Today is Finney Day
Today’s date, August 29, is the date of the birth of, according to American and religious historians of every stripe, one of the most significant Americans in history, Charles Grandison Finney.
Consider this short bio:
August 29, 1792-Birth of Charles G. Finney, American revivalist and educator. Originally trained in law, he was converted to Christian faith at age 29, conducted revival services for eight years and, from 1835 until his death, maintained a close affiliation with Oberlin College in Ohio.
Sounds pretty innocuous. There is definitely much more to the story.
Next, consider this somewhat more detailed, but still quite “objective” summary of Finney’s life and “ministry”:
Charles Grandison Finney gave
the region [a portion of western New York famous for its revivalism, radicalism and communitarian experiments] its name [the Burned-Over District], referring to it as a “burnt district” because so many revivals had taken place there during America’s Second Great Awakening. Finney himself was born in Connecticut but migrated with his parents to western New York. He was starting a career as a lawyer when on Oct. 10, 1821, he saw a brilliant light in his law office and underwent an immediate conversion at the age of 29: “I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus.” He became a missionary to Jefferson County for the Female Missionary Society of the Western District of New York. He rejected traditional Calvinist theology and Unitarianism and became a founder of New School Presbyterianism that emphasized an evangelistic style of religion, pioneering new techniques of revivalism called the “New Measures” used by a growing number of disciples called the “Holy Band.” He was a charismatic speaker, tall, handsome, with striking blue eyes and a dramatic voice. When he spoke, his body writhed and he seemed possessed by the Holy Spirit. From his ordination in 1824 until his death in 1875, he was the most popular preacher in America. Thousands came to his tent meetings in Utica, Rome, Auburn and Troy. In October 1825 he began preaching every night in the town of Western, continued throughout the winter, beginning the first of what he called the “great Western revivals.” He pioneered revival meetings in large cities after 1827.
His Rochester revival in 1830 was described as intense, lasting weeks with hundreds of “inquiry meetings” and praying for individuals by name and putting them on the “anxious seat” for public prayer and granting them immediate admission into church membership upon public demonstration of conversion. He promoted temperance and women’s rights, allowing women to pray in public during his revivals. He founded a newspaper, the New York Evangelist, with financial support from Lewis and Arthur Tappan. In 1835, Finney became president of Oberlin College in Ohio and wrote a handbook for revival ministers. He blazed the trail that would later be followed by Dwight L. Moody, Billy Sunday and Billy Graham. (read more about the Burned-Over District here.)
Now consider the theology behind this man of such accomplishments:
Charles G. Finney determined from his earliest days as a young Christian to counteract what he believed to be the evangelism-crippling effects of the Calvinism espoused by men such as Asahel Nettleton. Believing himself to be a corrective for an overemphasis on divine sovereignty, Finney stressed the responsibility of human beings as free moral agents.
Because he was trained as a lawyer and tragically lacking in theological education, Finney’s reading of Scripture persuaded him to see salvation in terms of legalistic moral philosophy. Such a framework demanded that those held responsible to obey the law must be free to obey. While
Nettleton stressed the freedom of God, Finney chose to emphasize the freedom of man.Finney believed humans were voluntarily, not constitutionally, depraved. Election unto salvation resulted from divine foreknowledge of one’s response to the gospel. The atonement provided by Jesus paid for no one’s sins as a penal substitution, but rather allowed God to pardon sinners without violating his own nature and law.
Michael Horton has accurately
summarized Finney’s beliefs:
“God is not sovereign;
man is not a sinner by nature;
the atonement is not a true payment for sin;
justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality;
the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques;
and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns.”
(read more about Charles Finney’s Man-Centered Revivalism here.)
August 29th. Birthday of a significant figure in American and Christian history.
Kind of makes you want to take off work, doesn’t it?
God Bless America. 
True Experimental Calvinism: Chosen Without the Frozen, Part 2
The following is the response to my previous post, “Chosen without the Frozen,” by my friend, Gage Browning. Spending time over at his blog, “experimental calvinism,” which may be linked to by clicking on the title above, is highly recommended.
True Religion
by guest blogger, Gage Browning!
