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

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

__________________________________

The authors of the Canons are now careful to make the point that since the Scriptures teach that election is based upon God’s good pleasure and purpose (and nothing good within us), election cannot be based upon anything external to God (i.e., something good that God sees in the creature).  It is equally clear that God does not elect any as the consequence of some action that the creature takes which causes or motivates God to respond (in this case, the exercise of faith). This is difficult for us to grasp because this view of election necessarily assigns all glory to God, and all blame to us.

Many have tried tried to evade the force of this critical point by arguing that God's election is indeed based upon factors external to God, i.e., something which the creature does.  In other words, God sets things in motion (by providing a generic, universal, and non-saving grace), and he then reacts to what his creatures do with with the grace he's made available to them.  But this amounts to nothing more than a practical deism.  

The most common objection that we  encounter to the doctrine election as set forth in the earlier articles of the Canons is the argument that God elects individuals based upon foreseen faith.  In other words, God elects those whom he knows will believe the gospel when it is preached to them.  You’ve probably heard the all-too common analogy that election is like a movie God has already seen.  He knows what each of the characters will do, and so he elects them on that basis.

Of course, this is seriously flawed, and is not what the Scriptures teach.  God does not merely know in advance what we will do under certain conditions.  God knows what we will do, because he has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and yet he does so in such a way as to establish human freedom, not destroy it.  God knows what we will do in the movie of life because he wrote the screenplay and the script, he created the actors, the cameras, the film . . .  You get the point.

While the Greek word proginosko, translated as “to foreknow” in Romans 8:29, can mean that God knows in advance what his creatures will do, the term is probably better understood here in the sense of “knowing the person in advance.”  This would mean that God does not merely know what actions a person whom he foreknows will take under certain circumstances, and he then reacts to that action.  Rather, proginosko may be better understood in light of a text like Psalm 139, where God’s intimate knowledge of us (as persons) is the basis for his knowledge 0f what we will do.  He who formed us in our mother’s womb knows us better than we know ourselves.  This is why it helps to understand the word “foreknow” in terms of personal intimacy (God’s knowledge of us since he created us), rather than in terms of sterile metaphysics (God knows in advance what we will do with the various options available to us). 

Remember too, that according to Romans 8:28-30, God's calling is not based upon foreknowledge, but upon "his purpose."  This fits perfectly with a text like Psalm 139, and with Ephesians 1:3-14, which we have already discussed in some detail above.

It is important to notice that the Canons  also teach that election is always unto something (holiness), not because of something in us (the presence of faith, the virtue of faith, or any personal holiness which might result from faith).  This point is vital to understand.  We are sinful and fallen and can do nothing to soften our own hearts or incline ourselves to believe the gospel.  When we are chosen by God, we are chosen in Christ so that when we come to faith in him, we are also delivered from our bondage to sin and death.  We are also set aside for God’s sovereign purposes.  We become his workmanship, appointed to do good works (Ephesians 2:10).   It is because we have been chosen in Christ that the fruit of the Spirit develops within us, and  God produces holiness in our lives.

Just as we are not numbered among the elect because God knows that we will believe when the gospel is preached to us (rather, because we have been chosen by God, we will believe when the gospel is proclaimed to us), so too, we are not numbered among the elect because God knows that we will perform certain good works once we are Christians.   Rather, because we are elect in Christ, we will perform good works as the fruit of that faith which he graciously gives to us.
 
As the Canons make clear, election is the only basis for the manifestation of any of the Christian virtues in us (faith, obedience and so on), since otherwise, we would still be slaves to sin and unable to perform a single good work, because without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).  It is because of divine election that we respond to the gospel when we hear it.  It is because of divine election that we perform good works and demonstrate true holiness.  

This is a cause and effect relationship.  Election is the cause, and faith and obedience are the effects—and not the other way around, as is so often taught today.

Political Ideology Aside . . .

Here's something to think about--party affiliation and political ideology aside.

The two current front runners for the office of President of the United States have never served in any executive office.  If one of these two is elected, this means our President will have no executive experience whatsoever.  The Senate does not create leaders, it creates pompous compromisers--the key to getting anything done in the Senate, but a principle that is inimical to leading the nation.

