Divine Sovereignty Over Men's Evil

When Calvinists defend the Reformed doctrine of Divine Sovereignty, it is common to cite 1 Samuel 2:26 as a Scriptural example of God’s sovereign control over everything, including the so-called free-will of men. Genesis 50:20 is another passage to which appeal is made to demonstrate this doctrine. In both cases we see men freely doing evil acts, yet Scripture claiming that God Himself worked in such a way that these evil acts would be freely done, yet He would overrule them for His righteous purposes.

Without a doubt, the sovereignty of God in the reprobation of sinners is a thorny issue. But when I look at Scripture, I find examples of God’s sovereignty of evil men’s actions that are more compelling than the aforementioned two passages.

First, of course is the Samson and Delilah incident. Samson may have been self-absorbed, but he wasn’t stupid. So how do we account for the fact that he continued to live with Delilah as she “vexed him to death?” She tried to have him assassinated on many occasions, yet he finally confides in her regarding the secret of his strength. He had no reason to believe that she had any noble intentions for asking such a question. She had the gall to say, “You don’t love me,” to a man she had tried to get rubbed out! Samson should’ve been the one saying that. Yet in the face of a mountain of evidence that she wanted him dead, despite days of nagging and betrayal, Samson willingly tells her the secret he cannot doubt that she wants to use for his destruction. If this doesn’t demonstrate God’s sovereignty, nothing does.

Next, there is the infamous dividing of Israel into two kingdoms. When Solomon was still alive and reigning, the prophet Ahijah and the seer Iddo had warned that Jeroboam would lead Israel in a revolt that would divide the kingdom, leaving only a remnant to David’s descendants. Rehoboam gets faced with an opportunity to use his free-will to override this dire prophecy. He could say what the people wanted to hear and thus maintain rule over the whole nation. What does he do? Does he listen to the elders, thus averting certain disaster? Does he force God to regroup and implement Plan B? No. He listens to the stupid advice of his buddies and causes Israel to revolt against him exactly as God had said.

Thirdly, there is the story of Ahab and Micaiah in 1 Kings 22. Micaiah gives a clear, unmistakable prophetic message from God that Ahab will be killed in battle Ramoth-gilead. Not only that, but he explains that a lying sprit in the mouths of false prophets will tell Ahab to go out into battle. Moreover, Ahab knows that his prophets are merely yesmen and that Micaiah is a true prophet of God. In the face of all of this, what does Ahab do? Does he stay home to show that he is the master of his own destiny? Does he stay home to show that his will is free enough to make God change His plans? No. He goes into battle and gets killed, just as God said.

When Arminians wax eloquent about so-called free-will, or when Open theists speak of God being forced to guess about man’s acts and regroup when we catch Him off guard, I wonder if they have ever read their Bibles.

The Sacramental Beauty of Baptism

Every baptism administered, including our children's baptism, is, in one sense, more about the Church that it is about the children. That is because the Church is a living organism. It is a body: God's covenant people. The congregation is the covenant family of God. We have often lost the grasp of Covenant Theology which our forefathers had. When we view the congregation as a collection of individuals, then we are not thinking along the lines of Covenant Theology: we are thinking like Baptists. The congregation is a living organism.

As with all living organisms, there is included some dead matter. For instance, the hair and nails of my body (which is a living organism), though they are not living material, they are nevertheless part of the living organism. So when we view the Church as a living organism, we acknowledge that there are those among us who are not living partakers of covenant life.

Baptism sacramentally reminds us of God's covenant faithfulness. It is vital to remember that baptism is a sacrament. So many people view baptism as pertaining primarily to the children being baptized. But that is not the primary focus of baptism. Baptism is first and foremost a sacrament in the full sense of that word. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is the wonderful means ordained by God, whereby it pleases Him to communicate to us the promises of the Gospel. The sacraments are God's ordained way to visibly reaffirm His covenant faithfulness. This means that baptism is administered, first of all for the benefit of the whole congregation. Through the sacrament of baptism God's confirms His covenant to His people. The baptism of the child is a means toward that end.