Is Religion itself a bad thing? I have heard people say, “it’s not about rules, it’s about relationship.” Funny, in all of my relationships, there are certain rules to follow. What husband doesn’t have rules in his home, most of them dictated by his wife? Nevertheless, I understand the mentality that says, “Religion” is a bad thing. I grew up seeing what oppressive legalistic religion looks like in my early years as an independent, fundamental Baptist. But God rescued me from that tradition that adds burdensome “blue laws” to the Law of God, as if the Law wasn’t heavy enough.
So I understand some of what Steve Brown is saying. The brand of Christianity that I was in when I was young, would never allow its pastors to “eat and drink” with sinners. I dare say that if “religion” is a set of man-made rules followed by those who’ve never experienced the grace of God in the gospel, then yes, that type of religion is “dead orthodoxy.” That type of “religion” wouldn’t have done the woman caught in adultery any good, and would have hurt the woman with the issue of blood.
What type of religion is good? True religion is consumed with the gospel. True religion is consumed, obsessed, and overcome by the gospel. A life overcome by the gospel acts a certain way. A life overcome by the gospel lives a certain way. A life overcome by the gospel believes certain things. A life consumed by the gospe . . . is what it means to be “experimental.” In other words, it’s experiential. This is not a simple, “head and heart” thing. It’s a kind of religion that is affected by the Scripture, that it invades all of your being. After reading what Steve Brown said, I couldn’t help but think of a story.
There was a young oriental boy that accepted an apprenticeship to learn to carve jade.
The first day he arrived at his new master’s hut, his master gave him a small piece of jade to hold in his hand. His master said, “Hold this jade, squeeze it, rub it. Do not put it down until I say.”
With that admonition, the boy’s teacher went about his chores. Finally at the end of the day, the master asked the boy to give him the stone and sent him home.
The next day, the boy was looking forward to carving his first piece of jade. He was disappointed when his master asked him to do the same thing all over again. His master repeated, “Hold this jade, squeeze it, rub it. Do not put it down until I say.”
The boy grew tired of holding the jade and was glad when dark came and he was able to go home, but the next day it was the same thing all over again, even the very same words! “Hold this jade, squeeze it, rub it. Do not put it down until I say.”
The same tiring routine went on day after day, until the boy decided he absolutely could take it no more. He made up his mind: he would find another vocation. So, when he saw his master he blurted out, “Today is my last day. I am wasting my time and yours. You have taught me nothing. I have spent all my time squeezing your stupid jade. I cannot endure another day.”
He expected his master to explode in rage. Bu the old man peered into his eyes and softly said, “Ah, just so. Well, since it is your last day and you have learned nothing perhaps you would humor your master and repeat the same old stupid task one last time.”
With that, he reached out his old wrinkled hand and dropped a beautiful lime green stone in the boy’s hand. The boy instinctively began to rub it and the old man shuffled off to do his chores. The boy realized something was wrong. He looked down at the stone and looked up at the bowed figure of the old man, and suddenly, he found himself shouting, “Master! Master!”
The old man turned around and the boy wondered why the old man was smiling a toothless smile. “Yes, my son?” he asked.
Breathless, the young boy stammered, “Master, I do not know what this stone is, but I know what it is not. It is most definitely no jade.”
You see, the young apprentice was now an experienced, or “experimental,” apprentice. Likewise, to be an experimental Calvinist, one must know and have experienced the gospel. It is still amazing to me to know that when God the Father looks at me, he doesn’t say, “Guilty,” he says, “Innocent,” because Jesus’ righteousness has been credited to me. Is this not the experience of the prophet in Isaiah, chapter 6?
When Isaiah was confronted with the Majesty of God, he was overcome by his own sin. Then he hit the streets with the good news when his sin was taken away. “Here I am, Lord, send me.”
This is true religion. One that has seen the glory of God compared to his own sinfulness, and lived to tell about it, because of the grace of God in Christ. True religion is when an adulturous woman is forgiven, and then goes home and gratefully tries to sin no more. It is when a woman pours out her heart and soul, and yes, even her perfume, and pours it on the feet of the Savior and wipes his feet with her hair.
True religion is experimental. It’s not Presbyterian, although I am one. It’s not heady, intellectual Calvinism, although I wave the TULIP flag.
