The Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Article Eighteen

Article 18: The Proper Attitude Toward Election and Reprobation

To those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20), and with the words of our Savior, Have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15). We, however, with reverent adoration of these secret things, cry out with the apostle: Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways beyond tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).

__________________________________

We come to the final article of the First Head of Doctrine (the first point of the so-called five points of Calvinism), which is the article dealing with how we as the people of God are to think about election.  There are at least four possible responses to this doctrine, though the canons take note only of two.  Let us begin by dealing with the two responses identified by the Canons.

The first possible response one might have comes from those who when faced with this doctrine, react by calling God’s fairness into question.  As the Canons note, “to those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20), and with the words of our Savior, Have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15).”  Like it or not, we must deal with the fact that were it not for the electing grace of God, all of us would remain unbelievers, and under the just judgment of God.   

Most of our contemporaries refuse to start with the premise that the entire human race is sinful and fallen in Adam, and will not come to Christ unless God first changes our hearts, and inclines us to believe.  Starting with the egalitarian presupposition of American democracy–in this case that all of us are equally entitled to heaven until we do something to disqualify ourselves–of course, the doctrine of election sounds harsh and cruel.  To someone who comes to the discussion of sin and grace with the assumption that all of us are equally entitled to God's mercy, the teaching of election sounds as though God were depriving us of something to which we were rightly entitled.  

And so when such people complain about the “unfair” nature of election and reprobation, we ought to respond by reminding them that their starting point is incorrect—they have assumed something from the culture, which is not supported by biblical teaching (that all people are dead in sin and unable to come to faith on their own).  In election, God acts in grace and mercy, saving a multitude who would otherwise leap headlong into eternal punishment.  We must understand election as the act of gracious God, rescuing a countless multitude of people from eternal punishment, who, otherwise would not believe.

Another thing that must be considered is the question to which no one wants as answer-- “does not God have the right to do with his creatures as he sees fit?”  It is simply amazing to me that so many of  those who champion  human “free-will” ( the teaching that sin does not effect the way in which we make choices), at the same time argue that while we have free will to do what we want, that God does not have free will to do what he wants!  Thus, we do well when we kindly and charitably remind such people, “who are you--a sinful creature bound to time and space--to talk back to God?”

The second reaction that people may have to this teaching is identified by the Canons as that of humility before the sovereign God.  This is the response of someone who knows the depths of their own sin, and who realizes how much they owe to God as a result.  “We, however, with reverent adoration of these secret things, cry out with the apostle: Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways beyond tracing out!  For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).  

Those who see that God's grace and mercy is wonderfully magnified by this doctrine, willingly bow the knee before God, and confess, “to him be glory forever!”  If we believe that we are dead in sin and can do nothing to save ourselves, how else can we react when we look back at this from the perspective of faith?  We realize that if this doctrine was not true, we too would be dead in sins and transgressions, and that we would have absolutely no interest in Jesus Christ.  If this doctrine were not true, we would have no hope of heaven, and no possibility of eternal life.  As Christians, we are to humbly bow the knee, and confess to our merciful God and savior, “not my will be done, but thine!”

A third reaction, which is not mentioned by the Canons, is one that we commonly find today, and that is apathy about the doctrine, or the denial of its importance.  Many people simply find this subject so difficult, and the division among Christians over this doctrine so troubling, that they will go to the greatest of lengths to avoid the subject all together.  Many are under the assumption that these are matters for debate among theologians, and that the doctrine of election has absolutely no bearing on the Christian life, one way or the other.  

But as Luther correctly pointed out, if we attribute any part of our salvation to an act of our will, we will to that degree, be plagued by doubts and fears, since are weak, sinful, and prone to doubt.  We will always wonder whether what we did was enough, or whether we have done it in the right way.  Thus the doctrine of election is necessary to for us to believe, not only because it is clearly taught in the Scriptures, but because it is also the very foundation of sola gratia.  Without being clear about who does what in the matter of our salvation, we will never be able to live in the comfort of God's grace, nor will we have the proper humility before God.  

How can we bow before our God and worship him as we ought, if we think we are worshiping him because of something good in us, namely our free will, which in this scheme somehow remains untainted by the fall and sin?  Only the justified sinner, who knows that he or she owes everything to God, can even begin to live a life of gratitude before him.  It was Shakespeare who said, “that word `grace’ on the lips of an ungrateful person, is profanity.”

