A Review of Dr. John Fesko’s Lecture on Word, Water and Spirit, part 1
On Friday, January 21st, 2011, Dr. John Fesko, Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary California, was the featured speaker at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, pastored by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger. He was invited to speak on his comprehensive new book, Word, Water and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism (© 2010 by J. V. Fesko, published by Reformation Heritage Books). The link to Dr. Fesko’s lecture may be downloaded from this post at the Riddleblog. First, Dr. Fesko describes the background to his book, then he summarizes respectively the history of the doctrine of infant baptism (paedobaptim–Part I of his book), the Biblical-Theological Survey of the Doctrine (Part II), and finally he briefly describes Part III: Systematic-Theological Construction of the Doctrine. This first in a series of posts will review Dr. Fesko’s discussion of the background to his writing of the book.
The background, we learn, is ultimately connected to his upbringing. As an infant, Dr. Fesko was baptized in the mainline denomination of the Presbyterian Church (USA). His parents apparently held nominal ties to this Reformed heritage, and the Fesko family wound up attending a number of churches over the years, landing among the Baptists in the end. While in college, Dr. Fesko listened to R. C. Sproul tapes on his Walkman, which lead him to realize that he was more Reformed than he was Baptist, and so he resolved to examine the outstanding Reformed doctrines he’d yet to deal with to be sure they were true–issues like infant baptism, so that, were he to minister in a Reformed church one day, he would not have to “hold his breath” as he administered the sacrament.
After seminary, while attending the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, Dr. Fesko read a book by Paul Jewett which he says is called, A Case Against Infant Baptism, which inadvertently impressed upon him the indispensability of covenant theology and laid the groundwork to his finally embracing paedobaptism. In searching the web for this title, however, I was unsuccessful in tracking it down, but found instead a book by the same author called Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace: An Appraisal of the Argument That As Infants Were Once Circumcised, So They Should Now Be Baptized, which apparently argues for the practice. Unfortunately, Dr. Fesko has a little trouble with recall on this and another title below, but, we can afford to forgive him this minor oversight. I share a marginally similar experience to the one Dr. Fesko describes, in my own examination of the issues related to the biblical doctrine of baptism. Over the past several years since my transition to theologically Reformed convictions, including the truth of infant baptism, I would periodically revisit the case for the Baptist view of believer’s baptism (credobaptism). Each time, after re-exposing my newfound paedobaptistic persuasion to the critique of the Baptist doctrine, I would come away with new reasons to believe that Scripture in fact does command and exemplify infant baptism, although not in a manner that satisfies the Baptistic hermeneutic (method of interpretation) which emphasizes as central the differences between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, rather than their points of continuity.
The Reformed covenantal hermeneutic emphasizes how the nature, promises and signs of the Covenant of Grace outweigh the various administrative changes between the Mosaic and New Covenants. Big-picture issues like these bring into sharper relief the seemingly unclear Biblical testimony to infant baptism. In other words, with all due respect to my Baptist friends, when it comes to the Mosaic and New Covenant administrations of the overarching Covenant of Grace, they seem unable to see the whole covenantal forest for the New Covenant trees.
The second element in the background to Dr. Fesko’s writing of Word, Water and Spirit comes from his ministerial environment in the South. He says, “if you cannot throw a rock in the Bible without hitting a covenant, in the South, you cannot throw a rock without hitting a Baptist church.” Many Baptists, who, in the providence of God, come to embrace Reformed theology and appreciate so much about the doctrine and practice of a Reformed Presbyterian church will hold out on the Reformed practice of infant baptism. In his ministry to such believers in his congregation, Dr. Fesko tried to provide comprehensive evidence to help his converted Baptist congregants understand and believe in infant baptism, and the degree to which he would prepare such material for their benefit also facilitated his desire to publish on the subject of the Biblical and historical case for infant baptism.
