gentle to non-believers when we are opposed by them, how much more should we respond in such a manner to brothers and sisters in Christ?

I think the answer is clear. On to the next passage!

Colossians 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

The word for "meekness" is the same word for "gentleness" that Paul uses over in Galatians. As God's chosen ones in Christ, holy and beloved by Him, we have no choice in the matter -- we are commanded by our Lord through the Apostle Paul to put on gentleness (meekness), and we must obey.

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, (2) to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.

What? We're supposed to be gentle and show perfect courtesy to who? Again, we see the command to be gentle. We cannot escape it, and we cannot excuse carelessness in this matter.

However, is this the end of the matter? If we fail to be gentle to people, we sin and are in need of repentance -- but is there more that needs to be said?

The Need for Correction

I'd like to start off with this quote by Roy Hargrave:

"If anyone can sit down with an open Bible and show me where I have not preached the truth as it is in the Word of God, I will repent publicly."

I can only say, AMEN! Before reading any further, I want you to scroll back up and look at those verses I used when I was exhorting us to gentleness. Now, did you notice how many times they were in the context of correcting/restoring someone?

Many people nowadays seem to think that if you correct them at all, then you are being unkind, harsh, insincere to the ministry of another, or some other accusation. The Bible on the other hand teaches the opposite. It indicates clearly that we are to be gentle while correcting someone who is errant, but correction needs to happen.

Further, like Pastor Hargrave said in the above quote, we should ALWAYS be open to correction ourselves. The reason is that we are still sinful, and God can and does use people (even those who would not agree with us!), sometimes even people who aren't Christians, to correct us. Regardless of who says something, if it is in line with Scripture and we are not, we MUST submit to it. The authority is in the message, NOT the messenger.

With that in mind, I'd like to cite some of the comments from that Erwin McManus thread from Matt Gumm. He brought out a GREAT point that I'd like to elaborate on when he commented on how I interacted with the interview:

This doesn't sound like a hit job to me. It sounds remarkably similar to the first part of Revelation:

"I know your works...But I have this against you...yet this you have...He who has an ear, let him hear"

This is a great model for all of our critiques, & I think Dave has followed it well.

You can find this example over in Revelation chapter 2. Jesus loves His church more than we ever could, and this is the means He used when addressing problems. He was loving and gentle yet firm, and I think we can learn well from that.

Paul also had some rather stern words for his audiences in his letters with regard to doctrine, especially the content of the Gospel in his letter with to the Galatians. Dan Phillips over at TeamPyro recently wrote an important article about this, and it reflects a lot of my concerns in this matter. You can find it here, and I strongly recommend reading it. In fact, if you don't, you probably won't get the full thrust of this post.

This was the same Paul who wrote those words on gentleness in chapters 5 and 6 of the same book/letter. When something needs to be confronted, then it needs to be confronted! I'm sure many people probably took Paul as being harsh in his statements in that first chapter of Galatians, but that wasn't his point. There was a TERRIBLE danger in Galatia, and Paul addressed it. He didn't do it to be mean; he did it because he loved those people and saw something that threatened them terribly. So, a rebuke was in order, and a strong one at that.

Was Paul's desire to be gentle? Unless you dare think him hypocritical, you must answer yes. Did he come out with a strong rebuke to those to whom he was writing? You had better believe it.

Dr. Tom Ascol said it very well:

The belief that truth is important will necessarily lead one into disagreement and perhaps even confrontation with those who are judged to be deviating from important doctrinal standards. It goes hand-in-hand with contending for the faith (Jude 3) and defending the Gospel (Philip. 1:7).

Such concern need not (indeed should not) be expressed in a hostile or contentious manner. But it should be expressed.
From The Founders Journal, Issue 9, article "Historic Southern Baptist Principles"

I couldn't agree more. So then, we should go forward gently correcting others, and always being willing to receive correction ourselves[1].

...but why is this so important? I've touched on the importance of it briefly already, but I want to expound upon that a little more.

Doctrine and Theology Matter[2]

Those who do away with Christian doctrine are the worst enemies of Christian religion.

- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

What the Bible teaches is important. We MUST know what it teaches, and we cannot allow ourselves to become negligent in teaching its truths to those in our churches, nor can we become slack in continuing to reinforce (and perhaps conform!) ourselves with (to) the teachings of Scripture. Given the fact that we do indeed still sin, we must renew our minds and never think we can continue to remain true to the Word of God without frequenly taking it into ourselves by hearing, reading, studying, and memorizing it.