Our children's baptism is God's affirmation that they are received unto grace in Christ; that they are welcome; that they may take refuge in the Savior. We need to point our children to Christ as early as possible, because that's what their baptism communicates. The very sacrament of baptism itself confirms that what our children need is regeneration in order to be living members of the kingdom of God. This is what is signified by the dipping or sprinkling of water. In baptism, God the Father confirms to His Church as an organic body, and to His children individually, that He makes an eternal covenant of grace with us. Every time the baptismal formula is repeated, the congregation as a whole, as well as the individual members of it, may take comfort from the reaffirmation of God the Father's unbreakable and eternal covenant of grace with them. God's children should never be in doubt whether that relationship with Him is an abiding relationship. As often as baptism is administered, we are reminded of these truths and are sacramentally reassured of God's faithfulness.

Baptism reassures God's children of the efficacy of the atoning work of God the Son. We are reminded over and over through the sacrament of baptism that Christ's work for our sins is finished and that He has paid for them all. We have assurance that we may repair the the cleansing fount again and again. We need not be in doubt whether or not our sins have been forgiven. Baptism sacramentally reminds the Church that she has been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Baptism also demonstrates the sealing work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit seals us and dwells in us, assuring us that we will be continually sanctified as members of the body of Christ. This is a tremendous reassurance because we often grieve the Holy Spirit with our sin. We learn in baptism, that although we sin, we cannot sin His presence away. He may withhold His operation in us to chastise us for grieving Him, but He will never depart. Baptism is the reassurance of this truth. God sacramentally reassures His people of the ongoing indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit and that the work of the Spirit cannot possibly fail.

It is so important to grasp that baptism, like the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament, not simply an ordinance. Reducing it to an ordinance removes all the emphasis from God's covenantal faithfulness to His people and place the focus on the act of the individual believer. Baptism is for the benefit of the whole congregation, first of all as a sacrament. It is secondary that it initiates the child into the covenant community. Reversing this order, placing the infant being baptized in focus, reveals a Baptistic mindset regarding baptism. It places the individual over the family to which he belongs. In baptism we enter the covenant community, we do not supersede it. This is, at bottom, the difference between credobaptists and paedobaptists. Credobaptists always put, in our estimation, undue emphasis, on the individual and his/her decision to join with God's people.

The Reformed theologians of generations past, in order to affirm their belief that in baptism our children are received unto grace (not: they are recipients of grace), simply quote Genesis 17:7. Why quote from here rather than from a New Testament passage? Because they took all of Scripture in order to establish the doctrine of baptism. The Old Testament is the great presupposition of the New Testament. There is an organic unity of the two Testaments. The entire Old Testament is the foundation of the practice of infant baptism. So when a Baptist asks you to show him a text in the Bible that demands that infants be baptized, you can say, "That is very simple. The entire Old Testament is my text." The entire Old Testament demands the inclusion of children in the visible manifestation of God's covenant people: the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The entire Old Testament bears witness to this text of Genesis. The theme is that God is the God of His people and of their seed. This theme is woven all through the Old Testament. It is the very warp and woof of Old Testament theology. That is why the New Testament opens with genealogies. It is demonstrating to us that God is faithful to His covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Apostate Christianity: A First Hand Encounter, Part 2

Yesterday I began a short critique of a nearby Congregationalist church. I picked up a few printouts of their pastor’s sermons last Tuesday and I read over them. One need not read in much detail to see how vapid, hollow, insipid and vacuous these sermons are. I cannot even imagine how dreadfully dull it must be to sit under this kind of teaching week after week.

I noticed that on the sermon dated September 26, 2010 that among the texts for the message was a passage from the Qur’an. I’m not about citing the Qur’an, but if I read it from the pulpit, it will be to demonstrate the evil nature of the religion it purveys. But how does New England Congregational use the citation from the Qur’an? The title of the sermon says it all: So, What Does New England Congregational Believe, Anyway? The Biblical passages were both from Ephesians. Mind you, there is no exposition of these passages; they are merely quoted at the beginning of the message. On the face of it, it would appear that the pastor is comfortable with putting the Qur’an side by side with Sacred Scripture.

Lest you think I am jumping to unwarranted conclusions, I must hasten to add that I checked several of the sermon print-outs, and in every case, there was a quotation from the Qur’an. So this was not an isolated incident.

Well, let’s ask the burning question: What does this church believe, anyway? Remember, these are their words, not mine. In fact, the pastor actually remarks that many members of the congregation were surprised that the church even had a statement of its beliefs! He says, “Consensus on theological beliefs cannot be easily found here because of the wide spectrum of belief about the nature of God, the person of Jesus, or a ghost that is holy.” I submit to you that that is blasphemy.