True religion is experimental. True religion knows and loves the gospel.
True religion has experienced saving grace. True religion is not concerned with legalistic rules, but loves the Law of God.
True religion is the experience of a brand that is plucked from the fire, begging to serve the risen Christ.
This is true religion, and this is what I long for in my own life. I want to feel it, taste it, know it, believe it, experience and tell others about it.
True religion is consumed with the gospel so that when he sees fake religion he knows it immediately, much like the young apprentice knew when fake jade was in his hand. We are all apprentices, hopefully, “experimental” ones.
Chosen Without the Frozen
Today I’m posting an article from “Plain Truth” magazine, published by the now Evangelical Worldwide Church of God (dare I say it?) denomination. Now that they’ve repented of their Hebert W. Armstrongism, with its British-Israelism and whatever other kooky ideas they espoused, they use their magazine to promote what they call (in, unfortunately characteristic American Evangelical posturing) “Christianity without the Religion.”
Well, it just so happens that one of the regular columnists in this magazine is a Reformed Presbyterian who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary and has himself long been an advocate of “Christianity without the Religion.” When I first saw that Steve Brown, of Key Life Ministries was writing for the magazine, I knew it was a good fit considering their mutual hobby-horse. I thought to post this because I want us all to read my buddy, Gage’s analysis of it. Gage Browning’s blog is called “Experimental Calvinism.” No, that doesn’t mean Gage is out to experiment with Calvinism and attempt to reinvent the proverbial wheel (which never comes out round), he means “experimental” in an archaic sense of genuine experience, or to further muddy the waters, “Chosen without the Frozen,” or to put it simply, practicing what you preach. This has become a concern of his in recent years and its always healthy to probe beneath the veneer of our creeds and confessions and look for the works that are to follow the professed faith.
So, without further ado, submitted to the examination of Gage Browning, my favorite advocate of “Christianity without the Religion,” here’s Steve Brown:
He Doesn’t Fit My Mold
Plain Truth Magazine Vol. 71, Number 5: Sept/Oct ’06
Do you know what I just discovered? I’ve made Jesus into a Presbyterian! Is that crazy or what? Don’t get me wrong. I think he should be.
In fact, for years I tried to force him into that mold–correct, nice, proper and, if he lived in the 21st century, an owner of blue chip stocks.
I always thought that Jesus would be comfortable in most Presbyterian churches and would subscribe to The Westminster Confession of Faith.
If Jesus’ incarnation had taken place in modern times, I was quite certain that he would be a Republican.
That was before the real Jesus showed up.
Perhaps the most salient fact about Jesus is that he surprises us. Well, “surprise” may not be the right word. he offends, amazes, shocks and, of course, confuses us.
And he refuses to fit into the mold we have designed for him.
If Jesus were just a man, that would not be such a big deal. There is nothing surprising about people who do weird things.
I can deal with a psychotic megalomaniac, or, perhaps, a neurotic religious nut.
But when Jesus offends, amazes, shocks and confuses me, that is another matter altogether because he isn’t just a man. He is God.
Beggars’ cups of blind men, crutches of cripples and caskets of the dead were thrown away because of him. Lew Wallace, the 19th century military leader and writer (author of Ben Hur–a great novel! jdc), said this:
After six years given to the impartial investigation of Christianity, as to its truth or falsity, I have come to the deliberate conclusion that Jesus Christ was the Messiah of the Jews, the Savior of the world and my personal Savior.
That’s so true. But an impartial investigation of Christianity isn’t enough, is it?
The relationship isn’t a relationship of the mind . . . but of the heart. (There’s that famous “Headknowledge/Heartknowledge” dichotomy my online identity attempts to challenge! jdc.)
I’ve walked with Jesus for more than six years, and the more I hang out with him, the more I’ve learned that he isn’t what I always thought.
I, for instance, have had an increasing awareness that he doesn’t like religious people very much . . . and Presbyterians are quite religious.
Jesus was never angry at the prostitutes (Luke 7), the woman caught in adultery (John 8) or the woman who had been through a series of husbands (John 4). His harshest words were reserved for those who were very religious and who did everything right.