I have found that there are two different approaches nowadays that really end up saying the same thing about doctrine when it comes down to the root of the matter; one is just more explicit than the other. On the one hand, you have your more "traditional" churches (like many in the SBC) who, often rather covertly, shy away from discussing/teaching theology and doctrine. They do this by appealing to what they consider something more important: evangelism. Statements like, "Why have this discussion? Go share the Gospel with 5 people and tell me then which was more worthwhile!" and "We cannot take the time with this since there are so many without Jesus who are going to Hell," are very common.

On the other hand, it seems many in the Emergent/post-modern paradigm don't care for it either. Rather than focusing on doctrine and theology, "loving people" is given the center stage. Where the more traditional churches are implicit with this belief, modern churches tend to be more explicit. They both end up saying pretty much the same thing, however.

This is of course NOT to say that loving people and doing evangelism are not important -- what kind of Christians would we be if we didn't strive to do BOTH those things?

The problem arises when we try to separate the two, and when people do that, they often seem to misunderstand the point of biblical doctrine to begin with. A fellow blogger posted this a while back, and though later he confirmed he wasn't trying to undermine doctrine, it serves as a good illustration for what I've been talking about:

“I think we should stop trying to get people to believe a certain set of doctrines, do certain things that WE want them to do as a “good Christian”, get them to say all the “right” things…and rather start loving them like Jesus did.”

See where someone could get the idea that he was putting doctrine down? In any case, I posted a fairly lengthy response to it, and it still embodies what I believe. I'll repost it here:

Careful, [brother]. I think you are making a mistake by lumping doctrine, real Bible Doctrine, in with things like “programs” and a church’s “rules.” Doctrine is nothing more than the teaching of the Bible; it is what the word means.

Yes, Jesus spent time with people, and He loved them. He didn’t love them all in the same fashion (note the disciples versus those who did leave Him), but indeed, He loved them all. However, when we tell people that we need to love Jesus, and that we need to be about loving Jesus, what do we tell them?

We do NOT give them a program or a set of rules. I would agree with you completely here: we have done that and make it so people think they are “ok” because they are involved in enough programs or follow a certain ruleset that their church has given them.

This is NOT biblical doctrine.

Let me repeat this: This is NOT biblical doctrine.

What was it that Jesus did when He was with people? He TAUGHT them. He used parables, object lessons, and straight up told them the teachings of the Scripture — He gave them doctrine. The Sermon on the Mount is a HUGE testimony to this. How many times did Jesus say “Blessed are the…” and then give them a characteristic of someone in the Kingdom of God? How many times did He say “You have heard…. but now I tell you…” and then show them what the real intent of the teaching of the Bible (in this case the Law and Prophets) was meant to do? Jesus tells us not once but twice in Matthew five what the intent of the teachings of the Bible are meant to do:

Matthew 5:16 “In the same way, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”

Matthew 5:44 “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45) so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

(above emphasis mine)

Jesus’s point for us doing the law rightly and for having the characteristics of the Kingdom was to point to our God and give Him glory! When we discover what the Bible teaches our motivation ought to be to praise God that we can now be more conformed to His character or understand how He works better — it is for His glory! We then love Jesus MORE!

I had a wonderful discovery over in Romans 3 the other day. It confirmed a truth I already knew, but I didn’t realize that it was there in that passage. In verses 21-26, Paul makes mention that we are justified by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Jesus. Wait a minute — doesn’t Paul say in Romans 5:1 that we are justified by FAITH? Yes, indeed he does! What then does this passage mean?

Paul is telling us that we are justified through faith and the redemption Jesus accomplished on the cross — our faith comes through what he paid on the cross and purchased for us!

Glory be to God! I praised God right there and thought how awesome He was. I knew faith had its source in Jesus and that He purchased it for His people on the cross, and now I can see how the Scripture teaches it clearly.

I was excited! I’m also convinced that is the effect that doctrine is supposed to have on us.

The Bible is useful for teaching! Paul shows us this in:
2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness[.]”

The word “teaching” is the Greek word didaskalia, which Thayer tells us means the following:

Thayer Definition:

1) teaching, instruction
2) teaching
2a) that which is taught, doctrine
2b) teachings, precepts

Doctrine and teaching are critical and always have their place. Programs and rules a particular church might be following may not always have their place.