A fourth possible reaction that people might have is one of confusion and intellectual torment.  This applies to those who are in the process of wrestling with these difficult issues and have not yet resolved them.  They still see truth in both sides, or they see the issues as somehow irresolvable at a fundamental level.  This is perhaps the worst condition of all, since it leaves a person in this position feeling as though the Scriptures are not clear, or as though they must live forever in the tension of not being able to solve the problem at hand. 

As Reformed Christians we must be very careful with people caught in this position.  We must take special care with them, answering their questions from the Scriptures as patiently, and as best we can.  We must also remind people in such a position that they should cling to what they do know to be true—namely that Christ died for sinners and that the Bible is true because Jesus Christ rose again from the dead—while they work through issues where they do not see as much clarity.  This is a very difficult position in which to find yourself.  The reason that we get ourselves into these situations is because sin effects our ability to interpret God's word, and not because God's word is not clear.  

We should always do as Calvin so wisely counseled, pray for illumination from the Holy Spirit so that we may read, understand, and handle the word of God correctly.  But nevertheless, those caught in this situation need to resolve it to the best of their ability and satisfaction, and then move on quickly, not dwelling upon the matter any more than is necessary.  Christians are most vulnerable to the whiles of Satan when they are in this very delicate position of doubt, and unresolved conviction about the deep matters of the Christian faith.

Jesus, the True Temple

Jesus, the True Temple

When Jesus declared of himself, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here,” (Matthew 12:6) and when he told a Samaritan woman that he can give her “living water” (John 4:10-14), we are given a major clue that the authors of the New Testament have reinterpreted the pre-messianic understanding of God’s temple in the light of the coming of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah.  

When we consider the fact that the temple occupies a major role in the witness of Israel’s prophets regarding God’s future eschatological blessing for the nation, and that this imagery points forward to person of Jesus, we are greatly aided in our understanding of the nature and character of the millennial age as a present reality.

We begin with the Old Testament expectation regarding the temple of the Lord.  Both Isaiah 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-5, speak of God’s future blessing upon Israel in the last days, when God’s people will go up to mountain of the Lord, and to the temple, where God’s people will once again learn the ways of the Lord.  

In Isaiah 56, we read of those who hold fast to God’s covenant (v. 4), and who love the name of the Lord and keep his Sabbaths (vv. 6-8).  They will be brought to the holy mountain and house of the Lord, which is that temple and the house of prayer for all the nations (v. 7).  A similar vision is given in Isaiah 66:20-21.  Here we are told that the Israelites will bring their grain offerings to God’s temple, and God will renew his priesthood (vv. 20-21).  In Zechariah’s prophetic vision, we learn that one day the sacrifices of Israel will once again be offered and will be acceptable to God (Zechariah 14:16-19).

With all of this prophetic expectation in the mind of virtually every Jew living in Palestine in the first century, it is no wonder that Jesus’ declaration of God’s judgment upon the temple–“Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2)–came as such a shock and offense.  How dare this man say that all of this expectation of a glorious temple is fulfilled in him.  Speaking of himself, Jesus said, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). 

It was not until after Christ’s resurrection that the meaning of these words became plain–when Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple, he was speaking of his own body (John 2:22).  This is what he meant when he said that one greater than the temple has come!

Furthermore, there is the Old Testament prophecy of a new and glorious temple, found in Ezekiel 40-48.  Ezekiel envisions a future time for God’s people in which the temple will be rebuilt, the priesthood will be re-established, true sacrifices will once again be offered and the river of life will flow forth from the temple.  How we interpret this prophecy will have a significant bearing on the question of whether or not there will be a future millennial age upon the earth.
    
It should come as no surprise that dispensationalists believe that this prophecy will find a literal fulfillment in the millennial age.  According to J. Dwight Pentecost, “the glorious vision of Ezekiel reveals that it is impossible to locate its fulfillment in any past temple or system which Israel has known, but it must await a future fulfillment after the second advent of Christ when the millennium is instituted.  The sacrificial system is not a reinstituted Judaism, but the establishment of a new order that has its purpose the remembrance of the work of Christ on which all salvation rests.  The literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy will be the means of God’s glorification and man’s blessing in the millennium” (J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, Zondervan, 1978, 531).