That can be disturbing to someone like me. I am, in fact, probably the most “religious” person you know. I teach religious stuff to religious students at a religious institution. I write religious books.
I teach religious seminars and I preach religious sermons.
I’m really religious, and I thought that Jesus would be pleased with that because . . . well, because he was religious, too.
Now, I’m not too sure.
In fact, not only have I come to see some things about him, I’ve come to see some things about me that are not altogether that flattering.
I’ve come to see the number of times that I’ve used religion as a substitute for God, a method whereby I could be self-righteous and display a badge of honor among the less religious.
Now all of that isn’t looking so good. So, I repent.
Richard Pratt, my colleague at the seminary, says, “Those who make their living at religion will lose one or the other.”
I don’t agree with that totally (I need the job), but I know what he’s saying.
Be careful about religion–it will make you feel that you are close to God, that you are pure and that you are serving him when you’re not.
For instance, Jesus refused to choose sides, and I’m always choosing sides.
A friend of mine told me years ago, “Steve, I don’t know where you will be in 20 years but, wherever you are, you’ll be waving a flag for something.”
Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees was so harsh one can’t read it without wincing. And yet, on more than one occasion, he is at a dinner party with Pharisees.
What’s with that?
He reached out to the oppressed and was on the side of the poor and, at the same time, became friends with the oppressor and the ones that made the poor poorer.
I just can’t understand why he loved Matthew, or why Jesus was so close to the affluent.
He was clear about sexual immorality. In the Sermon on the Mount, he went further than the law in his comments about lust being as bad as the actual sin of adultery. His teaching on divorce is quite cut and dried.
In fact, he goes beyond Moses. Okay. I can understand that . . . but why in the world is he spending time with adulterers and divorced people?
He is living in the middle of an occupied country, and yet he is often seen reaching out to the occupiers. Man, that just doesn’t make sense. I want to say, “Jesus, just choose a side and stand with your side.”
He says, “I don’t have a side.”
As you know, I’m quite political. I have, on occasion, been called opinionated . . . well . . . uh . . . maybe more than occasionally.
The more I walk with Jesus, the more I’m learning to see people through his eyes. That means I’m called to reach out to people who aren’t the kind of people I want to know . . . people who are on the “other side.”
I like Republicans and Presbyterians, but I have the feeling that Jesus wouldn’t spend as much time with Republicans and Presbyterians as I do.
Jesus was not very proper. Presbyterians may be mean, sinfual and arrogant . . . but we are always proper. As you look at the social events Jesus attended, you begin to realize that he is not necessarily someone you would invite to your dinner party. Talk about offensive . . . offensive as in affirming a prostitute who crashes the party, making wine so a party wouldn’t be spoiled and pointing out the ego at the head table.
Did you hear about the man who, in a dream, was being given a tour of the different levels of hell? In the first level, things were horrible and he asked his tour guide what they had done.
The guide said,”Those are Baptists who danced.”
Then they went to the second level and it was even worse. To his query, the guide said, “These were the Episcopalians who spent their capital.”
When they got to the third level it was getting a whole lot worse. The man asked the tour director what they had done. “They are Pentecostals who refused to raise their hands.”
Finally, they reached the deepest level of hell. The people there were in agony. “Good heavens,” the man asked, “what did these people do?”
“They are Presbyterians, who smiled, said, ‘Praise the Lord!’ in a formal worship service and used the wrong fork at dinner.”
Okay, I repent.
You too . . . even if you aren’t a Presbyterian.
He asked me to remind you to go and do something that causes an uptight Christian to doubt your salvation.
I’ve walked with Jesus for more than six years,
Take Down the Tent, the Revival’s Over
August 13, 1908
Death of Ira Sankey, 68.
He was Dwight Moody’s song evangelist from 1870. During their revival crusades, Sankey penned many hymn tunes, of which the most enduring today are HIDING IN THEE (“O Safe to the Rock that is Higher than I“) and SANKEY (“Faith is the Victory“).
Having read the above from an enewsletter I receive, I was reminded of the following by John MacArthur, published the Christian Research Journal, Volume 23, #2. This is a great article on the relative merits of classical hymnody, revival songs, and contemporary music.
Captain Headknowledge Gets Honorable Mention!