Dr. Fesko was also interested in making sure his congregants understood the Biblical doctrine of baptism as a whole, not just the aspect of it that related to its administration to the infant children of believers. He observes that there is a troubling trend toward church growth by downplaying more objectionable doctrines, like paedobaptism. He desired not only to help people understand infant baptism, he wants them to understand what a sacrament is, what Biblical covenants are, and even the true nature of God’s grace itself. Many struggle to understand what grace is. I, too, struggled to understand the classical definition of grace as “unmerited favor” until I was introduced to the Reformed doctrines of grace. Once I came to grips with the fact that a sinner is unwilling to believe because as one who is dead in sin, he cannot (“Total Depravity”); that God’s election of him is not conditioned on God’s foreknowing or foreseeing that he would receive Christ (“Sovereign Election”); that the atonement of Christ for the elect in particular is properly understood in terms of his mercy, rather than his resentfully seeing such an act as inherently unjust of God’s part (“Particular Redemption”); that when the Holy Spirit enables a sinner who was dead in sin to believe and to willingly embrace Christ as his own crucified and risen Lord (“Effectual Calling”); and that God will not only prevent me from “losing my salvation,” but will graciously preserve me in such a way that I will, by his grace, persevere in my faith in him (“Perseverance of the Saints”–for more biblical testimony on these doctrines of grace, see the link in my Featured Sites widget in the sidebar), then and only then did it make sense to me how it is that grace is God’s favor for me which I in no way earned. It is in this way that God’s grace is truly unmerited favor. Just as Reformed theology helps one truly understand the nature of grace, so does Reformed covenant theology as a whole help the believer understand the Bible’s full teaching on the significance, proper candidates and proper attitude toward the mode of baptism.
God’s progressive revelation of his redemption of the elect in Christ was something Dr. Fesko often found insufficiently treated in the typical book or essay promoting the Reformed doctrine of baptism. Why is redemptive history important in relation to baptism? It helps us to better understand the nature of circumcision and baptism, the connection between the two, and why the sign of the Covenant of Grace is changed from the former to the latter with the transition from the Mosaic to the New Covenant at the first advent of Christ. Dr. Fesko finds that Reformed presentations of infant baptism often focus more on the New Testament in defense of infant baptism, and not quite enough on the Old Testament revelation of the subject. He would remind his readers that as important as the New Testament witness to infant baptism is, Christians ought not to build their doctrines on only half of the Bible, but on the entirety of the Scriptures. Too many do not realize that indeed the doctrine of baptism is, in fact, found in the Old Testament. Pierre Marcel’s book, Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (actually, Marcel wrote Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism), which was possibly re-titled Infant Baptism (again, we’re apparently relying on Dr. Fesko’s memory), writes, for example, that for Karl Barth, the Old Testament matters little when it comes to most doctrines, with the possible exception of the doctrine of the atonement.
Dr. Fesko finds that theological journals provide perhaps some of the most helpful information on any doctrinal question, baptism among them. He therefore desired the readers of Word, Water and Spirit, who ordinarily have no access to such information, to benefit from such journals and show them where they can go to learn more on the subject of baptism. This was another compelling reason for him to write the book.
In the next post, we’ll follow Dr. Fesko’s summary of the historical-theological section of the book, which makes up roughly half of its contents.
“Extent”
John Owen (1616-1683), thanks to ReformationArt.com
Time for our first break from Brown’s Self-Interpreting Bible. How about if we dabble in the doctrine of particular redemption?
I ran across, once again, the famous quote by Puritan theologian par excellence, John Owen (1616-1683), from his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Among statements in defense of the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption, this one is literally viral in the Reformed blogosphere. This quote is Owen’s logical critique of general redemption, and is worth thinking through and searching the Scriptures about if you’ve never taken the time.
Anyway, here’s a breakdown of his complex argument from Reformed.org:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- All the sins of all men.
- All the sins of some men, or
- Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
- That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
- That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”
I’ve looked at this many times and have until now always had trouble keeping the whole train of thought on the rails in my head, if you know what I mean. Finally, the other day, I decided I’m going to have to do with this what I do with Scripture verses and catechism questions that I want to memorize–put it to music!