I know you agree with me, and I’m not attacking you — I love you dearly my brother. However, when you say things like this you scare me to death! I can just see someone we are responsible to teach and disciple get on here and read what you are saying and think to themselves, “Well, all I need to do then is love Jesus, and not worry so much about the teachings of the Bible.” The problem is that without the teachings of the Bible, without doctine, we cannot know what it means to love Jesus!

I think that it is AWESOME that God is showing you the importance of loving Him and others — it is something we ALL, including myself, need to be reminded of constantly! However, in doing so, please be VERY careful when you begin to categorize things that get in the way of that. Programs and rules indeed can and do get in the way of it. Doctrine rightly understood will NOT get in the way of loving Jesus.

For God’s Glory,
David Benjamin Hewitt

Dr. Tom Ascol said it a bit simpler:

God's truth was never intended to illuminate the understanding while leaving the affections and the will untouched. To be properly received it must reach all three. Doctrinal precision and devotional warmth are equally important for balanced, vibrant Christian living.
From The Founders Journal, Issue 8, article "An Attempt at Self Identification"

I couldn't agree more!

It is not EITHER evangelism/loving people OR doctrinal purity -- it is BOTH of them together. If we fail to embrace doctrine, good, SOLID biblical doctrine, then we risk falling into the errors Paul warned against in Galatians 1, and we quickly lose the means by which to do evangelism and love people. If our theology and doctrine are not right, our practice too will be errant.

Further, Paul had a very strong warning to watch out for those who would bring in corrupt doctrines:

Romans 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (18) For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Paul laid the blame for division among us squarely at the feet of those who were opposed to the doctrines Paul taught (in Romans here, but also elsewhere). Such people are not serving Christ but their own appetites.

Paul was likely referring to false teachers who were not truly wanting to serve Christ at all. However, how often do we do the very things that Paul was condemning those false teachers for doing? If we dare to teach something contrary to Scriptural doctrine, whether we intend to or not, we end up with those results. Divisions happen, and we are guilty.

Theology matters. Doctrine matters. When people are not in line with sound doctrine, or if they are marginalizing it, then correction needs to happen. However, that correction needs to be done gently, even as it is done firmly.

May God continue to grant us Reformation and Revival, conforming to His glorious Word!

Soli Deo Gloria!
David B. Hewitt
_________________________________________________________
1. Something else worthy to note is that when we seek to correct another, we need to make sure we are right with God about the matter we're addressing. Jesus makes this very, VERY clear over in Matthew.

2. This is a link to an off-site artcle that Dr. James White wrote recently on the importance of theology. He gives a quote from a well-respected leader of the recent past in the US who accomplished some truly excellent things. However, just because he DID accomplish these things doesn't mean that everything he did/believed should be embraced. Discernment is in order, which is the point of this third section of my article.

Or Not...

2006-07-26T17:23:00.000-04:00

Well, I intended to get a few posts done today, and I still might get one done this evening after church, but I ended up going and helping some of my students paint part of the school hallway where I work.

Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

Go figure. :)

SDG,
DBH

Tomorrow is Blog and Bible Day

2006-07-25T19:27:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow I plan to spend a good amount of time in the Scriptures. Afterwards, I plan to finish my posts about Gentleness and Doctrine and the one on Blue Like Jazz.

So, look for a couple of REALLY long posts tomorrow!

SDG,
DBH

Thanking God for Dirty Diapers

2006-07-25T18:57:00.000-04:00

I hope you like the title. :)

I just got back from a bit of vacation with my family. We (my wife, kids, and I) went to the St. Louis area (specifically, Fairview Heights, IL) last Friday morning. Since I live in Indianapolis, the best route is a straight across on Interstate 70. Well, on the last leg of the trip, there was a very large thunderstorm we were driving through.

I actually like driving through storms. It helps keep me alert. :)

In any case, just as we were about to drive by the last rest area on westbound Interstate 70 in Illinois before you get to I-55 (which we were thinking about taking south to I-64 via I-255 and then to Fairview... I smelled it.

You got it. Our son Benjamin had decided to fill his pants and it was pretty obvious to me that he had done so. My wife is usually the one who notices stuff like that, but regardless, we needed to stop, so we did at that rest area.