So, “tongue in cheek,” by their own admission, here is what they believe:

1. We believe in an interpretation of faith that allows us to encounter God in any way God chooses to come to us.

2. We believe that by being theologically liberal we are best able to respect individual differences in faith and pilgrimage, worship God, honor the bible, and follow Christ’s teaching. (The lower case “b” in bible is not a typo on my part; that is exactly how it appears in their print-out. Surely this says something about their view of the Bible.)

3. We believe in the teaching of the Gospel variously interpreted in an environment that does not require strict adherence to a creed.

4. We believe that being inclusive of all people is fundamental to our faith community.

If you do not find this heretical in the extreme, you have cause to question your profession of Christianity. This is an apostasy worthy of Rome. A Christianity with no doctrinal content, a Christianity whose beliefs cannot be codified in a creed is a Christianity not worth having! God save us from such “Christianity.”

Apostate Christianity: A First Hand Encounter

We frequently hear about the apostate character of the mainline denominations, but because we attend more theologically sound churches, it is a rare occasion that we actually get a firsthand look at the depth of this apostasy.

This past Election Day was such an occasion for me. The polling place is a Congregation church. Right next to the tables where you check in to vote there is a rack on the wall with flyers and leaflets. Two or three of the slots have sermon print-outs. I picked up a couple to read, just out of curiosity. I must confess, the description “apostate” used in reference to many of the mainline denominations is not misapplied with regard to the output of this church’s pulpit!

One sermon urges us to be like Jesus and just soak in the sheer joy of being alive. The sermon speaks of Jesus having fun, sucking back a few cold ones with his friends and telling some good jokes (i.e., the Parables). I must admit, I have never read a parable I found funny, nor have I ever heard anyone even insinuate that they were jokes. If you were to read this guy’s “sermon” (what an abuse of the word!), you’d think that the Gospel’s are full of stories about Jesus cracking jokes and laughing hysterically all the time.

What’s missing from this message? How about the Gospel! Do you mean to tell me that the twelve Apostles were martyred for the message of “have fun and enjoy life?” Polycarp was burned at the stake for this? Cyprian was martyred for enjoying life? No God, no Trinity, no sin, no grace, no substitutionary atonement, no imputation, no distinctly Christian content at all. Yet they have the audacity to call this a Christian church!

I will detail a few more of the apostate things they teach tomorrow. But just think: This is a so-called witness for Christ and His Gospel. God forbid that any church should turn out like New England Congregational, a synagogue of Satan.

A Cessationist Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, Part 2

When we look at verse 12 in light of all that we have already established, a clearer picture emerges. Verse 12 is the linchpin in the Charismatic argument for their supposed "proof" that that which is "perfect" refers to heaven.

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: for I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

These words are often construed by Pentecostals and Charismatics to refer to heaven. Even many who repudiate the Continuist position see here a reference to heaven. I think I can demonstrate that this is NOT the case.

1. If Paul is speaking of heaven, then he is saying that in his glorified state he would have omniscience. Since this is impossible, Paul cannot possibly be saying that. This contradicts plenty of Scriptural statements regarding God's infinitude and our finitude. Glorification is not deification. When Paul says, "then shall I know even as also I am known," he is speaking of how God knows him. So if he is referring to heaven, then we've made Paul claim that with glorification comes omniscience. This alone should put the nail in the coffin of this interpretation. Certainly our understanding will be enlarged when we get to heaven, but that is not the same as saying that glorified saints will receive a kind of omniscience. Heaven will be a perfect state, but we will not have omniscience any more than we will have omnipotence.

2. In verse 13, Paul places this in the present age. For he says, "And NOW abideth faith, hope and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." The word "abideth" means "remains." This is in direct contradistinction to what he has just said in verse 8-10 would fade away and cease. We have already pointed out how hope and faith do not survive the eternal state. I no longer need to hope to the arrival of what I already possess. So after saying that some things will fade away, he tells us about things that will remain. Spiritual graces will remain in the Church after the spiritual gifts pass away. This can only apply to the Church in this present age. Let me reiterate: The spiritual graces continue once the spiritual gifts pass away. There is no debating that point. But the spiritual graces are only applicable to the Church during this present age. Therefore, the spiritual gifts MUST pass away during this present age. This means that since "that which is perfect" comes after the miraculous gifts that do not remain, while the spiritual graces do, this places "that which is perfect" during this present age as well. 