The following is the result. It’s roughly based on the tune to the children’s song “I’m in the Lord’s Army,” although there are some divergences. Do what you will with it. So, without further ado, I give you . . .
Extent
by John D. Chitty
Did Christ die for
all sins of all men
or all sins of some men
or some sins of all men?
If Christ died for
some sins of all men,
then all die
for those he did not.
But if Christ died for
all sins of some men,
that’s what we believe,
all th’elect of all the nations!
But if Christ died for
all sins of all men,
why are not
all men saved?
You will answer
“Because of unbelief”–
Is unbelief a sin or not?
If not, why then,
for it give account?
Either for it
Christ was punished, or not!
If he was, then,
why does unbelief
prevent salvation
more than other sins he died for?
But if he did not
die for unbelief,
then for all sins of all men
Christ did not die!
So Christ died for
all sins of some men,
those the Father
gave to His Son!
I’m from Geneva, and I’m here to help!
Better Than Thanksgiving Day Football (If You’re Me, That Is…)!
Dr. James R. White's Reformed Twin
As many of you know, and a few others may be disappointed to learn, I’m a life-long Independent Baptist (though currently a member of a Southern Baptist church, by God’s wise and inscrutable providence) who has adopted Presbyterian views. That includes the Presbyterian view of infant baptism. Ever since having adopted this view, in the interests of “givning God a chance” to “make my life easier,” I’ve from time to time done a little more reading on the case for believer’s baptism (aka, credobaptism) as opposed to the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism (aka, paedobaptism). I’ve done so with an open mind, knowing that I’m not the most brilliant theologian in the world, being, after all, an IFB Bible college drop-out. I may just want to believe in paedobaptism, because there’s so much I disagree with (and/or dislike) about the Baptist tradition, so if I’m going to expect my wife and kids to adopt the Reformed view of paedobaptism (which they’ve yet to do, again in God’s wise and inscrutable and gracious wisdom), I’d better be right. So far, every time I’ve entered into this debate with an open mind, I find myself
Dr. R. Scott Clark's Baptist Twin
becoming more and more thoroughly convinced that the Reformed view of paedobaptism is the more biblically consistent view. But, I keep reminding myself, I’ve yet to listen to one of my favorite Reformed Baptists, Dr. James White, debate the subject. Dr. White is one of the more relentless, aggressive and capable apologists and debaters I’ve ever seen. If anyone could dissuade me from the case for paedobaptism, it would likely be him.
It looks like I may soon get my chance.
I just finished reading Dr. James White’s post, entitled “R. Scott Clark and ‘Reformed,'” and Dr. Clark’s response, “Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White.” White attempted to demonstrate the fallacy of Clark’s refusal to accept Baptists under the umbrella “Reformed” on the basis of his contention that paedobaptism is essential to being Reformed. Naturally, White believes for obvious reasons that he’s more thoroughly Reformed than his Presbyterian and Continental Reformed brethren. Clark believes Baptists may have an affinity for “the five heads of doctrine of the Synod of Dort” (popularly known as the five points of Calvinism), but denies they’re Reformed. For the record, having heard Dr. Clark’s teaching and gotten a glimpse of his personality from interviews and his Facebook page (for example, his status update at one point yesterday read, “I’m not passive-aggressive, I’m just aggressive”), leads me to believe that Dr. R. Scott Clark may just be Dr. James R. White’s Reformed twin (I’ve always contended that my friend, Gage Browning, is White’s Presbyterian twin–there is a difference). It’s all about personality and hairdo. I guess that would make Gage Dr. Clark’s Presbyterian twin, too–but I digress.
Anyway, having read both of these esteemed theologians’ posts, I just wanted to put out there that my appetite is officially whetted for a new debate on credobaptism versus paedobaptism between Drs. James R. White and R. Scott Clark. Who’s with me?
When “Whosoever” Misseth the Point
Some of us think the chorus in "Whosoever Meaneth Me" sounds like the theme to Hogan's Heroes. Visit http://free-loops.com/download-free-loop-3481.html to listen and compare to the hymn's midi below!