This write-up published in the August, 2006 issue of the Shady Grove Baptist Church newsletter, “The Llove Letter.”
I once heard a very wise pastor (I’ll let you guess who) state that most Christians’ theology is derived from hymns we sing to be true to the Word of God. One hymn that was brought to my attention this week fulfills that requirement, I believe. It is “Faith’s Review and Expectation.” It is the review of one man’s journey, by God’s redeeming faith and grace, from a life of sin and wretchedness, to a life of following God’s leading through times of trial and life-threatening situations, and was inspired by David’s prayer in 1 Chronicles 17. It also looks forward to the promise of life everlasting through that saving faith. The song was written in 1772 by a man once known as “The Great Blasphemer.” In 1748, after struggling as the captain of a ship through ten days of a violent storm, on the eleventh day he lashed himself to the helm in an attempt to keep the ship on course, and remained tied there for eleven hours, battling for the survival of his ship, crew, and cargo . . . and thinking about his life. Later, he would comment, ” On that day the Lord sent from on high and delivered me out of deep waters.” Slowly, God began changing his life, until he eventually became a preacher and hymn writer.
Below are the two final “missing” verses to this hymn:
Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess, within the veil,
a life of joy and peace.
The earth’s hail soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who call’d me here below,
Will be forever mine.
So, the next time you sing “Faith’s Review and Expectation,” remember the captain of a slave ship, John Newton, who was changed by God’s “Amazing Grace,” and remember that you know “The rest of the hymn.”
My thanks to Captain Headknowledge, and my apologies to Paul Harvey.
Together, Everyone Accomplishes More!
My online blogging brother up in Minnesota (actually, he’s a member of Bethlehem Baptist Church, pastored by John Piper), Bob Layton, when he read my recent series on the Lord’s Supper, did some online research of his own that adds a lot of historical material which was somewhat, but not by far, beyond the scope of my series. Bob’s info gives names, dates and places to all of my series’ general references. It’s called, “Welch’s Grape Juice, Worldly Wisdom, and Wine.” It’s a great read and collection of informative links!
It’s pretty amazing reading when you think of the impact of one man’s efforts to introduce an extrabiblical tradition to the Evangelical movement!
Reforming 21st Century Patriarchy
I read a great article on the hard times Christian patriarchy is having among evangelicals. It seems in this generation, we’ve generally conceded, yet at least attempt to hold onto the form of biblical patriarchy in theory or on paper, but in practice we are for the most part living the life of the “egalitarian.” Please read this important wake up call found at Reformation 21. If you aren’t challenged and motivated, and given a clearer understanding of how counter-cultural we would be as Christians (you know, kind of how the first century church “turned the world upside down?”) were we practicing what we preach on this facet of the Christian life, then you must already be perfect. Ha! That’s a good one!!!
UNSETTLED: The Discomfort of the Justified Life
Following is an excerpt from an article in the July/August, 2006 issue of Modern Reformation Magazine. This magazine, and it’s sister radio show, The White Horse Inn, are sources for my regular theological nourishment
. In the year 2006, they’ve been conducting a “Romans Revolution,” emphasizing the fact that many significant spiritual awakenings have been sparked by a rediscovery of the truth of justification by faith as taught in Paul’s most systematic presentation of the gospel, the book of Romans. In Romans 7, Paul highlights the struggle between our indwelling sin and the new life of the Spirit which compete for our compliance. How do we deal with the struggle most effectively? Realize that even though our strides in sanctification are often few and far between, our justification freely given to us on account of Christ will not only comfort us, but give us the hope to get back in the fray with the flesh!
. . . in Romans 8:1, Paul assures us that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” So, Romans 7:4 and 8:1 say essentially the same thing: God does not look on our struggles against indwelling sin with an attitude of condemnation and judgment because the condemning power of his law has been forever dealt with by Christ.
So in the midst of our struggle with indwelling sin, we must continually keep our focus on the gospel (emphasis mine). We must always go back to the truth that even in the face of the fact that so often “I do not do the good that I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (v. 19), there is no condemnation. God no longer counts our sin agaist us (Romans 4:8).
