A Look at Lamentation 3:37 - 38 (Pt. 1)

Lamentations 3:37-38

Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?

This passage says so much is such few words that it boggles the mind. Over the next several posts, I hope to treat several aspects of it. The plan of explanation that I intend is as follows:

1: To whom do the words ‘who is this’ apply?

2: What is it to “speak,” and it “come to pass?”

3: How does God’s primary agency affect the good deeds of men?

4: How does God’s primary agency affect the evil deeds of men?

5: Contentment with Divine Providence

Part 1 will seek to demonstrate that the “who” of this passage is none other than God Almighty. By way of application, we are warned against presumption regarding the future and our plans for it.

Part 2 deals with what the passage means when it says “speaks” and it “comes to pass.” The meaning of these words can be none other than absolute Divine sovereignty.

Part 3 seeks to address the thorny issue of how God’s sovereignty over all things affects men’s good deeds, for this is no less thorny than the question of how God’s absolute sovereignty relates to men’s evil deeds. Scripture teaches both that God is the Prime Mover behind all our good and that our good deeds are genuinely rewardable.

Part 4 attempt to tackle the ever thornier question of how God’s sovereignty over all relates to the evil deeds men do. As with the previous post, Scripture teaches both that God is the Prime Mover behind all our deeds, but that we are morally responsible agents whose evil deeds are genuinely punishable. Several passages of Scripture are brought to bear on this difficult issue.

Part 5 brings the four previous posts to a close with a practical application. We are exhorted to live in peace and contentment with Divine Providence. God is sovereign over all things and He has ordered all things with a view to His own glory. We should seek our ultimate satisfaction by submission to whatever role He has created for us to play in His order.

I do not assume that this treatment will be comprehensive, but I am attempting to be Scriptural.

Ears to Hear

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Matt 13:9 (KJV)

This is another one of those frequently misused statements. How many times have you heard this verse quoted in a context that implies willingness or unwillingness on the part of the listeners? I hope you can see the flaw there.

Jesus did not say, “Who hath ears, let him listen.” Listening is a conscious act; hearing is not. If you have ears that work, you can’t help but hear. Whether or not you listen is another subject. But Jesus isn’t speaking of attentiveness. He is speaking of the actual ability to hear. The very statement insinuates, nay, presupposes, that many of His listeners did not possess the spiritual faculty of hearing.

This quite interestingly illustrates what the Reformers called the general and the efficacious calls. When the Gospel is preached there is always a mixed audience. Some have been awakened by God’s Spirit and some have not. Some will be regenerated, some will not. The distinction lies not in the hearers, for Scripture declares, “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). The difference lies in God’s sovereignty. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

Haven’t you ever heard (or perhaps you’ve actually spoken this) someone say that they grew up in church, or that they attended church for a long time and never heard the Gospel? Now, in today’s watered down sugar-coated Christian world, I believe that this is theoretically possible, however, it seems more likely to me that they are simply misinterpreting their own experience. Formerly, they had no ears to hear. Then when God’s appointed time arrived, He sovereignly regenerated them. They then had the faculty of hearing with which they heard the efficacious call of the Gospel to believe in Christ. They could easily have heard the same Gospel preached every Sunday for years. But until God, in His absolute sovereignty, opened their ears, they didn’t have ears to hear – thus they didn’t hear.

This reminds me of Theophilus of Antioch, the 3rd Century Apologist. Writing to an unbeliever, says, “For God is seen by those who are enabled to see Him when they have the eyes of their soul opened: for all have eyes; but in some they are overspread, and do not see the light of the sun. Yet it does not follow, because the blind do not see, that the light of the sun does not shine; but let the blind blame themselves and their own eyes." (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus bk.1 ch.2)

Jesus' own audiences demonstrate this. No one could say that He didn't preach properly to them or that He hid His light under a bushel. But many that physically "heard" Him rejected Him to the point of crying, "Crucify!"

Something For Continuists To Ponder

I was recently reading Warfield’s Counterfeit Miracles when I came across this incredible paragraph.

“Pretensions by any class of men to the possession and use of miraculous powers as a permanent endowment are, within the limits of the Christian church, a specialty of Roman Catholicism. Denial of these pretensions is part of the protest by virtue of which we bear the name of Protestants. ‘In point of interpretation, the history of Protestantism,’ as an Edinburgh reviewer, writing in trying conditions in 1831, justly puts it, ‘is a uniform disclaimer of any promise in the Scriptures that miraculous powers should be continued in the Church.’ In point of fact (we may slightly modify his next sentence to declare), the claim to the possession and exercise of powers of this description by individuals has always been received in Protestant circles with a suspicion which experience has only too completely justified.” (B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, Lecture 4)

I can only hope that the reader grasps its significance. Warfield is as much as saying that belief in the cessation of the charismata is distinctly Protestant and belief in the continuation of the charismata is distinctly Roman Catholic. That is an incredible statement. I am certain that it is also a very correct assessment.

One of the doctrine distinctions of the Reformation was the insistence on the principle of Sola Scriptura. Whatever else that may mean, this much is certain: since the completion of the canon we do NOT look for any further revelation from God. To do so is to sin against the Triune Godhead, since He is the divine Author of it. One cannot with consistency hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and believe in continued revelatory gifts. Sola Scriptura and charismatism are like oil and water.

Roman Catholicism has no problem adding to Scripture. Every time the pope speaks, he is assumed to speak infallibly for God (as God in fact since he is said to be Christ’s vicar). Now comes the burning question. Where the Reformers right? The answer: Of course they were. Ergo, enough of this spineless compromise with popery! Millions of evangelical churches, so-called, have already compromised with Rome in her Pelagian worship of free will and her denial of substitutionary atonement.