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life (ESV)
For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. (HCSB)
The first citation of John 3:16 is from the King James Version, which contains—and established—the traditional wording of this verse, no less in the case of the highlighted phrase in question, “whosoever believeth.” The second updates, but carries this traditional translation forward, while the third, from the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), seems to have come a little closer to the literal meaning of the verse.
This can be seen by examining the original Greek, from which all three versions are translated: pas o pisteuo. Pas means “all,” “any,” “each,” “everyone,” “all things,” etc., in individual contexts like this one, but it is usually found in collective contexts, where it means “some of all sorts.” This is the word that is translated “whosoever” in the King James Version, “whoever” in many modern translations like the ESV, and “everyone” in the HCSB. The NET Bible has some helpful notes in this regard, which may be accessed here.
In the great debate between Calvinists and Arminians about the extent of Christ’s atonement, the latter camp has, in an effort to emphasize the fact that Jesus died for everyone without distinction, turned the KJV’s “whosoever” into three words: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that Who … So … Ever (!). With often little regard for the context of this verse, Arminians will focus on this one little three letter Greek word, and seemingly make it the point of the passage, which it is not.
Pas is not the only word in this phrase. “Everyone” in this context does not stand alone. It is modified by the action taken by each member in the group of people so identified. The action they take is pisteuo: “believing.” So, the first thing we must clarify is that this verse is not intended to state or imply the number of people for whom Christ died; it merely expresses the purpose behind the Father’s giving of the Son to the world: to grant eternal life to pas (everyone) o (who, or that) pisteuo (believes).
On the Nov. 17 episode of The Dividing Line, Dr. James White explained why “whosoever,” “whoever,” and “everyone” are used to translate pas. He said that when pas is used with a singular participle (in this case, “believes”), what is being communicated is a group that is defined by the action in that participle. Since the emphasis of the verse is on the mutual activity of the group, rather than the indistinct universality of the group itself, perhaps it may help direct our attention to “believes” if translators rendered pas o pisteuo as “all those who believe,” or just “those who believe.” But I’m no scholar.
Therefore, pas o piteuo makes neither of the following Arminian emphases:
- It does not mean that God sent Jesus to propitiate the Father in his death for everyone indiscriminately;
- It does not mean that everyone indiscriminately has the inherent moral ability to believe.
What this phrase does mean, though, is that God loved the world by sending his only Son in order to grant eternal life to those, and only those, who actually come to faith. If God sent his only Son to die for everyone indiscriminately, then everyone indiscriminately would come to faith, for he would have, with the atonement, granted faith to everyone indiscriminately. If everyone indiscriminately had the inherent moral ability to obey the command to believe, then God’s Word would be untrue (Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:8,9).
Let us not read things into the Word of God which are not there. John 3:16 is not a proof text for general redemption (the doctrine that Christ died for everyone indiscriminately), nor a view of human sinfulness that leaves room for some amount of inherent righteousness that enables the self-determining sinner (which creature does not exist) the ability “of his own free will” to “decide to follow Jesus” without the prior work of the Holy Spirit’s effectual calling (Romans 8:30).
Are you one of those who’ve come to believe in the one and only Son of God? Then you have received the Father’s saving love in the gift of his Son who became incarnate for you, obeyed God’s Law perfectly for you, died suffering the consequences of your sin, and rose on the third day that you also might be raised up to eternal life spiritually now (regeneration), and physically upon his return (resurrection). I urge you to do what you can to reciprocate his love by Spirit-empowered love for him and your neighbor. We love because he first loved us.
“Whosoever Meaneth Me?” (audio) “Whosoever” means all those, and only those, who believe.
Mission Accomplished
Now, this is what I call music…!
In case you can’t keep up, here’s the lyrics. Read along, then consult your Bible and read and pray and think!
Verse 1
Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride
The question concerns those for whom Christ died
Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?
Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?
Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?
Biblically, each of these must be denied
It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride
But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied
If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide
And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides
And hell is the place you eternally reside
That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfied
But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died
But how the cross relates to those in hell?