Sensitive to the traditional amillennial criticism that such images of perpetual animal sacrifice and temple worship after the second advent of Jesus undercut his saving work, especially given the fact these aspects of Mosaic economy of the Old Testament are fulfilled at calvary,  Pentecost is careful to argue that Ezekiel’s prophecy is not connected a renewed Mosaic economy, but to an entirely new order, one which commemorates the saving work of Christ in the distant past.

Again, because Pentecost is committed to a “literal fulfillment” of Old Testament prophecies, and because he is aware that the Christ’s own redemptive work fulfills the typology of the Mosaic economy, Pentecost is forced to argue that temple worship in the millennial is associated with a wholly new order.  

But is this what the authors of the New Testament teach us about these prophecies?  Elsewhere, the New Testament teaches that Christ is the true Israel and David’s greater son (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Amillennialism 101 -- Jesus Christ: The True Israel).  It is in Christ’s church--as Jesus' mystical body--that we find the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies regarding Jerusalem and the Mountain of the Lord.  The promise of a land, will be fulfilled in a new heaven and earth in the consummation (cf. Romans 4:13; Hebrews 11:9-10).  The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ is the New Temple and that any new order of commemoration involving the ceremonies typical of the earthly temple found in a future millennium, can only commemorate the types and shadows, not the reality.

This presents a serious problem for dispensationalists, who argue, in effect, that redemptive history takes a U-turn in the millennial age, as the reality which is in Christ now supposedly returns to the types and shadows of the Old Testament.

How, then, is the temple imagery from the Old Testament fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New?  In Exodus 40:34, we are told that the glory of the Lord filled his temple.  When viewed against the overall backdrop of redemptive history, we can see how this pointed forward to the day of Pentecost, when, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, the glory of the Lord filled his true temple, the mystical body of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12 ff.–cf. Kline, Structure of Biblical Authority, 194).  

If Christ’s body is the true temple–as Paul puts it, “For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Corinthians 6:16)–what use remains for an a future literal temple?  That to which the temple had pointed, is now a reality through the work of the Holy Spirit.  Why return to the type and shadow?

It is also clear from chapters 8-10 of Hebrews, that in his death, Jesus fulfilled the priesthood typology of the Old Testament, and in his own blood, he puts an end to the sacrificial system, once and for all!  Says the author of Hebrews, “Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man” (Hebrews 8:1-2).  

If the reality to which the Old Testament sacrifices and priesthood pointed is to be found in this true sanctuary and tabernacle in heaven, why look for a return to the shadows in the form of an earthly temple, which served throughout Old Testament revelation to point us to this very heavenly scene?

Contrary to the view of dispensationalists, the prescribed New Testament commemoration of the ratification of the New Covenant is not to be found in a new order of temple worship, an order which includes a new temple, a new priesthood and further animal sacrifice, supposedly yet to be reinstituted in an earthly millennial kingdom.  Rather, when Jesus utters the words of institution, “this is my body, this is my blood, do this in remembrance of me,” he institutes the divinely-approved method of commemoration of his sacrificial work, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  It is in this way that the people of God feed on the savior through faith and commemorate his doing and dying on their behalf.

When Jesus tells the Samaritan women that he can give her living water and that “everyone who drinks from this water will never be thirsty again,” Jesus is self-consciously declaring that he fulfills that prophetic image of which Ezekiel had foretold in the thirty-seventh chapter of his prophecy, when he spoke of the water flowing from the sanctuary (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1971,  259-261).  If Jesus is the true temple of God, then he alone gives us that “living water” which takes away the thirst of human sin and longing.
    
Therefore, the dispensationalist’s insistence upon a return in the millennial age to the shadows and types associated with the Old Testament prophetic expectation, amounts to a serious misunderstanding of the very nature of redemptive history.  By arguing for a new commemorative order based upon Old Testament typology and yet to begin in the millennial age, dispensationalists see the future not as a consummation, but as a return to the past.  And this, of course, sadly obscures the person and work of Christ by seeing the ultimate reality not in him, but in those types and shadows which were destined to perish when the reality himself entered the theater of redemption.

More Interesting Links . . .