Or, to say it another way, God wants us to find our primary joy in our objectively declared justification, not in our subjectively perceived sanctification (emphasis mine). Regardless of how much progress we make in our pursuit of holiness, it will never come close to the absolute perfect righteousness of Christ that is ours through our union with him in his life and death.
So we should learn to live with the discomfort of the justified life. We should accept the fact that as a still-growing Christian, we will always be dissatisfied with our sanctification. But at the same time, we should remember that in Christ we are justified. We are righteous in him. There is the familiar play on the word “justification,” which means “just as if I’d never sinned.” But there is another way of saying that which is even better: justification means “just as if I’d always obeyed.” That’s the way we stand before God–clothed in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. And that’s the way we can live with the discomfort of the justified life.
Stop and Smell the Total Depravity
T — Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
T — So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
It is amazing how we gloss over verses that don’t fit into our systems. And how common it is that these kinds of verses are ignored totally by semi-pelagian preachers and teachers. Romans 8:7 covers the idea that the unregenerate are not subject to the law of God. Calvinist and non-Calvinist can agree on this. We all have Romans 3:23 underlined in our Soul-Winner’s New Testament! “all have sinned,” after all! But what is this? It goes on to compound the issue with a clear statement regarding one’s moral inability. Not only are those who walk after the flesh, being carnally minded and therefore dead, not subject to God’s law, but that are not subject because they cannot be subject.
This speaks to the debated question of who it is who can receive Christ. If “without faith it is impossible to please God,” and if verse 8 says they that are in the flesh cannot please God, then does it not follow that they that are in the flesh cannot believe unless regenerated before he believes? Oh, but that would demonstrate the logical connection between Total Depravity and Irresistable Grace . . .
Stop and Smell the Limited Atonement!
L — “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:9-11 KJV)
L — “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14 KJV)
L — “We love him, because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)
One thing that is important to keep in mind when reading the apostles’ letters to the churches, most of what they write about the work of redemption, they put in terms that indicate the work was done for us. Now, the question is raised whether these references include the whole world, or is the apostle meaning to refer only to the audience to which he is writing? It has become my conviction that these references are directed to the church and not the world at large unless the context specifically demands such an interpretation.
Now, to highlight the doctrine of Limited Atonement in this passage:
The paragraph which contains verses 7-12 is basically about the fact that our love for one another is evidence that God’s Son indeed has saved us. But look at some of the atonement theology contained in this paragraph:
In verse nine, the love of God is manifested toward the elect because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that the elect might live through him.
In verse ten, we are shown the logical order of Christian love. God did not send his Son to propitiate him for sinners because he foresaw who’d love him, but the kind of love God reveals in Scripture is the kind revealed in his Son’s propitiatory work on behalf of the sovereignly chosen elect. God takes the initiative from A-Z in the doctrine of salvation.
In verse eleven, there is some very simple application. Would that it were this easy to apply all of Scripture! We have a very clear redemptive focus, and we are aware of man’s fallen condition in his lack of love for others.
The redemptive focus is that God has loved the elect by sending his Son to redeem them, and since not only does the elect benefit spiritually from this work, but once Christ’s work as our Substitute has been planned by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit to the elect, they now have the great Example of our holy, covenant Head to follow toward others. God wants the elect to give themselves to others on the “horizontal” plane as Christ gave himself for them on the “vertical” plane.
Those who struggle with the fact of sovereign grace need to keep in mind that all we ever do is a response to God’s working in us to will and do according to his pleasure. We did not initiate our creation; yet Adam, our Head in the covenant of works, did (under God’s inscrutable foreordination) fall into sin of his own free will (and if we were in his shoes, we would’ve also), but everything after that is based on God’s promise; a promise he was not obligated to make. It would have been perfectly fair for him to leave us in the condition in which we find ourselves in Adam. All of God’s redemptive work for the elect is done to keep his promise, to show mercy to the elect for his glory, to not be “fair,” but gracious! Remember, fairness means death!