The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have run on the theme of "change."  Yet both are consummate Washington insiders blinded by "Beltwayitis."  Despite the rhetoric, Clinton and McCain are clearly the establishment candidates.  Change?  Not from these two. 

The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have both managed to alienate a significant portion of  the members of their own parties.  McCain is universally reviled by small-government conservatives in his own party (indeed, he's antagonized them repeatedly), while Clinton has played the race card with Obama (the black candidate who, ironically, has eschewed making race an issue).  If elected, either one will have significant problems with their base throughout their entire term of office.

Of course, things could change on Super Tuesday and Romney or Obama might reverse the current dynamics of the race (very unlikely, however).   At this point, I'm convinced that our current primary system is not serving us at all.   I liked the good old days of the smoke-filled party conventions when we got better candidates.   

And with all of this electioneering taking place so far in advance of the general election, will anybody still be interested in November 2008?  Any wonder why I am so cynical about American politics? 

Eschatology Q & A -- Are There Any Exegetical Resources Refuting Hyper-Preterism?

ElShaddai Edwards asks (January 17, 2008):

Have there been any exegetical rebuttals of full preterism that you’re aware of?  I was just browsing Keith Mathison’s book on post-millennialism and he includes a rebuttal of FP based on creedal tradition and the authority of the Holy Spirit to the Church.  As far as I can tell, this is the standard rebuttal.  Has anyone published a critique of FP strictly from the Biblical text?

__________________________________

Mr. Edwards:

Yes, indeed, there is such an exegetical critique of hyper (or full) preterism, and better yet, it is still in print.    I refer you to “When Shall These Things Be?”  A Reformed Approach to Hyper-Preterism (P & R, 2004).  The book is edited by Keith Mathison, whom you mention.  For more information on this volume, Click here: Amazon.com: When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism: Books: Keith A. Mathison

As with most volumes like this where there are multiple contributors, some of the chapters are better than others.   It is also a bit problematic when the contributors don't agree among themselves.  In this case, two authors don't see eye to eye about the date of the Book of Revelation--Ken Gentry argues for an early date (pre-A.D. 70), while Simon Kistemaker argues for the traditional (and late) dating of about 95 A.D.

Those minor criticisms aside, there are two real gems here which make the book well worth the purchase price.  

The first is Robert Strimple’s marvelous essay, “Hyper Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body.”  In my humble estimation, Strimple completely destroys the various schemes offered by hyper-preterists to define the resurrection body so as to escape the obvious implications of the biblical teaching of a future, bodily, resurrection of believers.  Strimple’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 is utterly compelling and he does the very thing you are seeking--a refutation of full or “hyper” preterism directly from the biblical text.  Strimple clearly exposes hyper-preterism for what it is--an unbiblical heresy.

The second outstanding essay is Charles Hill’s piece, “Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall."  Hill deals with the pink elephant in the eschatological room, namely, "why, if hyper-preterism is true, did no one in the early church (post A. D. 70) ever say anything about the fact that the second coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment, had already taken place?"  Hill's essay is compelling and I think his thesis is also problematic for those partial-preterists who see in the events of A.D. 70 a genuine parousia of our Lord (but who don't buy into the hyper-preterist heresy).

I also found Keith Mathison’s essay “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament” to be very useful in showing the inability of the hyper-preterists to deal with the same “time-texts" which they claim support their  view.  I'm not fully on board with Mathison's treatment of some of these terms, but he does take them away from the full preterists, and that is a good thing.

When Shall These Things Be? is hated by hyper-preterists (read the reviews on Amazon).  I take that to be a very good sign that the arrow has struck its intended mark.

Hope that helps! 

A New Look for the Riddleblogger?

If it is time for the Riddleblog to be updated, maybe I need a make over too.

My sons (20, 17) tell me that as a middle-aged bald-guy still hanging on to my 1970's graying mustache, I look like a fireman, cop, or Iraqi soldier.

Knowing that I was thinking about doing something drastic to change my appearance, someone @ Christ Reformed decided I needed a new look.  So they supplied me with the accouterments of a proper make-over.  I tried it out when we took our pictures for the church directory because I wanted them to know how much I appreciated their generosity and thoughtfulness.