Well, they be saying:
Lord knows He tried (8x)
Verse 2
Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
Working as a unit to get things done
Our salvation began in eternity past
God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
The Father foreknew first, the Son came to earth
To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth
The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides
And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides
The Father and the Spirit- completely unified
But when it comes to Christ and those in hell?
Well, they be saying:
Lord knows He tried (8x)
Verse 3
My third and final verse- here’s the situation
Just a couple more things for your consideration
If saving everybody was why Christ came in history
With so many in hell, we’d have to say He failed miserably
So many think He only came to make it possible
Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical
What about those who were already in the grave?
The Old Testament wicked- condemned as depraved
Did He die for them? C’mon, behave
But worst of all, you’re saying the cross by itself doesn’t save
That we must do something to give the cross its power
That means, at the end of the day, the glory’s ours
That man-centered thinking is not recommended
The cross will save all for whom it was intended
Because for the elect, God’s wrath was satisfied
But still, when it comes to those in hell
Well, they be saying:
Lord knows He tried (8x)
Thank you, Shai Linne, whoever you are.
Persecution and Slander: Both Inexcusable
One of the most effective ploys to scare Arminians and moderate Calvinists away from Calvinism is to paint John Calvin as some evil, persecuting tyrant who reigned over a theocracy of his own making in Geneva, Switzerland–twisting the facts, and omitting many other facts relevant to the unfortunate episode that was the burning of anti-trinitarian heretic, Miguel Servetus. In the following video, Reformed apologist James White sets the historical record straight by simply listing related facts that Calvin’s critics never get around to presenting which sheds a whole new light on the incident.
Yes, Calvin was a man of his times, and the part he played in the execution of Servetus is not to be excused, however, Calvin’s 21st century critics are also men of their time, and it’s equally inexcusable to slander dead Reformers (or anyone else, for that matter).
YouTube Fundy vs. Calvinism
Steven L. Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Pheonix, AZ, has a very full YouTube page of videos featuring his preaching and teaching ministry. Some of the arguments made in some of the videos, it must be said, range from the average, to the illogical, to the hilariously absurd. StuffFundiesLike featured one of the more amusing ones (view it here), but Fundamentally Reformed once posted on one I’ve yet to see topped (view it here)! Compared to these two, the one I’m posting and commenting on today is rather ho-hum.
In this video, Pastor Anderson presents a few arguments from John 6 and John 15 against the doctrines of God’s foreordination of all things (Ephesians 1:11), predestination to salvation (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 9:23) and reprobation to condemnation (2 Peter 2; Romans 9:22).
Watch the video and interact with his arguments. I’m going to be out of town over the weekend and probably have little access to the internet. If you’re not familiar with the doctrines of Calvinism regarding the sovereignty of God over all things, even the salvation of sinners, feel free to ask questions. They’ll be welcomed and answered with gentleness and respect when I return, unless one of my Calvinist commenters is pleased to interact with you over the weekend (you know who you are–this is your cue!).
Here are the passages Pastor Anderson dealt with. View them for yourself and prayerfully examine their contexts and see the sovereign hand of a God who is not merely a one-dimensional “God of love” who is passive in the face of your sovereign self-determination, but “is love” and just at the same time.
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” (John 15:16)
“Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him” (John 6:70-71; cf. Acts 1:16–indicating what Judas was actually chosen for).
“The Bible Kind of Salvation”
Founders Ministries posted a video of a sermon by the late, great Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. W. A. Criswell entitled, “The Bible Kind of Salvation.” In his opening remarks, Dr. Criswell explains clearly that this is a sermon on the election and choosing of God. The fact that Founders Ministries is promoting this sermon says something about on which side of this great debate Dr. Criswell comes down (Who was Dr. Criswell?). Southern Baptists who are reading this blog are urged to consider the remarks that one of your great leaders of the recent past proclaimed as the truth of the matter on what the Bible teaches about the doctrine of election and the so-called “sovereign grace” of God.