Upon arriving, we discover that there is no power at the rest area. For those of you who have been following the news, the entire area, west of St. Louis to O'Fallon IL had a terrible bit of winds and a few tornadoes. 535,000 people ended up not having power, and I guess the rest area was affected to; we were just east of Collinsville.

About 15 minutes later after changing Benjamin in the dark (I had a flashlight, thankfully), we got ready to go. As we were getting ready to go out the door I listended to a trucker who said that over at the I-55 junction there was a tornado that went through Collinsville (a city we had to travel through to get to Fairview) and knocked power lines down on top of a truck right off the interstate. I didn't think much of it... until we left, and SAW that aforementioned truck and Collinsville in a bit of a mess.....about 15 minutes down the road after we left the rest area.

If we hadn't stopped, then I might not be writing this message. There was obvious damage on both sides of the interstate; it looked like the tornado went right across the highway.

So, that is why I am thanking God for dirty diapers -- or at least that one. :) God might just have used it to save my life, as well as the lives of my family.

SDG,
David B. Hewitt

Combining a Couple of Posts

2006-07-18T11:30:00.000-04:00

I'm putting my "importance of Doctrine" post at the end of my "gentleness" post and making both into one. They logically flow together anyway, and I'll be working on them today. I do hope to finish that post, and then I'll finish my Blue Like Jazz review.

Thanks for your patience.

SDG,
DBH

The GOSPEL tract is available for download!

2006-07-11T20:54:00.000-04:00

Now you can download your own copy of it in PDF format if you like. You'll have to write in your own church information and sign them of course, but feel free to duplicate them as you wish!

Here is how it works. You'll need to make a double sided copy of it. Then, cut it in half the SHORT way. Then, take the P and EL section and place it OVER the G and OS section. The title page and back should be on the outside now.

Then fold them together and staple the left side of it in two places right along the edge. You would have created a four page document. It should also read in order of the presentation found here. :)

Click here to get yours! The fileserver I use is free, so there will be a page on your way there. I in NO WAY am supporting anything that File Lodge links to, and even object to some of it. I wouldn't recommend trusting anything on the way there -- other than my tract or anything else I put there myself of course. :)

I hope you find it useful in communicating the Gospel to people!

SDG,
Dave Hewitt

The "Memory Bank"

2006-07-05T00:09:00.000-04:00

This section of my blog serves a dual purpose.

First, it is for accountability. I am trying to memorize Scripture, working through whole books. It is not a quick process, and often I can become lazy in the matter. The rewards are very great, but there is indeed work. So, if the "memory bank" shows no change for a long period of time (a week or more) then I might need a small rebuke to keep going in this particular discipline. Feel free to email me and encourage me to continue (this also applies to the "I'm Currently Reading" section). I'd love to hear from you anyway.

Secondly, it is to encourage you in the process of memorization. It certainly isn't impossible, and I use a method like this[1]:

1.) Read one verse of Scripture out loud, hyper-focusing on each word as if you were photographing it with your mind. Do NOT forget to include the verse number!
2.) Do this ten times, or if it is a long verse, as many times as there are words in the verse. Emphasizing a different word each time can also help.
3.) Close your Bible, and repeat the verse to yourself 10 times (or as many as the verse has words). You are now done for the day.
4.) The next day, repeat the previous day's verse 10 times (or as many times as the verse has words) without looking. If you must look, do it; better to look once or twice and get it right than memorize it wrong. Be sure you have it perfect.
5.) Do the next verse as in steps 1, 2, and 3.
6.) The next day, do the previous day's verse as in step 4.
7.) "All verses together." That is, say all of the verses you've learned (just once each), making sure to remember the verse number.
8.) Repeat step 4, then steps 1, 2, 3.
9.) Repeat step 4, then step 7, then steps 1, 2, and 3, and keep repeating in this fashion until you are completely finished with the book.

If you have to say a verse more than ten times, so be it. Maybe your memory isn't all that great, and you need to do it 100 times -- well, you CAN do it 100 times.

After a while, the majority of your time will be spent in "all verses together." Don't be upset about it, but rejoice that God has blessed you with the memory of His wondrous Word!
________________________________________________
1. Updated, 7/10/2006 -- I should have put this in originally! This method of Scripture memorization is an adaptation I've made to something I read in a book by John Piper a while back. The book, When I Don't Desire God is a great one for sure, and this information (most of it) appears on page 122. Even though it is not an exact quote, I don't want to make the mistake of not citing sources at the risk of plagiarism. All is well now. :)