Now my sons call me "Dad Dirt" or "Dad-Bob."

Meanwhile,  after thinking it over, I think I'll stick with the Dr. Phil look.   He's bald.  He's got a "stache."  He's a big celebrity, and my wife thinks I look a bit like him.

The New Way of the Spirit -- Romans 7:1-6

The Fifteenth in a Series of Sermons on Paul's Epistle to the Romans

In Romans 6:14, Paul tells us that we are not under law but under grace. But when Paul says that we are not under law he is referring to the fact that all those in Christ are no longer condemned by the law–the so-called “second use” of the law. But the absence of the law’s condemnation does not mean in any sense that we are no longer obligated to obey the Ten Commandments. In fact, having been freed from the law’s condemnation, we are now free to obey the commandments, something we could never do while we were still slaves to sin.

We are continuing our series on the Book of Romans and we are discussing Paul’s doctrine of sanctification as set forth in Romans 6, 7 and 8. In Romans 6:1, Paul began this discussion by referring to the believer’s death to sin through union with Christ. In Romans 7, the apostle continues this discussion, now referring to the believer’s death to the law.

According to Nygren, “It is at least clear from this comparison that Paul’s thought in chapter 7 follows a course similar to that in chapter 6. The same categories are used, being simply applied to different matter.” If Romans 6 is a description of our death to sin because of our transference from domination under Adam to freedom via our union with Christ, Romans 7 describes our death to the law as an elaboration on Paul’s comment in Romans 6:14 that the Christian is no longer under law but under grace. Just as sin no longer enslaves us because we died to sin through our union with Christ, so too the law no longer condemns us because in Christ, we have died to the law’s condemnation. We now stand in a new relationship to the law.

There is a reason why Paul must address the topic of the law at this point in this epistle. As Leon Morris points out, “the place of the law in God’s scheme of things was a constant battleground in Paul’s controversies with Jewish opponents. For them the law was the greatest good, the mark of God’s kindness to his people in that he had given it to them. They studied it with the greatest of diligence, regarding even the minutest detail as important. They took it as central for any pious person as he sought to live a life of service to God. It seemed to them that Paul was rejecting this greatest of goods that God have given. Paul found himself in a difficult position. On the one hand, he could not regard the way of the law as the way of salvation, and he said this with utmost firmness. But on the other hand, it was the good gift of God and, rightly used, was of great importance.”

To read the rest of this sermon, click here

Behold, I Am Coming Soon -- Revelation 22:6-21

The Thirty-First in a Series of Sermons on the Book of Revelation

Having given us a glimpse of the back of the book, so to speak, John now wraps up his panoramic vision of the course of redemptive history in the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Revelation.  In the epilogue of his apocalyptic vision, John reminds the church of Jesus Christ that the things recorded in this book are soon to take place.  But it is with great urgency that John also makes the point that all of human history is racing toward that glorious day when Jesus Christ returns in unspeakable glory, to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new.

As we now complete our survey of the Book of Revelation, Lord willing, next time we will spend our time together reflecting upon some of many points of application that we should take with us from our studies in this amazing book.  During this series, we have been emphasizing the fact that as the various visions in this book are set forth, John is giving us a running commentary on the progress of redemptive history–giving us the big picture and telling us the story behind the story.  In effect, John picks up where the Old Testament writers left off.  Beginning with the expectation of the dawn of the messianic era, John takes us from the birth of the Messiah all the way to his second coming at the end of the age.  In the last few chapters of this book, John gives us a glimpse of the final chapters of the redemptive story even before they play out on the stage of human history.  Therefore, in the midst of our struggles in this present evil age, we have seen that glorious goal to which God will graciously bring us.  And with this glorious vision now before our eyes, we should not grow weary or despair as we make our way to the heavenly city, even though the journey is difficult.