Now look at verse 14. This is one of the non-Calvinist’s proof texts of a general atonement. My semi-pelagian friend, stop and think about the world in which the apostle John is writing. The natural children of Abraham had the world classified in two categories: “us” and “them”; Jew and Gentile. John was a Jew. When a Jew in the first century talks about God doing something for “the whole world,” he means to emphasize the amazing truth that God’s not only doing something for the people he delivered from bondage in Egypt, but in the Lord Jesus Christ, he’s now delivering sinners from every nation from bondage to sin! This was a truly awe-inspiring thing going on in the world. It happened to Rahab, and Ruth, but now Gentiles were being brought into the Kingdom of God en masse! If a Jew as going to communicate clearly, he needed to specify about whom he’s speaking. Jesus came to save, not the Jews only, but elect sinners from the whole world!
“Finally, brethren” (insert preacher joke here), verse nineteen is a restatement of that simple application that we are to go and do for others what God has done for us. God demonstrated the greatest expression of love in Christ on behalf of the elect in his sinless life, propitiatory death and life-imparting resurrection, and now we are to obey not only the Great Commandment (love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength), but the second as well, which is “like unto it” (love your neighbor as yourself). This love is the fruit of justification. R. C. Sproul once broadcast that the righteousness of God was imputed to us, but that when that justifying work took place, God’s love was imparted. If we’ve been justified by faith, then we, the believing elect, will love God and our brothers in Christ and the lost! So since the work of God is effectual, and we have his promise that it will happen, let’s get after it in the assurance that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance! As the English Standard Version translates verse nineteen, “We love (others) because he first loved us.”
Stop and Smell the TULIPS
A few years ago, when I was beginning my transformation from an “independent, fundamental, soul-winnin’, separated, premillennial, (semi-pelagian), King James Bible-believin'” Baptist, having come to learn “the way of God (specifically, the way of his grace) more perfectly,” I began to notice traces of those doctrines which have been most controversially affected by God’s sovereign grace throughout much of the New Testament in familiar places which I never dreamed I’d find them. As I noticed them, I began to mark them in the margin next to the verses or passages in which the doctrines evidenced themselves in varying degrees.
Of course, I’m speaking of what Calvinists call “The Doctrines of Grace,” and what most semi-pelagian, “independent, fundamental . . .” Baptist preachers mistakenly call “Hyper-Calvinism” (mostly in an attempt to commit the logical fallacy of “guilt by association”). As many of you are aware these are the doctrines which have been grouped together and given an acronym over the years (do any of you theologians out there know who it was that first popularized the acronym? I’m aware of its origins with the Synod of Dort, what about the acronym itself?), presumably to aid in memorization. The Doctrines of Grace are those doctrines which are radically God-centered, contrary to the way they are naturally and commonly understood by the “unlearned and unstable” (and I mean that charitably); they are those doctrines which eminently magnify God and humiliate man. Indeed, they so humiliate man, and sometimes so infuriate him, that even the Apostle Paul had to answer some of the very questions raised by these doctrines in Scirpture, which are always raised by non-Calvinists to this day, as well as defend them against the same charges which continue to be made against them to this day.
These “Doctrines of Grace” are:
Total Depravity (In other words, “How the doctrine of the sovereignty of the gracious God affects the biblical doctrine of human sinfulness”)
Unconditional Election (“How the doctrine of the sovereignty of the gracious God affects the biblical doctrine of election)
Limited Atonement (“How the doctrine of the sovereignty of the gracious God affects the biblical doctrine of the atonement”)
Irresistable Grace (“How the doctrine of the sovereignty of the gracious God affects the biblical doctrine of the gospel call and regeneration”)
Perseverance of the Saints (“How the doctrine of the sovereignty of the gracious God affects the biblical doctrine of the security of the believer”)
So as I noticed traces of these doctrines throughout Scripture, I’d mark a “T” or a “U” and so on, in the margin, until my New Testament was littered with them. These I intend to begin sharing one by one each week, with a few comments of my own so that these wonderful doctrines may be made more clear to those who continue to struggle with them, and likewise for the edification of those of us who already hold them so dear.
But this is just the introduction. Probably next week we’ll begin our stroll through the New Testament and occassionally “Stop and Smell the TULIPS!”
May I Introduce You to the ICBI?
“ICBI, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, is a coalition of individuals who represent many works and denominations but who are together taking a united stand on God’s inerrant Word.
What is ICBI’s Purpose?
Our purpose is to take a united stand in elucidating, vindicating and applying the truth of biblical inerrancy as an integral element of the authority of Scripture. This will be done in both academic theology and practical Christian instruction.