This will do wonders for American foreign policy and Middle East peace (ugh).  John Hagee led several hundred evangelicals (actually, self-professed "Christian Zionists") through the streets of Jerusalem, waving flags and chanting, "we love you, Israel," "Israel is not alone" and "God bless Israel."  Who says your eschatology doesn't have practical implications?  Click here: US Evangelicals March Through Jerusalem

The latest fixture of western civilization that upsets Muslims--life insurance.   I guess with all the suicide bombers, its probably hard for some of them get a decent rate.  A whole life policy is probably out of the question.   Click here: Health Insurance illegal: Islamic body- Insurance news-Insurance-Personal Finance-The Economic Times 

Speaking of Muslim outrage, Islamic interest in the al-Madhi (the Islamic messiah) is continuing to ramp up.  Islamic apocalyptism mirrors, in many ways, the likes of evangelical prophecy pundits.   The al-Madhi is going to bring global peace through a universal caliphate.   Of course, John Hagee and his merry band of Christian Zionists marching through Jerusalem does nothing to inflame this.  Click here: Pajamas Media » Blog Archive » Will Iraq Stoke Flames of Islamic Messianism?

I'll bet this is not the answer to Tony Campolo's question from a couple of years back, "what would Jesus drive?"  Where does Marc find these things? Click here: You Supply the Caption #85 - purgatorio

Finally, this resource looks promising.  Seyoon Kim (the New Testament scholar) is writing a response to N. T. Wright's stuff on Paul and empire.  Didn't take long for Wright's theology of justification based upon "a whole life lived," to focus on ethics, and the perceived evils of US foreign policy.  (h.t. Lee Irons).  Click here: Amazon.com: Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke: Seyoon Kim: Books  

"The Spirit of God Lives in You" -- Romans 8:1-11

The Twentieth in a Series of Sermon on Paul's Epistle to the Romans

In the first eleven verses of Romans 8, Paul sets out a dramatic contrast between those who walk in the flesh and those who walk in the Spirit.  While many of us have been taught that Paul is talking about a fundamental choice that every Christian must face–whether to walk after the Spirit or walk after the flesh–instead, Paul is contrasting a Christian (who walks after the Spirit) and a non-Christian (who walks after the flesh).

As we pointed out last time, in order to make the best sense of this section, we must place it in context.  In Romans 8:1, Paul returns to a point he had made in Romans 7:6– “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.”  But after making his original point about the contrast between the new way of the Spirit and the old way of the written code, Paul digresses in Romans 7:7-25 to explain the effects of the law upon a Christian both before and after their conversion.  Having described in Romans 7:14-25 the intense struggle with sin that all Christians face because they have been set free from sin, death and the condemnation of the law, in Romans 8:1, Paul states that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, even in the midst of this intense struggle.  Having made this important point, Paul moves on to contrast what it means to walk in the flesh as opposed to walking in the Spirit.

Last time we dealt with the first four verses of this section of Romans 8.  We focused upon two things. First, Paul reminds us that the reason there is now no condemnation for those in Christ is because Christ has borne our condemnation in his own body through his suffering upon the cross, having made himself a sin offering for us.  Second, we discussed Paul’s comment in verse 4, that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us.  As we pointed out, there are two main interpretations of this verse.  One is the traditional Reformed view, which holds that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us, because Christ’s perfect obedience is imputed to us.  The other prevailing view–the so-called “consensus view” held by most contemporary Reformed commentators–holds that Paul is speaking of the new obedience of a Christian.  No longer under condemnation and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, it is argued that the Christian does indeed obey the commandments so as to fulfill the law.  Based upon the reasons set forth last time, I believe the traditional Reformed view makes the best sense of the passage.

To read the rest of this sermon, click here
 

James 2:10 and Galatians 3:10 in Perspective

If you want to be saved apart from Christ, here you go.  This is what God requires of you!  Click here: The Law (h.t. monergism.com)

Given all the debate about law and gospel, and covenant theology, we can easily forget what is at stake.  What, exactly, does the law demand of us?  James (2:10) tells us that if we break  even a single commandment, it were as though we've broken all of them.  Paul warns us not to rely on "works of law" (Galatians 3:10).   There's a reason for this!

After glancing through that list of all 613 commandments, I suddenly have a renewed appreciation for Christ's active and passive obedience.  No hope of heaven without it.   And what a blessing (and a relief) it is to know that because of Christ, God sees me as though I had kept all 613!

Some Interesting Links . . .