In the opening chapters of Revelation, John describes the persecution faced by those in his original audience at the hands of the Roman Empire.  Using apocalyptic symbols, John has shown how the Roman empire and its supremely evil emperor, Nero, is, in turn, a type of all those evil empires and their leaders yet to arise throughout the course of this present evil age.  In fact, John foretells of the rise of a whole series of world empires and dictators all waging war against the people of God.  But this series of empires will finally culminate in one last evil empire which will arise in those days immediately before the return of Jesus Christ and which is crushed by our Lord as his coming.  Knowing how the redemptive drama will turn out in the end, John comforts his readers with the prophecy of the total defeat of this Satanic world empire and all those who ally themselves with it (the harlot, the beast and false prophet).  By looking at the back of the book, we know who wins in the end.  Thus the Book of Revelation is not a book of esoteric information to give the curious something to do, it is a book filled with pastoral comfort.

To read the rest of this sermon, click here
 

A New Look?

It is time for a new look for the Riddleblog.

This is a new squarespace template with a new mountain photo as the header.  What do you think?

Update on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 02:13PM by Kim Riddlebarger

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback.  I've made a couple of revisions.

1).  I've darkened all the fonts (several said they were too light and hard to see).

2).  I've added a search function (bottom right).  I should have done this along time ago.

3).  I've gone back to the original header (a mountain photo I took in 2003 on the way back from Mammoth, which one of you graciously edited for me). 

I'll keep reading your suggestions and tweaking accordingly. 

Where Word-Faith Meets Southern Baptist -- A Presidential Campaign, of Course

I simply pass this on without comment . . . well, except for one at the end (h.t. h.b.).

This is from a press release from the Trinity Foundation (which now publishes the Wittenberg Door: Click here: Wittenburg Door) sent to subscribers of their newsletter.

_________________________________

Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee reached out to a questionable funding source this week—Texas televangelist Kenneth Copeland, one of the targets of a Senate Finance Committee investigation into the funding and governance of "prosperity gospel" ministries.

At Copeland’s annual by-invitation-only Minister's Conference at his Newark, Texas, headquarters Jan. 23, Copeland received a call during the meeting from Huckabee requesting emergency financing. According Doug Wead, former Bush family evangelical adviser, Copeland and his supporters at the conference raised $111,000 in cash for Huckabee, with about a million dollars in pledged donations, after he temporarily adjourned the conference and then reconvened the group as a "private meeting."

Wead relayed a report in his blog from a source at the meeting that "Last night [Jan. 23] the Governor called his friend in the middle of a conference and Copeland, carefully observing all the laws governing non profits, as a private citizen, re-convened a private meeting, turned to his friends and raised a few million dollars for Huckabee." (See "Mike Huckabee’s Big Mistake")

According to video clips of the conference obtained by Trinity Foundation, an investigative watchdog group in Dallas, Copeland revealed that Huckabee had pledged his total support to Copeland's ministry while dismissing the Senate investigation.

Video clips of Copeland's comments are posted on The Wittenburg Door Magazine website.

One video clip shows Copeland describing a phone call from Huckabee regarding the Senate investigation:

"[Huckabee told me] Why should I stand with them and not stand with you? They've only got 11 per cent approval rating.' And then he said, 'Kenneth Copeland, I will stand with you.' He said, 'You're trying to get prosperity to the people and they're trying to take it away from 'em.' He said, 'I will stand with you any time, anywhere, on any issue.' That settled that right there. I said, 'Yeah, that's my man! That's my man, right there.'"

________________________________

There's only one case in life I can think of where a Southern Baptist minister would come to Kenneth Copeland, hat-in-hand, to ask for an "emergency donation" -- A failing presidential campaign.  One more weird consequence when the two kingdoms are blurred. 

Academy Lecture on New Perspectives on Paul Posted

Here's the link to my latest Academy lecture on the New Perspectives on Paul (January 25, 2008).  The lecture is entitled, "An Interesting Dialogue Between James Dunn and N. T. Wright."

The lecture can be found here:  Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)

Who Said That?

"Thus, we look in vain for a statement in which Paul would speak about himself as an actual sinner.  When he speaks about his conscience, he witnesses to his good conscience before men and God."

OK, who said that?  You know the drill!  No google searches or cheating.  Leave your guess in the comments section.

Update on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 04:33PM by Kim Riddlebarger

These words come from Krister Stendhal's famous essay, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" (p. 91).

I guess Paul's comments in 1 Timothy 1:15 about being the worst of sinners doesn't count.  I keep forgetting that these guys don't think Paul wrote the pastoral epistles.