Why is ICBI Necessary?
The authority and accuracy of the Bible are foundations of the Christian faith. Yet we are witnessing the erosion of these foundations. As we have observed the preaching in many local churches, the teaching in some seminaries and much popular Christian literature, we sense that sizeable numbers of evangelical believers are being turned away from the Bible as their final authority in matters of Christian doctrine and Christian living.”
I was first introduced to the ICBI through the ministry of Dr. R. C. Sproul. This Council produced three statements containing Articles of Affirmation and Denial, (what evangelicals do and do not believe) concerning Biblical Inerrancy, Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Application. For some reason the link above does not contain the statement on Hermeneutics, so you may find that statement by checking out the Origins website.
Easter and Images
This Good Friday I was reading Matthew chapter 27 in my ESV to my children, regarding Christ’s appearance before Pilate, his crucifixion and burial and came across an interesting translation choice in verse 59: “Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud.”
Shroud?
An evangelical translation using the word “shroud” in reference to the material used in burying the body of the Lord Jesus Christ? I thought evangelicals always asserted that Christ’s body was wound in strips of cloth (notice the plurality). Compare John 19, verse 40: “So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.” Would this be what an unbeliever would call a discrepancy? How shall we resolve this?
What saith Calvin? I know, that’s everyone’s first instinct, isn’t it?
Well, his only comment on the “linen cloth” (singular) in Matt. 27:59 reads, “from which we infer, that Christ was honorably buried.” No help on the “discrepancy.”
Next expert—What saith the Dispensationalists? The NET Bible (New English Translation), contains “translation notes,” which many do not, but of course if you saw how thick a NET Bible is, you’d know what kind of theology geeks like myself are drawn to it, despite its apparent Dispensationalist bias.
Voila! A translation note on the single piece of material referenced in Matt. 27:59 and even a “tn” for its plural counterpart in John 19:40! Naturally, these are two different Greek words. The ESV translates the Greek word, sindon, as “linen shroud.” http://www.studylight.org/ defines this Greek word, “linen cloth, esp. that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped.” The NET’s translation note adds nothing to this.
An explanation hoping to resolve the discrepancy between singular and plural words is found, however, in the NET’s translation note on John 19:40. Here’s what it said:
“The Fourth Gospel uses ojqonivoi” (oqonioi”) to describe the wrappings, and this has caused a good deal of debate, since it appears to contradict the synoptic accounts which mention a sindwvn (sindwn), a large single piece of linen cloth. If one understands ojqonivoi” to refer to smaller strips of cloth, like bandages, there would be a difference, but diminutive forms have often lost their diminutive force in Koine Greek (BDF §111.3), so there may not be any difference.”
Because there is precedence for “diminutive forms” losing their “force” in Koine Greek, we are to allow Matthew’s singular noun to inform our interpretation of John’s plural noun.
I sure hope this doesn’t mean the Shroud of Turin relic is for real! No, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Fortunately, our faith does not rest on our acceptance of physical relics which purport to convey the actual image of our Lord and Savior. Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), but just because the Greek words used for that in which the image of the invisible God was buried seems to lean toward a singular sheet, it does not follow that the actual image of the image of the invisible God will do us any spiritual good. By all indications, we will only tend toward idolatry in either thought, word or deed. Besides, even if that is Jesus’ image on the Shroud of Turin (I’m still rooting for its lack of genuineness, given the contradictory results from the mountain of ongoing research, but mostly its status as a Roman Catholic relic), the kind of image the New Testament points us toward is an image in the sense of a reflection of God’s moral nature, not a physical representation.
“But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:20-24 ESV).
May this Easter, yes Easter, weekend be used by the Holy Spirit to call us to a closer communion with God, who, in the Person of the Father, sent his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to perfectly reflect the glorious moral image of his Father for us; to willingly receive the consequences of our Adam-imputed, and actual, inability to perfectly reflect the Father’s glorious moral image, so that we may by his grace through faith in his promise as we hear it preached, read it in his Word, sing it in our psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, be more and more transformed into God’s glorious moral image by the power of resurrection of the Image of the Invisible God!
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 