What do you mean it wasn't a conspiracy involving hundreds of people including the Royal family!  You mean it was the totally hammered limo driver, and the Paparazzi all along?  But those who see conspiracies behind every tragedy won't be persuaded.  They'll just extend the conspiracy to include the enquiry--like the Kennedy assassination conspiracy nuts did with the Warren Commission.   Click here: FOXNews.com - Jury: Princess Diana, Boyfriend Dodi Fayed Killed by Driver, Paparazzi - International News | News o

More wonderful evidence that the cross always trumps the crescent!  Click here: Pajamas Media » Blog Archive » Muslims Leaving Islam in Droves

I can just see the merchants and barkers in the streets of New York, "Get your Pope merchandise right here!"  "Pope soap on a rope!"   "Benedict XVI Bobbleheads!"  Benedict XVI is coming and the masses are ready for him.  Click here: Mass Merchandising - washingtonpost.com  

Yes, the surgery was botched, the wrinkles remained.  But for some reason, her husband didn't seem to care.  Click here: FOXNews.com - Woman Asks to Have Wrinkles Removed, Wakes Up With Bigger Breasts - Health News | Current Health New

Who Said That?

"Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals.  It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me.  Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."

OK . . .  Who said that?  Please no cheating or google searches.  Please leave your guess in the comments section. 

Update on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 09:55AM by Kim Riddlebarger

This is a quote from the mad (and from the photo, quite blitzed) atheist Christopher Hitchens.  It comes from an interview he did on the Penn & Teller show:  Bull____!, Season 3, Episode 5: "Holier Than Thou" (05-23-2005).

VanDrunen Author's Forum Audio Posted

The audio from Friday night's Author's Forum with Dr. David VanDrunen has been posted.  In his lecture, Dr. VanDrunen discusses his recent book, A Biblical Case for Natural Law.

Again, I must apologize for the poor quality of the audio file.  We are having a technical problem with our cordless microphone.  We think we've finally got the problem figured out.

Here's the MP3 (http://links.christreformed.org/realaudio/A20080404-NaturalLaw.mp3) and the real audio (http://links.christreformed.org/real/20080404.m3u)

Some Interesting Links . . .

This may come as a big surprise to some of you, but this will be no surprise to our wives!  Click here: Men Create More Housework for Women - Yahoo! News

Even the BBC thinks Al Gore is full of it.   Click here: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Global temperatures 'to decrease'

It is always a good thing when theological liberals get their collective noses bloodied when they attempt to oppress the faithful remaining within their denominations.   The Virginia court has just ruled--thankfully--that a number of Bible-believing Episcopalians get to keep their own church properties.  This means that the unbelieving church bureaucrats can't kick these faithful congregations out of their own church facilities.   Click here: Big Win for Va.'s Breakaway Anglican Parishes in Property Fight | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical C

This is must reading.  Historian Paul Maier discusses those horrific days when the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans back in A.D. 70.  Funny, none of the historical sources say anything about Christ coming back . . .   Hmmm . . .   Click here: Not One Stone Left Upon Another - Christian History

The House the Boss Built

The "Boss" was recently seen touring the new Yankee stadium with his daughter.  For those of you who are not baseball fans, the "Boss" is George M. Steinbrenner (AKA the "big Stein" and a regular character on Seinfeld).

I can't wait to go see the new stadium.  The reports and pictures are very impressive.  The new stadium is hi-tech (wi-fi, the latest scoreboard, etc.), while  at the same time preserves the architectural style of the original Yankee Stadium, as it opened in 1923 (and before the big-face lift in 72).

Yankee Stadium is baseball's grand cathedral.  Anaheim Stadium, while a nice facility, and the place where I most often watch the sport I love,  is to baseball what Rick Warren's Saddleback is to the megachurch.  It is hard to enjoy a game in Anaheim because of all the teenie-boppers kicking around beach balls, and trying to start a "wave."  And who can forget the Disney years of "seeker-sensitive" baseball?  Far too many people come to watch the Angels because it is an event, not because they are fans of the game.  This is the big OC after all.

I know, many of you think the picture of the Boss walking through his new stadium is baseball's equivalent of the man of sin entering the temple, but the fact is the luxury tax he pays keeps a number of your teams afloat (any Pirates or Marlins fans out there?), and baseball without a grand Yankee Stadium just wouldn't be the same.

If the old Yankee Stadium is the "House that Ruth built," the new Yankee Stadium is surely the "House the Boss built."  And I don't care how much you hate the Yankees, you have to admit, this will be great for baseball.