When I was a Pentecostal, I used to get angry when someone claimed that charismatism was popish. I know better now. Warfield reminds us that rejection of charismatism is one of the things that makes us Protestants.

I hate when people pull punches, so I won’t. I am amazed at the supposedly “Reformed” people who entertain the idea of the continuation of the charismata. I have heard a hundred arguments, and to be honest, they all sound just as weak and mystic as the Pentecostal arguments. So to all those Reformed folks out there who entertain the possible continuation of the charismata, I have one thing to say: Refute Warfield point by point, then we’ll talk. And to those who enjoy dissing the Reformers, I say: Go back to Rome where you belong!

Knocking at Whose Door?

Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Rev 3:20 (ASV)

I don’t want to expound this passage so much as to complain about its frequent abuse. This is one of my pet peeves, actually. Maybe once in my life have I heard this verse treated in its proper context – and I preached the sermon!

What I am referring to is this verse prominent place in evangelistic appeals, aka altar calls. Anyone with a smidge of Bible training knows context is king. But this verse somehow manages to evade submission to that principle. I haven’t a clue why.

First of all, the verse comes at the end of a letter to a church. So, the altar call usage is shot in the head right there. (Not to mention the fact that the altar call is an unbiblical practice to begin with!) It is not addressed to unbelievers. But that hasn’t stopped millions of preachers from violating one of the most basic principles of exegesis. Nor has it stopped song writers. Nor has it stopped painters.

Secondly, using this verse in the context of evangelism presents a very flawed image of Christ. Christ is presented to the sinner as some kind of limp-wristed weakling who is reduced to standing around knocking at people’s doors and pleading for attention. I remember the words to one of those despicable songs: “Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart, Oh, how He wants to come in...” That kind of weak-kneed Christianity makes me sick. Christ overcame sin and death, but apparently He can’t overcome the impotent sinner’s resistance.

If we were to present the image correctly, we would have the sinner stacking up furniture against the door trying to keep out Christ who is riding a Sherman tank. All the resistance in the world didn’t hinder Christ from getting Saul on the road to Damascus.

“Oh, but man has freewill,” I hear someone object. Really? You mean that the masses of humanity who live in the vile clutches of false religion, alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, hypocrisy, violence, theft, etc, all do so because they are free? That is the most peculiar notion of freedom I have ever encountered, to say the least. No, my friend, Scripture teaches that man’s will is NOT free, but is in bondage. The unregenerate person is not weak or sick; he is dead! (Eph 2:1) Not only do dead men tell no tales; they don’t open doors either.

In this post I don’t intend to show the error of free-willism or question the appropriateness of the altar call. I merely wish to ask preachers to STOP using Revelation 3:20 in reference to salvation. It has nothing to do with it.

"No Creed But The Bible" is a Creed!

A Case For Creeds, Catechisms and Confessions of Faith

Creeds and Confessions of faith used to seem strange to me. I grew up Pentecostal. I heard the old mantra: “No creed but the Bible,” more times than you can shake a stick at.

My study of Church history has led me to see the vital importance of creeds, catechisms and confessions of faith. The most famous creeds and doctrinal statements all came out of times of great theological turmoil. The church was forced to clarify her beliefs in a standardized form that could be used to judge anything taught by anyone.

I anticipate someone saying, “Isn’t the Bible sufficient?” To which I answer, “Of course it is!” A creed, confession or catechism is not an addition to anything the Bible teaches. They are simply tools which cut to the chase and get at what we mean when we say we believe the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church falsely teaches that regeneration is effected by the sacrament of baptism. She also falsely teaches that salvation is not by justification alone. She professes to believe the Bible. Arminians teach decisional regeneration. They also teach that salvation is maintained by works. They claim to believe the Bible. Reformed theology rightly teaches that salvation is by faith alone, without any reference to works; that indeed, the faith itself is a gift of God.

One purpose of creeds, catechisms and confessions of faith should be obvious. They serve as a basis for Christian unity. So much is made of unity these days, but so little is made of the basis of that unity. N.T. Wright has just proclaimed that schism is never justifiable. I beg to differ. I will not be fellowshipping with anyone who corrupts the Gospel the way that he does. Christian unity is not some amorphous good feeling that we foist upon ourselves. It is attained by agreement over doctrine. I can’t stand the tired old refrain: “doctrine divides.” My cheap and obvious answer to that is: Duh! It’s supposed to divide! How else to we at least take a stab at maintaining some modicum of doctrinal purity?

The greatest use and service creeds, catechisms and confessions of faith provide is in the instruction of the Church. They are a tool for training new converts and children in the faith. They protect the purity of the church’s teaching by saying in effect, “This is what we believe the Bible teaches.” As long as everyone adheres, there is perfect unity.

Getting back to the old “No creed but the Bible” line. People who advocate this overlook two important facts.

1. That itself is a creed! Where in Scripture is the line, “No creed but the Bible.” That statement is a man-made statement which exists outside of Scripture and is professed and believed.

2. It is unspeakably arrogant. The holder to the “No creed but the Bible” creed is saying. “I am perfectly happy ignoring the collective wisdom of God’s people and substituting my own unassisted wisdom in its place.” If you won’t listen to the collective wisdom of the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession of Faith, why should I trust you?

The simple fact is the choice is not between the Bible and a creed, as creed repudiators often assert. The choice is between the tried and proven wisdom of God’s people as formulated in times of great trial and upheaval and the creed hater’s own private judgment and unguided wisdom.

Furthermore, what tool does the creed and confession hater use for training new believers? How does he train his children? Without a standard and structured formula that has the unified consent of God’s people as a thoroughly biblical representation of what they believe, he is left to his own whims. There just is no good reason for not using the great instructional tools our forefathers fought to give us.