In the “about us” page of Founders Ministries, it reads as follows:
Founders Ministries is a ministry of teaching and encouragement promoting both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace (what are the doctrines of grace? click here) and their experiential application to the local church, particularly in the areas of worship and witness. Founders Ministries takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith that Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles. We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear.
As a deacon in a Southern Baptist church, I’m personally convinced that everything that’s right about the Baptist tradition it learned from
Deacon Council, Shady Grove Baptist Church, N. Richland Hills, Texas
Reformed theology, and everything that’s wrong with it was adapted either intentionally or unintentionally from Anabaptism. I further believe that a return to a more consistent application of Reformed theology (aka, the doctrines of grace or Calvinism) is the key that will solve many of the issues that trouble Southern Baptists churches today.
The following is part one of a four part series. If you need help finding parts 2-4, click here.
Pecuniary Satisfaction and Peculiar People, part 2
All I want to do today to complete this focus on the contrivance of “applications” based on the misinterpretation of an
archaic translation of a Scriptural word is to show the definition of “peculiar” as presented in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. The choice of this dictionary is significant in that it is this volume which is recommended to advocates of the superiority of the King James Version of the Bible to all modern translations. It often features the biblical usage of words, with numerous quotations from Scripture as well as classic English literature. You’d think such a resource would irradicate foibles like the one under consideration, but tradition dies hard!
PECU’LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one’s own property, from pecus, cattle.]
- Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only. Almost every writer has a peculiar style. Most men have manners peculiar to themselves.
- Singular; particular. The man has something peculiar in his deportment.
- Particular; special. “My fate is Juno’s most peculiar care.” Dryden.
Definition 1 is the relevant definition. Considering the given usages, when it comes to 1 Peter 2:9, God has a people that is peculiar to himself, as opposed to being the people of any other god or ruler. I repeat, the church is to be peculiar to God, not peculiar to the world. That means we are his and only his. This simply cannot legitimately “apply” to how strange believers ought to seem to the world. Granted, the immediate context of the passage does explicitly include some imperatives (that is, “applications”) that are to be performed because of the fact that we are peculiarly the Lord’s people, and I submit these are the imperatives intended by the human and divine authors of Scripture to be applied to believers.
“They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (Notice the reference to God’s sovereign reprobation of those who never come to faith–that was for free!)
“9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
“11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” 1 Peter 2:8b-12.
The imperatives we have are based on the indicative of believers in Christ being a people who are peculiarly God’s, as opposed to any other god or ruler. Here’s where Christ-centeredness enters the picture. No exposition of the text is genuinely made in light of the full context, if the work of Christ for sinners is passed over and given little attention. It’s the indicatives of the Gospel, what God says about what he’s done for us in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and about how it has affected us by his grace alone, that contains the power to call people out of darkness into his marvelous light. To focus the majority of our attention on the behavior that is to result from Scripture’s Christ-centered, Gospel cause is to miss the power to live out the behavior and actually perform the “application.”
So here are the results of God’s showing mercy to us, calling sinners from every nation, race and class out of the darkness and into the marvelous light, making us who were not a people a chosen generation and a holy nation and a people for his own possession–a people who are peculiarly his and no one else’s:
- proclaim the excellencies of him who brought us out of darkness into his marvelous light. Then Peter inserts another indicative statement that builds on and emphasizes on our being peculiarly God’s–once we weren’t a people, but now we are God’s people by virtue of his having shown us his mercy.
- Therefore, since we are citizens of God’s nation, we should view ourselves as exiles who are merely sojourning through this world (in the world, not of it), and we should abstain from fleshly passions, which wage war against our souls.
- In addition, since we are God’s people, our conduct (behavior) should be honorable (not “peculiar” or strange or goofy) as we sojourn among the “Gentiles” (unbelievers who are citizens of the world, rather than citizens of God’s kingdom), our motive being that when we are falsely accused of evil-doing, others will realize the falsity of such accusations and God will be glorified.