3. To teach that "that which is perfect" refers to the state of Glory involves a contradiction. It affirms a passing away of knowledge at the very point when greater knowledge is said to be attained. If we will know perfectly in Heaven, how can knowledge pass away when we get there? Pentecostals use verse 12 to say that a perfect knowledge will be attained in heaven. In other words, we will experience an increased knowledge there. But this is said in the face of saying that our state of continuing revelation throughout the church age will only cease when we get to heaven. This is saying that A is A and not A at the same time. They make verse 8 say that when we get to heaven revelation will cease, and then they turn around in the space of a few verses, and make verse 12 say that when we get to heaven revelation will exponentially multiply!

4. To teach that "that which is perfect" refers to the state of Glory contradicts what the rest of Scripture teaches about the spiritual enlightenment of the child of God in this world. "Now we see through a glass, darkly," literally means, "Now we see as in a riddle." This is to say that until that which is perfect has come the believer does not possess a clear and full understanding of spiritual things because he only has a partial revelation, according to verse 9. If we put ourselves in Paul's position we can see this clearly. It is as if he were saying, "At this point in time, before the completion of the New Testament canon, we do not possess the entire body of revelation that God intends to bequeath to His Church, therefore we still see things as a riddle - through a glass, darkly. If the Pentecostals and Charismatics are right, then we do not nor will we ever have a complete revelation as long as the Church exists on earth. Moreover this is a contradiction of other tremendous Scriptural statements.

A. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 - "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Verse 9 is not teaching about heaven. It is speaking of the unsaved man's inability to understand the things of God. Verse 13 tells us what these things are, by a claim to Divine inspiration. The natural man left to himself will never arrive at the truth. The only reason why anyone ever arrives at the truth is because the Holy Spirit has revealed these things to the Church. The Holy Spirit has given the Church a sufficient revelation. I ask, Is that seeing through a glass, darkly? If God's Word is sufficient for all matters pertain to doctrine and practice, then we are not seeing through a glass, darkly. So back at 13:12, Paul is saying that he and his Apostolic era colleagues were still seeing through a glass, darkly because they still didn't have the full written Word of God. Paul is not teaching that when we get to heaven, only then will we receive the completed revelation, but that when "that which is perfect comes," in this lifetime - we will have a full, written revelation of all that God requires of us for faith and practice in this world. Once the New Testament was completed, the Church saw things fully. This doesn't mean that before the close of canon, the saints did not know enough to be saved; it merely means that we are in a more advantageous position.

B. 2 Peter 1:19 - "We have a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light in a dark place, until that dawn and the day star arise in your hearts." Neither this passage nor the above one is teaching that the Christian is presently seeing everything darkly or in riddles, but will gain a clear and full understanding when he gets to heaven. They are both teaching that God's people have a mature revelation and therefore, those things that are essential to life and godliness, doctrine and practice, here and now in this life are possessed by the Church in the Scriptures - the more sure word of prophecy.

5. In the passage, "then shall I know even as also I am known," the words, "am known," signify a knowledge without any need for additional information. This is how God knows us and all things. God is never in need of any additional information. That is what is meant by "knowing as we are known." With the closing of the canon, the Church knows in this way. That is not to say that we have omniscience, as I said earlier. It means that in the completed revelation of the Old and New Testaments, the Church has no need for additional information. Paul is juxtaposing the two conditions - the current condition of possessing the less than full written revelation, therefore seeing through a glass, darkly with the full body of revelation that has no need for additional revelation. Looking back, we see that what the spiritual gifts conveyed was fragmentary at best. Paul repeatedly uses the phrase "in part" when speaking of the state of revelation under the era of spiritual gifts prior to completion of the canon. Notice that he says, "we know in part; we prophesy in part," in the light of verse 8. Yes they were means of revelation, but it was only partial. This overthrows the whole tongue-speaking crowd whatever else one thinks about the rest of the passage; because even if tongues were still existent as in the Apostolic age, they would still be conveying fragmentary knowledge.

In conclusion, we have shown that Paul clearly states that the supernatural revelatory gifts would cease at the coming of "that which is perfect." We have further shown that this can refer to nothing else but the completion of the New Testament canon. Hence, I repeat what I have said many times on this blog: Any attempt at Continuism, in any form whatsoever, is a blatant and open denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, Reformed theological commitments notwithstanding. Continuism is a distinct doctrinal characteristic of popery, not true biblical Christianity.