See? There’s plenty of application, explicitly given by the apostle. There’s no call for intentionally misinterpreting one word in the indicative portion of the passage in order to turn it into an imperative to “look goofy to the world.” Rather, proclaim the excellency of Christ as you abstain from fleshly passions and otherwise conduct yourself in an honorable manner as you continue to sojourn in this lost and dying world for the glory of God. Now that’s preaching that will strengthen the faith of believers! Thanks for spelling it out for us, Peter!
Now, going back to the Bible study at which I originally brought up this topic. You know how after you have a conversation, you think of things you should have, or could have said? Well, after I made my comments in the Q&A session after the lesson, the teacher thanked me for “showing us how much smarter I am than the rest of us.” If I’d had the presence of mind at the time, I would have, or could have, and indeed, should have, replied that it’s not about how smart I am; it’s about whether or not the minister of the Word is actually communicating what God is saying in the text.
Pecuniary Satisfaction and Peculiar People, part 1
A week ago, on Dr. James White’s The Dividing Line webcast, I was listening to his coverage of the SBC’s John 3:16 conference, the effort of “moderate Calvinists” or perhaps more accurately, four point Arminians, to combat the rising tide of five point Calvinists who are graduating from SBC seminaries and ministering in SBC churches. Some discussion was made about a “pecuniary debt” being paid by Christ on the cross for every individual, as distinguished in the lecture being discussed, a “moral debt” which is paid by the believer who receives Christ by his own free will. This is only the second time since I’ve become a five point Calvinist myself, that I’ve heard reference made to this concept of “pecuniary debt.” Previous to this, I had a discussion with a few four-point Calvinists (which are predestinarians who deny that Christ died only for the elect) at Contend Earnestly. The term came up then, too, but, the discussion never moved toward exploring all the ins and outs of the concept. Indeed, the “pecuniary” view of Christ’s atonement, is a concept begging for my attention in the future. The reason I bring it up is to simply point out the fact that the word “pecuniary” was freshly bouncing around in my head before one Southern Baptist Bible study I attended last week.
In this Bible study, we happen to be studying Romans 12. But as is so often the case in Southern Baptist Bible study, the subject at hand often yields to the current events of the church, whether they have any bearing on the passage being studied or not. In this case, the current event under consideration was the semi-contemporary praise chorus, “A Chosen Generation,” which is a musical version of 1 Peter 2:9. This verse is very well-known even among Christians who generally deny the Calvinistic emphasis on God’s sovereign choice in election, or the covenantal unity of Israel and the Gentile Church as one chosen people, contrary to the dispensational “wrongly dividing” of the two groups into two separate chosen peoples. The thing that endears this verse to non-Reformed Southern Baptists is one particular phrase: “a peculiar people.” The King James Version translates the verse this way, and given the tendency to read the KJV in terms of today’s definitions and connotations, rather than remaining carefully on the look-out for archaisms, the phrase, “peculiar people,” lends itslef to a deeply engrained tradition of springboarding past exegetically-informed exposition to practical, relevant application to the Christian life.
I can’t reproduce verbatim what was said about the phrase, but I can characterize it or at least summarize it. God, in calling us a “peculiar people,” is implying that the church is different from the world; indeed, at times, the world may even consider what the church believes and does “peculiar,” or strange. This is the traditional moderate Calvinistic Baptist commentary on this whole verse. Rarely does anyone hear anything different in my experience. As I sat through the recitation of this unwritten creed, it struck me that the root word for “peculiar” is similar, if not the same as, the root for “pecuniary.” If pecuniary is associated with money or commerce, or wealth, it seemed possible that in the KJV of 1 Peter 2:9, we have another case of an archaic word being misread according to the twentieth century meaning of the word “peculiar.”
I held my tongue through the remainder of the class, but raised my hand to comment when so invited to at the end of the hour. I prefaced my concerns in my usual, self-depracating manner, telling the teacher I’m going to “nit pick” the word “peculiar.” Then I stated my concerns that when compared to the modern translation of 1 Peter 2:9, the traditional interpretation and application of “peculiar people” doesn’t seem to be the point of the text. Modern translations render the Greek here, “a people for his own possession,” so it’s not about believers seeming odd to the world, but rather about believers being God’s property. It’s not an imperative to be obeyed, but an indicative to be believed: the church is God’s possession.
. . . to be continued . . .
Does Lack of Perseverance Imply Limited Atonement?
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil 
deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation [1] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:21-23)
This passage clearly implies the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, or as I renamed it, Persevering Grace for the Saints. It basically says that Jesus actually reconciled a professing believer if he continues, or perseveres, in the faith. Simple enough, those who persevere are the ones who were truly reconciled to the Father in Christ’s death on the cross.
But look what happens when you read its opposite:
if you shift from the hope of the gospel that you heard, are unstable, waver and do not continue in the faith, then Christ has not reconciled you in his body of flesh by his death in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.
Do you read what I read? When I think of it in this way, my logic tells me that lack of perseverance may be evidence for limited atonement. In other words, if you don’t persevere in the faith, then Jesus didn’t die for you.
What say you? Am I reading limited atonement into this passage, or am I properly drawing limited atonement out of the text? Eisegesis or exegesis? You be the judge (That means post your opinion!).
Why Your Next Pastor Should Be A Calvinist
Click to buy from WTS Books
I found an interesting article that I strongly recommend my Southern Baptist readers should carefully consider. Here’s an excerpt–the link to the article will follow:
If pulpit committees and churches would look below the facade of scare-tactic accusations and warnings being rolled out like taffy at the Mississippi State Fair, they would discover something healthy and very desirable in the men and the message preached of those against whom they are warned. The twentieth-century slide into liberalism rode on the back of a growing indifference to the doctrines of grace, because the doctrines of grace are tied vitally to more biblical doctrines than just perseverance of the saints. The recovery of a fully salubrious evangelical preaching ministry depends largely on the degree to which the doctrines of grace are recovered and become the consciously propagated foundation of all gospel truth.
If a church, therefore, gets a Calvinist preacher, she will get a good thing. Several issues will be settled forever and the church will not have to wonder about the soundness of her preacher on these items of biblical truth and their soul-nurturing power. Calvinists have stood for more than just their distinguishing doctrines, but have held steadfastly to other doctrines that are essential for the health of Baptist churches in our day.
Read the entire article here.
Here are some online resources for Reforming a Baptist Church
The Baptist Confession of Faith
Trinity Hymnal (Baptist Edition)
Association of Reformed Bapitst Churches of America
Salvation Full and Free
A couple of years ago, I tried to put Ephesians 1:3-14 to music. But nothing ever came that enabled me to carry the ESV translation of this great passage on the joint sovereign work of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit over into a singable tune. But I did come up with the following little ditty that is more inspired by the passage than it is based on it’s text. I don’t have a recording of this song, even though I did sing it at church once.
I don’t know how it reads without knowing the tune, but, believe me, it may not read well as a simple poem, but it does work as a song. It’s short enough, and the tune is lively enough, that I actually kind of consider this my one praise chorus. Hope it doesn’t ruin it for you, but it’s kind of got that feel when you sing it, only it’s a little more raw and doesn’t sound quite like a commercial jingle like so much “P & W music.”
Salvation Full and Free
Slaves to sin/no good within/to merit our Father’s electing love
Redeemed in Christ/our sin debt paid/forgiven freely by God’s grace
Called to new life (by grace)/By the Spirit’s power (through faith)/Sealed to guarantee our inheritance in Christ
Salvation full and free!
If I ever get a recording of it, I’ll post it. Tomorrow I’ll post another song which I’ve never sung in worship yet, and as of yet have no prospects of doing so.
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
Total Depravity Implies Total Inability
Matthew 19:16-26 ESV
You see? The doctrines of grace are biblical, if one would only open his mind, heart and eyes to find them on the surface of the text of the Bible.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is the foundation of the rest of the doctrines of grace, also known as the TULIP. Edwin H. Palmer, in his book, The Five Points of Calvinism (©1972, Baker Books), outlines the doctrine of Total Depravity as follows (pages 9-16):
Share this: