Archive for Theology Blogs
Swift Responses to Hawking
Posted by: | CommentsHawking has popularized the old “the universe created itself” canard in a recent article on his forthcoming book.
Scientist John Lennox has responded here.
Also, check out these videos from William Lane Craig and Robert J. Spitzer on this strange idea. (here and here)
See my blogger buddy Rhology’s assessment here.
Another blogger friend here.
I think there are about a zillion other responses out there. Feel free to post them in the comment section.
Blind comparison of the Common English Bible
Posted by: | Comments
Eddie Gonzalez posted a comparison of the Common English Bible with some other translations looking at whether it lives up to its claim of being “relevant, readable, and reliable.”
Eddie shows two different passages. About each he asks, “(1) Which is the CEB translation?; and (2) Which is the most comfortable, readable English version?”
When I looked at the versions, I was most sensitized to unnatural English syntax and Biblish. So something like, “Most assuredly, I say to you” got pushed into the pile of translations that definitely aren’t “common English.”
Let me editorialize here and ask, “What do you get for the girl who has everything?” For the English-reading public, a generic Bible version is probably going to have a tough time getting noticed. It’s like someone deciding to bring out a new hand soap or brand of chewing gum. The market is too big and too saturated. So, I predict that the only hope for a new English translation to find any readership is to be different. Find a niche. Be the first Open Source translation. Be the slangiest version. Be anything but common. Because with versions like the NIV and NET and CEV out there, a common language translation has to compete with some very firmly entrenched competitors. ESV and The Message are two good examples of translations that have gained a foothold by being different rather than common.
I appreciate Eddie’s attempt to be fair even while he has his doubts about the version. Note mshedden’s comment regarding possibly polemical translation choices which may cause the CEB more trouble in gaining acceptance.
Check out Eddie’s post and decide for see if you can identify the Common English.
GOD’S COVENANT WITH OUR FIRST PARENTS
Posted by: | Comments__________
I. Though, according to His right and power over man, whom He had created after His own image, God could prescribe obedience to Him in all things for the performance of which he possessed suitable powers, or would by the grace of God have them in that state; yet, that He might elicit from man voluntary and free obedience, which alone is grateful to Him, it was His will to enter into a contract and covenant with him, by which God required obedience, and, on the other hand, promised a reward; to which He added the denunciation of a punishment, that the transaction might not seem to be entirely one between equals, and as if man was not completely bound to God. II. On this account the law of God is very often called a Covenant, because it consists of those two parts, that is, a work commanded, and a reward promised; to which is subjoined the denunciation of a punishment, to signify the right which God had over man and which He has not altogether surrendered, and to incite man to greater obedience. III. God prescribed this obedience, First, by a law placed in and imprinted on the mind of man; in which is contained his natural duty towards God and his neighbour, and therefore towards himself also; and it is that of love, with fear, honour and worship towards a superior. For as true virtue consists in the government or right ordering of the affections (of which the first, the chief, and that on which the rest depend, is Love), the whole law is contained in the right ordering of Love. And as no obedience seems to be yielded in the case of a man who executes the whole of his own will without any even the least resistance: Therefore, to try his obedience, that thing was to be prescribed, to which, by a certain feeling, man had an abhorrence; and that was to be forbidden, towards which he was drawn by a certain inclination. Therefore the love of ourselves was to be regulated or rightly ordered, which is the first and proximate cause that man should live in society with his species, or according to humanity. IV. To this law it was the pleasure of God to add another, which was a symbolical one. A symbolical law is one that prescribes some act, which in itself is neither agreeable nor disagreeable to God, that is, one that is indifferent: And it serves for this purpose, that God may try whether man is willing to yield obedience to Him solely on this account, because it has been the pleasure of God to require such obedience, and though it were impossible to devise any other reason why God imposed that law. V. That symbolical law was, in this instance, prohibitive of some act, to which man was inclined by some natural propensity (that is, to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil), though “it was pleasant to the eyes and good for food.” By the commanding of an indifferent act, it does not seem to have been possible to try the obedience of man with equal advantage. VI. This seems to be the difference between each [of these kinds of] obedience, that the first (Thesis I) is true obedience and in itself pleasing to God; and the man who performs it is said truly to live according to godliness; but that the latter (Theses IV & V) is not so much obedience itself as the external profession of willingly yielding obedience, and it is therefore an acknowledgment, or the token of an acknowledgment, by which man professes himself to be subject to God, and declares that he is willingly subject. Exactly in the same manner a vassal yields obedience to his lord for having fought against his enemies; which obedience he confesses that he cheerfully performs to him, by presenting him annually with a gift of small value. VII. From this comparison it appears that the obedience which is yielded to a symbolical law is far inferior to that which is yielded to a natural law; but that the disobedience manifested to a symbolical law is not the less serious, or that it is even more grievous; because, by this very act, man professes that he is unwilling to submit himself, and indeed not yield obedience in other matters, and those of greater importance and of more difficult labour. VIII. The reward that corresponds with obedience to this chief law, the performance of which is of itself pleasing to God (the analogy and difference which exist between God and man being faithfully observed), is life eternal, the complete satisfying of the whole of our will and desire. But the reward which answers to the observance of the symbolical law, is the free enjoyment of the fruits of Paradise, and the power to eat of the tree of life, by the eating of which man was always restored to his pristine strength. But this tree of life was a symbol of eternal life, which man would have enjoyed if, by abstaining from eating the fruit, he had professed obedience and had truly performed such obedience to the moral law. IX. We are of opinion that if our first parents had remained in their integrity by obedience performed to both these laws, God would have acted with their posterity by the same compact, that is, by their yielding obedience to the moral law inscribed on their hearts, and to some symbolical or ceremonial law; though we dare not specially make a similar affirmation respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. X. So likewise, if they had persisted in their obedience to both laws, we think it very probable that at certain periods men would have been translated from this natural life, by the intermediate change of the natural, mortal and corruptible body, into a body spiritual, immortal, and incorruptible, to pass a life of immortality and bliss in heaven.__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 16:16-22; 17:1, 13-16; Acts 13:1-12; John 9:1-17. 
__________
James Arminius, “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations: Disputation XXIX. On the Covenant into which God Entered with Our First Parents,” The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:369-70.
GOD OF PROMISE: INTRODUCING COVENANT THEOLOGY
Posted by: | Comments__________
At its best, systematic theology never imposes a system on Scripture but seeks instead to draw out the main teachings of Scripture from Scripture itself. At this point, I hope it is clear that Scripture itself requires us to distinguish between two types of covenant: unconditional and conditional. . . .
THREE OVERARCHING BIBLICAL COVENANTS
Sometimes covenant theology is also called federal theology because of its emphasis on solidarity in a representative head. A representative system of government is called “federal,” and Scripture calls us to see ourselves not simply as individuals but as those who are either “in Adam” or “in Christ.”
A broad consensus emerged in this Reformed (federal) theology with respect to the existence in Scripture of three distinct covenants: the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), the covenant of creation (foederus naturae), and the covenant of grace (foederus gratiae). The other covenants in Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) are all grouped under these broader arrangements. . . .
1. The Covenant of Redemption
Most biblical covenants are historical pacts God has made with creatures. The covenant of redemption, however, is an eternal pact between the persons of the Trinity. The Father elects a people in the Son as their mediator to be brought to saving faith through the Spirit. Thus, this covenant made by the Trinity in eternity already takes the fall of the human race into account [an Infra- or sublapsarian model]. . . .
Already we can see how such a covenantal framework challenges the idea of a solitary despot. The Father elects a people in the Son through the Spirit. Our salvation, therefore, arises first of all out of the joint solidarity of the divine persons. The joy of giving and receiving experienced by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit spills over, as it were, into the Creator-creature relationship. In the covenant of redemption, the love of the Father and the Spirit for the Son is demonstrated in the gift of a people who will have him as their head. At the same time, the Son’s love for the Father and the Spirit is demonstrated in his pledge to redeem that family at the greatest personal cost. . . .
2. The Covenant of Creation (Works)
Founded in creation itself, the covenant made initially between God and his viceroy has been variously labeled the covenant of creation, nature, law, and works. All of these terms are appropriate. . . . This pact presupposes a righteous and holy human servant entirely capable of fulfilling the stipulations of God’s law. It promises blessing on the basis of obedience and curse upon transgression. It pertains to humanity in a state of unblemished nature, not in a state of grace. However, I have chosen to use the term covenant of creation because it is the least controversial and most broadly useful.
If the covenant of redemption remains controversial, the so-called covenant of creation as a covenant of works is more still, especially in contemporary Reformed theology. . . . This covenantal arrangement is “God’s pact with Adam in his integrity, as the head of the whole human race, by which God requiring of man the perfect obedience of the law of works promised him if obedient eternal life in heaven, but threatened him if he transgressed with eternal death; and on his part man promised perfect obedience to God’s requirement (Heidegger IX, 15).”
The point that this covenant was made “with Adam in his integrity” is crucial. Prior to the fall, humanity in Adam was neither sinful nor confirmed in righteousness. He was on trial: would he follow his covenant Lord’s pattern of working and resting, subduing and reigning, or would he go his own way and seek his own good apart from God’s Word? Created for obedience, he was entirely capable of maintaining himself in a state of integrity. . . .
3. The Covenant of Grace
The third covenant in the federal scheme is the covenant of grace. Once the second Adam has successfully fulfilled this covenant (“For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified” [John 17:19 NIV]), the benefits of this feat are dispersed by the Spirit according to a gracious covenant. Thus, the terms of the divine benediction here are reversed. Instead of acknowledging the inherent goodness, truth, and beauty of sinners, Jesus pronounces them just on the basis of the inherent justice of another (iustitia alienum). It is a true judgment rather than a legal fiction because the requisite covenantal righteousness is indeed fully present in the covenantal head (by fulfilling the creation covenant) and therefore belongs to his body by incorporation.
Like the covenant of creation, this covenant is made between God and human partners — in this case, fallen Adam, Seth, Abraham, and David. It is in this covenant that provisions are made for offenders, based on another’s fulfillment of the legal covenant on their behalf. Thus, instead of it being a covenant based on law (“Do this and you shall live”), it is based on promise (“Live and you will do this”). There are real partners in this covenant (God with believers and their children) and real conditions (repentance and faith). . . .
Not only at one point (justification), but from beginning to end, the relationship in which we stand before our God is founded on God’s own oath, fulfilled in the work of his Son, made effective through the work of his Spirit. For Christ, by his personal fulfillment of the covenant of creation, has won for us the right to eat from the Tree of Life. The inheritance that he attained according to a covenant of law is now ours according to a covenant of promise. There simply is no better foundation for confidence and no richer source of daily comfort in life and in death.
__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 12:1; 14:1-22; Acts 12:18-25; John 8:47-59.
__________
Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 77-110.
Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford, underscores the fact that the New Testament “includes no specific references to the baptism of infants.”1 He continues:
- However, it does not explicitly forbid the practice, and there are also a number of passages which could be interpreted as condoning it — for example, references to the baptizing of entire households (which would probably have included infants) — at several points (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). Paul treats baptism as a spiritual counterpart to circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12), suggesting that the parallel may extend to its application to infants.2
A casual glance through much of the New Testament leads one to believe that baptism is reserved for believers only (cf. Mark 16:16), to the exclusion of infants, given that infants cannot trust in Christ Jesus. This was certainly the position held by Tertullian (c. 198), who argued against the baptizing of infants. He argues:
- And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is particularly true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary — if baptism itself is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? . . . Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning — while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? . . . If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation.3
Many within the early Church, however, believed that something took place at baptism, and thus an infant needed to be baptized if he or she were to “grow up and learn where to come,” as Tertullian instructs. Incidentally, McGrath believes that paedobaptism arose out of a need.4 St. Augustine (354-430) believed that infants needed baptizing in order to wash away original sin.5 Two centuries before Augustine, Cyprian (late first century, early to mid second century) was one of the first early Church fathers to “clearly and unequivocally affirm baptismal regeneration” and that “infants are all born guilty of Adam’s sin and that the guilt is only washed away by the water of baptism.”6 Holding to this presupposition, as did the majority of early Church fathers, Tertullian’s position was largely ignored and rejected until Ulrich Zwingli’s era (early sixteenth century).
The rite of circumcision was performed on the eighth day of the birth of all males in Jewish culture. But in Cyprian’s (c. 250) mind, baptizing an infant need not wait for the eighth day. He writes:
- In respect of the case of the infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth — that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. However, we all thought very differently in our council. . . . Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man. . . . As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?7
For those who view baptism as a sanctifying (or even regenerative) act, there can be no wonder why they reject a believer’s-only baptism view. Moreover, they believe that converts who have not been baptized need to be, since baptism washes away one’s sins. However, the majority of the fathers also viewed “acceptance of the true faith as necessary if baptism was to be effective. The mere physical act of baptism, without true faith, was empty of value.”8 Hence infants who have been baptized, who are being brought up in the faith — in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) — must also trust in Christ Jesus in order to be saved by Him.
The Great Reformer Martin Luther’s view of baptism was similar to those of many early Church fathers. In contradistinction from Roman Catholic teaching, Luther believed that “baptism, when performed and received by faith, fully justifies the sinner through the Word of God that is mysteriously bound to the water.”9 Though some argued against Luther’s view, in that infants cannot receive baptism by faith, he maintained that faith was God’s gift, given to baptized persons, and that infants could in fact have faith, arguing that no one can prove that infants can not have faith in Christ.10
Genevan Reformer John Calvin believed that paedobaptism is “the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the church, that being engrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.”11 Paedobaptism effected one’s purification, as an instrument of sealing, by which God “assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed.”12 Dutch Reformed theologian James Arminius concurs:
- BAPTISM is the initial sacrament of the New Testament by which the covenant-people of God are sprinkled with water, by a minister of the Church, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; to signify and to testify the spiritual ablution which is effected by the blood and Spirit of Christ. By this sacrament those who are baptized to God the Father, and are consecrated to His Son by the Holy Spirit as a peculiar treasure, have communion with both of them, and serve God all the days of their life.13
Those who do not continue in the faith subsequent to their baptism are considered apostates. In many Reformed circles (not meaning Calvinistic, but broadly Reformed), both historically and in our modern era, paedobaptism is not “a matter of the salvation of the child’s soul” in the strictest sense, explains Karen Spierling, Visiting Associate Professor of History at The Ohio State University. According to Reformed theology, baptism was “the first step in the incorporation of the child into the Reformed community and the public acknowledgement of that community’s responsibility to the child.”14 All baptized persons still must personally trust in Christ alone in order to be ultimately saved by Him.
__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 12:1; 13:3-17, 21-27; Acts 12:1-17; John 8:33-47.
__________
1 Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, third edition (Maleden, Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 528.
2 Ibid.
3 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 59.
4 McGrath writes: “The practice of baptizing infant members of Christian parents — often referred to as paedobaptism — appears to have been a response to a number of pressures. It is possible that the parallel with the Jewish rite of circumcision led Christians to devise an equivalent rite of passage for Christian infants. More generally, there seems to have been a pastoral need for Christian parents to celebrate the birth of a child within a believing household. Infant baptism may well have had its origins partly in response to this concern. However, it must be stressed that there is genuine uncertainty concerning both the historical origins and the social or theological causes of the practice” (528).
5 Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 267.
6 Ibid., 118.
7 Dictionary, 59.
8 N. R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power: Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers (London: Grace Publications Trust, 2002), 184.
9 Olson, 393.
10 Ibid., 393-94.
11 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Henrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 4.15.1, 859.
12 Ibid.
13 James Arminius, “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations: Disputation LXIII. On Baptism and Paedo-Baptism,” The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:440.
14 Karen E. Spierling, Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community, 1536-1564 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 2.
Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford, underscores the fact that the New Testament “includes no specific references to the baptism of infants.”1 He continues:
- However, it does not explicitly forbid the practice, and there are also a number of passages which could be interpreted as condoning it — for example, references to the baptizing of entire households (which would probably have included infants) — at several points (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). Paul treats baptism as a spiritual counterpart to circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12), suggesting that the parallel may extend to its application to infants.2
A casual glance through much of the New Testament leads one to believe that baptism is reserved for believers only (cf. Mark 16:16), to the exclusion of infants, given that infants cannot trust in Christ Jesus. This was certainly the position held by Tertullian (c. 198), who argued against the baptizing of infants. He argues:
- And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is particularly true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary — if baptism itself is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? . . . Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning — while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? . . . If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation.3
Many within the early Church, however, believed that something took place at baptism, and thus an infant needed to be baptized if he or she were to “grow up and learn where to come,” as Tertullian instructs. Incidentally, McGrath believes that paedobaptism arose out of a need.4 St. Augustine (354-430) believed that infants needed baptizing in order to wash away original sin.5 Two centuries before Augustine, Cyprian (late first century, early to mid second century) was one of the first early Church fathers to “clearly and unequivocally affirm baptismal regeneration” and that “infants are all born guilty of Adam’s sin and that the guilt is only washed away by the water of baptism.”6 Holding to this presupposition, as did the majority of early Church fathers, Tertullian’s position was largely ignored and rejected until Ulrich Zwingli’s era (early sixteenth century).
The rite of circumcision was performed on the eighth day of the birth of all males in Jewish culture. But in Cyprian’s (c. 250) mind, baptizing an infant need not wait for the eighth day. He writes:
- In respect of the case of the infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth — that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded. So you think that one who has just been born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day. However, we all thought very differently in our council. . . . Rather, we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man. . . . As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible. For what is lacking to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?7
For those who view baptism as a sanctifying (or even regenerative) act, there can be no wonder why they reject a believer’s-only baptism view. Moreover, they believe that converts who have not been baptized need to be, since baptism washes away one’s sins. However, the majority of the fathers also viewed “acceptance of the true faith as necessary if baptism was to be effective. The mere physical act of baptism, without true faith, was empty of value.”8 Hence infants who have been baptized, who are being brought up in the faith — in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) — must also trust in Christ Jesus in order to be saved by Him.
The Great Reformer Martin Luther’s view of baptism was similar to those of many early Church fathers. In contradistinction from Roman Catholic teaching, Luther believed that “baptism, when performed and received by faith, fully justifies the sinner through the Word of God that is mysteriously bound to the water.”9 Though some argued against Luther’s view, in that infants cannot receive baptism by faith, he maintained that faith was God’s gift, given to baptized persons, and that infants could in fact have faith, arguing that no one can prove that infants can not have faith in Christ.10
Genevan Reformer John Calvin believed that paedobaptism is “the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the church, that being engrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.”11 Paedobaptism effected one’s purification, as an instrument of sealing, by which God “assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed.”12 Dutch Reformed theologian James Arminius concurs:
- BAPTISM is the initial sacrament of the New Testament by which the covenant-people of God are sprinkled with water, by a minister of the Church, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; to signify and to testify the spiritual ablution which is effected by the blood and Spirit of Christ. By this sacrament those who are baptized to God the Father, and are consecrated to His Son by the Holy Spirit as a peculiar treasure, have communion with both of them, and serve God all the days of their life.13
Those who do not continue in the faith subsequent to their baptism are considered apostates. In many Reformed circles (not meaning Calvinistic, but broadly Reformed), both historically and in our modern era, paedobaptism is not “a matter of the salvation of the child’s soul” in the strictest sense, explains Karen Spierling, Visiting Associate Professor of History at The Ohio State University. According to Reformed theology, baptism was “the first step in the incorporation of the child into the Reformed community and the public acknowledgement of that community’s responsibility to the child.”14 All baptized persons still must personally trust in Christ alone in order to be ultimately saved by Him.
__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 12:1; 13:3-17, 21-27; Acts 12:1-17; John 8:33-47.
__________
1 Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, third edition (Maleden, Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 528.
2 Ibid.
3 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 59.
4 McGrath writes: “The practice of baptizing infant members of Christian parents — often referred to as paedobaptism — appears to have been a response to a number of pressures. It is possible that the parallel with the Jewish rite of circumcision led Christians to devise an equivalent rite of passage for Christian infants. More generally, there seems to have been a pastoral need for Christian parents to celebrate the birth of a child within a believing household. Infant baptism may well have had its origins partly in response to this concern. However, it must be stressed that there is genuine uncertainty concerning both the historical origins and the social or theological causes of the practice” (528).
5 Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 267.
6 Ibid., 118.
7 Dictionary, 59.
8 N. R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power: Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers (London: Grace Publications Trust, 2002), 184.
9 Olson, 393.
10 Ibid., 393-94.
11 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Henrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 4.15.1, 859.
12 Ibid.
13 James Arminius, “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations: Disputation LXIII. On Baptism and Paedo-Baptism,” The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:440.
14 Karen E. Spierling, Infant Baptism in Reformation Geneva: The Shaping of a Community, 1536-1564 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 2.
- He [Jesus Christ] was born and baptized so that by His passion He could purify the water. -Ignatius (c. 70)
I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins. -Hermas (c. 150)
Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water. They descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. -Hermas (c. 150)
At our birth, we were born without our own knowledge of choice, but by our parents coming together. . . . In order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again [explicit Arminian theology], and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe. . . . And in the name of Jesus Christ . . . and in the name of the Holy Spirit. -Justin Martyr (c. 160)
When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. . . . For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins. -Irenaeus (c. 180)2
Not only did the majority of the early Church fathers believe that a person was forgiven when he or she was baptized, but also regenerated. Concerning our holy baptism, Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) comments: “Straightway, on our regeneration, we attained that perfection after which we aspired. For we were illuminated, which is to know God.”3 Tertullian (c. 198) concurs: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . We, like little fishes, after the example of our ichthus, Jesus Christ, are born [i.e., reborn] in water.”4 Our fathers believed that they were rightly interpreting and practicing the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).
The connection which our fathers were drawing between water baptism and the forgiveness of our sins (and the bestowal of eternal life through regeneration) were concluded from Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. Jesus speaks: “‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ . . . ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:3, 5 NRSV). Here, many interpret being born of water and Spirit as being regenerated at one’s baptism. Comments from The New Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible read:
- Misunderstanding is common in this Gospel, and even necessary for growth in faith; the challenge is to move beyond the material to the symbolic and spiritual. Here birth is employed as a metaphor for new life in Christ, a birth that can only be effected by the Spirit of God whose origins and operations are as mysterious as the wind [John 3:8]. There are suggestions of baptism in this language, which itself represents rebirth into the kingdom of God [see John 1:12-13].”5
The apostle Paul seemingly connects one’s spiritual life with baptism as well: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death [cf. Col. 2:12], so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4 NRSV). At baptism, the candidate is said to be baptized into Christ’s propitiatory death, and raised from death into new life. Paul also writes: “he saved us . . . according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5 NRSV). This water — washing or baptism — figures as “the natural image for conversion here”6 (cf. Ezekiel 36:25-27).
What has been historcially promoted thus far is known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration — a doctrine which many Protestants reject (due in large part to the influence of Ulrich Zwingli, 1484-1531, though Luther affirmed it). If one is inclined to condemn the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as damnable heresy, however, then he or she has also condemned all of our early Church fathers, as well as some Protestant Reformers, as advocates of damnable heresy.
The apostle Peter seemingly connects one’s spiritual life with baptism as well: “And baptism . . . now saves you — not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21 NRSV). Again, New Interpreter’s comments: “As the waters of the flood separated Noah and his family from the old world, so baptism separates Christians from their old life.”7 The sacrament of baptism, in Scripture, according to the interpretation of the early Church fathers, indicates far more than a mere outward symbol.
Baptism was and is an outward symbol of an inward, spiritual work of the Holy Spirit of God. Many modern Protestants confess that this work happens prior to baptism. However, our early Church fathers believed that this inward, spiritual work of the Holy Spirit happened to a person not prior to but during or upon one’s baptism. Hippolytus (c. 200) comments: “The ropes that stretch around her [the ship of the Church] are the love of Christ, which binds the Church. The net that she bears with her is the bath of the regeneration that renews the believing. . . .”8 Origen (c. 228) concurs: “What is called the bath of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit.”9 Not only do we have the testimonies of Ignatius (c. 70), Hermas (c. 150), Justin Martyr (c. 160), Ireneaus (c. 180), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195), and Tertullian (c. 198), as mentioned above, but also Novatian (c. 235), Commodianus (c. 240), Cyprian (c. 250), Firmilian (c. 256), Victorinus (c. 257), Methodius (c. 290), and Lactantius (c. 304) among many others, taught the same.10
Moreover, many of our fathers also believed in baptizing (or sprinkling) the infants of baptized believers. This is the topic of the following post.
__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 12:1-6, 13-25; Acts 11:19-30; John 8:21-32.
__________
1 The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 308.
2 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 51. Statements such as these have led many to believe that without baptism a person cannot be saved. However, there were exceptions granted, such as martyrs, the unexpected death of a catechumen, and the thief on the cross. Baptismal regeneration (baptism’s grace in salvation) was the predominant view of the Church from the first century until the time of Ulrich Zwingli (c. 1523-25). See Jack Cotrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin: College Press, 2004), 369-70. See also N. R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power: Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers (London: Grace Publications Trust, 2002), 182-83.
3 Ibid., 52.
4 Ibid.
5 The New Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, eds. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and David Petersen (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 716.
6 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 640. Keener comments: “The Essenes and some other Jewish people associated the Spirit with purification, especially based on Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God cleanses his people from idolatry. Because baptism was the decisive act of conversion in Palestinian Judaism, it figures as the natural image for conversion here. . . .”
7 New Interpreter’s, 904. Jack Cottrell notes that baptism “saves” an individual because “the newness of salvation in this age requires a new and distinguishing element in the process of receiving it.” He also notes that baptism grants the believer assurance of God’s grace in salvation (The Faith Once for All, 365). Closer to the point, Cottrell assures that God saves a believer through baptism. Thus baptism — the water itself, as though it were magic — does not save anyone (361). Also, N. R. Needham states: “Cyril and other fathers insisted that it was not the water of baptism that bestowed these spiritual benefits, but the Holy Spirit, Who worked inwardly in the soul at the same time that the water outwardly washed the body” (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, 183).
8 Dictionary, 54.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 55-56.
- He [Jesus Christ] was born and baptized so that by His passion He could purify the water. -Ignatius (c. 70)
I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins. -Hermas (c. 150)
Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water. They descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. -Hermas (c. 150)
At our birth, we were born without our own knowledge of choice, but by our parents coming together. . . . In order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again [explicit Arminian theology], and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe. . . . And in the name of Jesus Christ . . . and in the name of the Holy Spirit. -Justin Martyr (c. 160)
When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. . . . For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins. -Irenaeus (c. 180)2
Not only did the majority of the early Church fathers believe that a person was forgiven when he or she was baptized, but also regenerated. Concerning our holy baptism, Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) comments: “Straightway, on our regeneration, we attained that perfection after which we aspired. For we were illuminated, which is to know God.”3 Tertullian (c. 198) concurs: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . We, like little fishes, after the example of our ichthus, Jesus Christ, are born [i.e., reborn] in water.”4 Our fathers believed that they were rightly interpreting and practicing the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).
The connection which our fathers were drawing between water baptism and the forgiveness of our sins (and the bestowal of eternal life through regeneration) were concluded from Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. Jesus speaks: “‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’ . . . ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit’” (John 3:3, 5 NRSV). Here, many interpret being born of water and Spirit as being regenerated at one’s baptism. Comments from The New Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible read:
- Misunderstanding is common in this Gospel, and even necessary for growth in faith; the challenge is to move beyond the material to the symbolic and spiritual. Here birth is employed as a metaphor for new life in Christ, a birth that can only be effected by the Spirit of God whose origins and operations are as mysterious as the wind [John 3:8]. There are suggestions of baptism in this language, which itself represents rebirth into the kingdom of God [see John 1:12-13].”5
The apostle Paul seemingly connects one’s spiritual life with baptism as well: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death [cf. Col. 2:12], so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4 NRSV). At baptism, the candidate is said to be baptized into Christ’s propitiatory death, and raised from death into new life. Paul also writes: “he saved us . . . according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5 NRSV). This water — washing or baptism — figures as “the natural image for conversion here”6 (cf. Ezekiel 36:25-27).
What has been historcially promoted thus far is known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration — a doctrine which many Protestants reject (due in large part to the influence of Ulrich Zwingli, 1484-1531, though Luther affirmed it). If one is inclined to condemn the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as damnable heresy, however, then he or she has also condemned all of our early Church fathers, as well as some Protestant Reformers, as advocates of damnable heresy.
The apostle Peter seemingly connects one’s spiritual life with baptism as well: “And baptism . . . now saves you — not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21 NRSV). Again, New Interpreter’s comments: “As the waters of the flood separated Noah and his family from the old world, so baptism separates Christians from their old life.”7 The sacrament of baptism, in Scripture, according to the interpretation of the early Church fathers, indicates far more than a mere outward symbol.
Baptism was and is an outward symbol of an inward, spiritual work of the Holy Spirit of God. Many modern Protestants confess that this work happens prior to baptism. However, our early Church fathers believed that this inward, spiritual work of the Holy Spirit happened to a person not prior to but during or upon one’s baptism. Hippolytus (c. 200) comments: “The ropes that stretch around her [the ship of the Church] are the love of Christ, which binds the Church. The net that she bears with her is the bath of the regeneration that renews the believing. . . .”8 Origen (c. 228) concurs: “What is called the bath of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit.”9 Not only do we have the testimonies of Ignatius (c. 70), Hermas (c. 150), Justin Martyr (c. 160), Ireneaus (c. 180), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195), and Tertullian (c. 198), as mentioned above, but also Novatian (c. 235), Commodianus (c. 240), Cyprian (c. 250), Firmilian (c. 256), Victorinus (c. 257), Methodius (c. 290), and Lactantius (c. 304) among many others, taught the same.10
Moreover, many of our fathers also believed in baptizing (or sprinkling) the infants of baptized believers. This is the topic of the following post.
__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 12:1-6, 13-25; Acts 11:19-30; John 8:21-32.
__________
1 The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 308.
2 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 51. Statements such as these have led many to believe that without baptism a person cannot be saved. However, there were exceptions granted, such as martyrs, the unexpected death of a catechumen, and the thief on the cross. Baptismal regeneration (baptism’s grace in salvation) was the predominant view of the Church from the first century until the time of Ulrich Zwingli (c. 1523-25). See Jack Cotrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin: College Press, 2004), 369-70. See also N. R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power: Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers (London: Grace Publications Trust, 2002), 182-83.
3 Ibid., 52.
4 Ibid.
5 The New Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, eds. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and David Petersen (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 716.
6 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 640. Keener comments: “The Essenes and some other Jewish people associated the Spirit with purification, especially based on Ezekiel 36:25-27, where God cleanses his people from idolatry. Because baptism was the decisive act of conversion in Palestinian Judaism, it figures as the natural image for conversion here. . . .”
7 New Interpreter’s, 904. Jack Cottrell notes that baptism “saves” an individual because “the newness of salvation in this age requires a new and distinguishing element in the process of receiving it.” He also notes that baptism grants the believer assurance of God’s grace in salvation (The Faith Once for All, 365). Closer to the point, Cottrell assures that God saves a believer through baptism. Thus baptism — the water itself, as though it were magic — does not save anyone (361). Also, N. R. Needham states: “Cyril and other fathers insisted that it was not the water of baptism that bestowed these spiritual benefits, but the Holy Spirit, Who worked inwardly in the soul at the same time that the water outwardly washed the body” (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, 183).
8 Dictionary, 54.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 55-56.
James White on Matthew 23:37
Posted by: | CommentsJames White recently discussed Matthew 23:37 on Radio Free Geneva in response to Dr. Norman Geisler’s book Chosen but Free. Here’s the passage.
Matthew 23:37-39 states: 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”
James White uses the difference between ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘your children’ to argue that Jerusalem represents the Jewish leadership while Jerusalem’s children are the Jewish people.
Dr. Geisler responds by pointing out that even if this were true, it doesn’t matter. Either way someone is opposing Christ’s desire.
I like Dr. Geisler’s point; per Calvinism, no one can oppose God’s desire in the sense of His decree for what He wants to happen. James White is quick to point out that Calvinism makes a difference between what He wants and what He commands and then claims that the passage is about God’s commands and the outward ministry of the Gospel rather than God’s desire for the outcome. But if that’s the case it seems to strengthen Dr. Geisler’s point that the discussion of ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘your children’ is a side issue. Why does it matter who is opposing Christ, so long as they are not really opposing His desire?
More to the point, the passage says Christ wanted to gather the children, not just that He commanded or invited them to come. Further, God’s commands are called “His will” in scripture; God is said not only to sanction sin, but also to hate sin. Now I have heard James White try to explain this before and as best I can tell he oscillates between either the contradiction that God desires and does not desire that we sin or undermining God’s hatred of sin.
James White places quite a bit of emphasis the “Jerusalem = the Jewish Leadership” point. John Gill did as well; going as far as to say that pointing this out destroys the argument founded on this passage in favor of free will.
Besides, our Lord’s discourse, throughout the whole context, is directed to the scribes and Pharisees, the ecclesiastical guides of the people, and to whom the civil governors paid a special regard. Hence it is manifest, that they are not the same persons whom Christ would have gathered, who would not. It is not said, how often would I have gathered you, and you would not, as Dr. Whitby more than once inadvertently cites the text; nor, he would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not, as the same author transcribes it in another place; nor, he would have gathered them, thy children, and they would not, in which form it is also sometimes expressed by him; but I would have gathered thy children, and ye would not, which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favor of free-will. (link)
Perhaps James White sees the point about the Jewish leadership as supporting his other point of distinguishing between invitations and desires. After all, the Pharisees were opposing Christ’s public preaching which could legitimately be seen as an external invitation rather than an eternal decree. However, I don’t think James White is correct; Jerusalem represents the people of Jerusalem, not just the Jewish leadership.
James White’s primary evidence is the inbound context of Matthew 23. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and obstruction of His ministry. Mt 23:13-15 make James White’s exact point: the Pharisees were keeping the Jewish people from Christ and heaven through their hypocrisy and traditions.
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
At first look, this does seem like strong evidence that Christ is rebuking the Pharisees for opposing His ministry and that Christ contrasts the Jewish leadership with the Jewish people when He talks about Jerusalem and Jerusalem’s children. But more context is required to answer the question for sure. Let’s look at the account in Luke 13.
Luke 13:22 And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem…. 31 On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem. 34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”
Making a few observations about the text, first off, neither Christ nor his Pharisee opponents are in Jerusalem. Christ is outside of Jerusalem in Herod’s jurisdiction and Herod wants to kill Him. But Christ’s plan is to die in Jerusalem, in Pilot’s jurisdiction, not Herod’s, so He will travel to Jerusalem, the killer of the Prophets. Thus, the lament over Jerusalem is not addressed to Christ’s immediate audience but rather reveals what will happen to Him when He reaches His destination. And so James White’s points about the inbound context looses its relevance.
Now John Gill does have an answer here, but it’s unhelpful. Gill says Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 refer to two separate events. “These words, with what follow, as they stand in (Matthew 23:37-39) were delivered by Christ, when he was in the temple at Jerusalem; but here they were spoken by him when in Galilee, in Herod’s jurisdiction; so that it appears, that the same words were spoken by Christ at different times, in different places, and to different persons“. (link) Christ’s authority is no less in Luke 13 than in Matthew 23, so what difference does it make if Luke 13 posses a problem for Calvinism rather than Matthew 23?
But there’s another reason why we can see that James White’s view is inaccurate; the Old Testament passages Christ was referring to. It seems to me that Christ was referring to Jeremiah 6.
Jeremiah 6:8 Be instructed, O Jerusalem, Lest My soul depart from you; Lest I make you desolate, A land not inhabited.”
In Jeremiah, Jerusalem does not stand just for the Jewish leadership, but as God’s chosen city. God chose Jerusalem to put His name and as a place for His temple. 2 Kings 21:4 He built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put My name.” Also see (1Ki 11:32, 2Ki 21:4, 2Ki 21:7, 2Ki 23:27, 2Ch 6:6, Zec 1:17, Zec 2:12, Zec 3:2 ) on Jerusalem being chosen. But because of the Israelite’s’ sins, God rejected Jerusalem, His chosen city. 2 Kings 23:27 The LORD said, “I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel And I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’” And Jeremiah 12:7 “I have forsaken my house; I have abandoned my heritage; I have given the beloved of my soul into the hands of her enemies.
Since Luke 13:34 is a rebuke, it’s interesting to see how Jerusalem is addressed in place of its people in prophectic rebukes, warnings and judgements like: Jeremiah 19:7 “I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. Here are some other passages in which Jerusalem is used in prophetic rebukes, warning and judgements: Isa 3:8, Jer 2:2, Jer 4:3, Jer 4:10, Jer 4:11, Jer 8:5, Jer 14:2, Jer 19:7, Jer 44:13, La 1:7, La 1:8, La 1:17, Eze 14:21-22, Eze 16:2-3.
James White’s view cuts the passage off from it’s Old Testament referent and so looses this fuller meaning of the rebuke. God had chosen Jerusalem to be His dwelling place and for His temple, yet the Israelites repeatedly rebelled and rejected God and killed His prophets. Jerusalem was about to ultimately rebel and kill The Prophet; and so they will be judged.
Not only does James White loose this big picture, but he ends up interpreting “Jerusalem” in a unique way. Here’s a brief survey of the Old Testament usage of Jersalem. Noticably absent is a usage in which Jersalem represents the Jewish leadership.
Jerusalem Directly Addressed: 2Ch 20:17, Ps 116:19, Ps 122:2-3 , Ps 137:5-6, Ps 147:12-14, Isa 40:9, Isa 41:27, Isa 51:17, Isa 52:1, Isa 52:2, Isa 62:6, Jer 4:14, Jer 6:8, Jer 13:27, Jer 15:5, Luke 19:41-44
When Jerusalem is directly addressed, it’s sometimes addressed as a city such as: “On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen”, but more often it is addressed in the place of its people, such as: “Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts lodge within you?”
Generally, the term Jerusalem when used figuratively stands for the people of Jerusalem.
Children of Jerusalem: 2Ki 19:21, Isa 37:22, La 2:13, La 2:15, Joe 3:6, Mic 4:8, Zec 9:9, Zep 3:14, Lu 23:28
The language of the children, sons or daughter of Jerusalem, is a bit more figurative and flexible and can either mean a specific individual addressed, or the people of Jerusalem. Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
In short, “Jerusalem” is simply never used in the Old Testament to stand simply for the leaders of the Jews.
Likewise in the New Testament, when Christ speaks of the children of Jerusalem, He is talking about it’s inhabitants.
Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Lastly, we can see the early church didn’t view the passage as James White does.
2 Esdras 1:28-33 Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Have I not prayed you as a father his sons, as a mother her daughters, and a nurse her young babes, That ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my children, and I should be your father? I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face. When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.
This chapter was written about about A.D. 201-268 by early Christians. (link) It’s parallels to Matthew 23 are obvious, showing the way they understood the passages. Their exchange of ‘your children’ with ‘you’ shows the way they understood Matthew 23; those condemned were those who rejected.
So James White goes against the synoptic parallel, the Old Testament text Christ referred to, the general Old Testament usage, Christ’s usage of Jerusalem in the New Testament, and the way the early church understood the text. And for what? If it matters at all, it’s only for the opportunity to say absurdities like God wants and does not want to gather the children or God invites the children but does not want them to come. There’s a lot of good in Calvinism, but we must carefully sift through what we can accept and what we must reject.
James White on Matthew 23:37
Posted by: | CommentsJames White recently discussed Matthew 23:37 on Radio Free Geneva in response to Dr. Norman Geisler’s book Chosen but Free. Here’s the passage.
Matthew 23:37-39 states: 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”
James White uses the difference between ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘your children’ to argue that Jerusalem represents the Jewish leadership while Jerusalem’s children are the Jewish people.
Dr. Geisler responds by pointing out that even if this were true, it doesn’t matter. Either way someone is opposing Christ’s desire.
I like Dr. Geisler’s point; per Calvinism, no one can oppose God’s desire in the sense of His decree for what He wants to happen. James White is quick to point out that Calvinism makes a difference between what He wants and what He commands and then claims that the passage is about God’s commands and the outward ministry of the Gospel rather than God’s desire for the outcome. But if that’s the case it seems to strengthen Dr. Geisler’s point that the discussion of ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘your children’ is a side issue. Why does it matter who is opposing Christ, so long as they are not really opposing His desire?
More to the point, the passage says Christ wanted to gather the children, not just that He commanded or invited them to come. Further, God’s commands are called “His will” in scripture; God is said not only to sanction sin, but also to hate sin. Now I have heard James White try to explain this before and as best I can tell he oscillates between either the contradiction that God desires and does not desire that we sin or undermining God’s hatred of sin.
James White places quite a bit of emphasis the “Jerusalem = the Jewish Leadership” point. John Gill did as well; going as far as to say that pointing this out destroys the argument founded on this passage in favor of free will.
Besides, our Lord’s discourse, throughout the whole context, is directed to the scribes and Pharisees, the ecclesiastical guides of the people, and to whom the civil governors paid a special regard. Hence it is manifest, that they are not the same persons whom Christ would have gathered, who would not. It is not said, how often would I have gathered you, and you would not, as Dr. Whitby more than once inadvertently cites the text; nor, he would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not, as the same author transcribes it in another place; nor, he would have gathered them, thy children, and they would not, in which form it is also sometimes expressed by him; but I would have gathered thy children, and ye would not, which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favor of free-will. (link)
Perhaps James White sees the point about the Jewish leadership as supporting his other point of distinguishing between invitations and desires. After all, the Pharisees were opposing Christ’s public preaching which could legitimately be seen as an external invitation rather than an eternal decree. However, I don’t think James White is correct; Jerusalem represents the people of Jerusalem, not just the Jewish leadership.
James White’s primary evidence is the inbound context of Matthew 23. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and obstruction of His ministry. Mt 23:13-15 make James White’s exact point: the Pharisees were keeping the Jewish people from Christ and heaven through their hypocrisy and traditions.
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
At first look, this does seem like strong evidence that Christ is rebuking the Pharisees for opposing His ministry and that Christ contrasts the Jewish leadership with the Jewish people when He talks about Jerusalem and Jerusalem’s children. But more context is required to answer the question for sure. Let’s look at the account in Luke 13.
Luke 13:22 And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem…. 31 On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, “Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go, tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem. 34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”
Making a few observations about the text, first off, neither Christ nor his Pharisee opponents are in Jerusalem. Christ is outside of Jerusalem in Herod’s jurisdiction and Herod wants to kill Him. But Christ’s plan is to die in Jerusalem, in Pilot’s jurisdiction, not Herod’s, so He will travel to Jerusalem, the killer of the Prophets. Thus, the lament over Jerusalem is not addressed to Christ’s immediate audience but rather reveals what will happen to Him when He reaches His destination. And so James White’s points about the inbound context looses its relevance.
Now John Gill does have an answer here, but it’s unhelpful. Gill says Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 refer to two separate events. “These words, with what follow, as they stand in (Matthew 23:37-39) were delivered by Christ, when he was in the temple at Jerusalem; but here they were spoken by him when in Galilee, in Herod’s jurisdiction; so that it appears, that the same words were spoken by Christ at different times, in different places, and to different persons“. (link) Christ’s authority is no less in Luke 13 than in Matthew 23, so what difference does it make if Luke 13 posses a problem for Calvinism rather than Matthew 23?
But there’s another reason why we can see that James White’s view is inaccurate; the Old Testament passages Christ was referring to. It seems to me that Christ was referring to Jeremiah 6.
Jeremiah 6:8 Be instructed, O Jerusalem, Lest My soul depart from you; Lest I make you desolate, A land not inhabited.”
In Jeremiah, Jerusalem does not stand just for the Jewish leadership, but as God’s chosen city. God chose Jerusalem to put His name and as a place for His temple. 2 Kings 21:4 He built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put My name.” Also see (1Ki 11:32, 2Ki 21:4, 2Ki 21:7, 2Ki 23:27, 2Ch 6:6, Zec 1:17, Zec 2:12, Zec 3:2 ) on Jerusalem being chosen. But because of the Israelite’s’ sins, God rejected Jerusalem, His chosen city. 2 Kings 23:27 The LORD said, “I will remove Judah also from My sight, as I have removed Israel And I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, ‘My name shall be there.’” And Jeremiah 12:7 “I have forsaken my house; I have abandoned my heritage; I have given the beloved of my soul into the hands of her enemies.
Since Luke 13:34 is a rebuke, it’s interesting to see how Jerusalem is addressed in place of its people in prophectic rebukes, warnings and judgements like: Jeremiah 19:7 “I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. Here are some other passages in which Jerusalem is used in prophetic rebukes, warning and judgements: Isa 3:8, Jer 2:2, Jer 4:3, Jer 4:10, Jer 4:11, Jer 8:5, Jer 14:2, Jer 19:7, Jer 44:13, La 1:7, La 1:8, La 1:17, Eze 14:21-22, Eze 16:2-3.
James White’s view cuts the passage off from it’s Old Testament referent and so looses this fuller meaning of the rebuke. God had chosen Jerusalem to be His dwelling place and for His temple, yet the Israelites repeatedly rebelled and rejected God and killed His prophets. Jerusalem was about to ultimately rebel and kill The Prophet; and so they will be judged.
Not only does James White loose this big picture, but he ends up interpreting “Jerusalem” in a unique way. Here’s a brief survey of the Old Testament usage of Jersalem. Noticably absent is a usage in which Jersalem represents the Jewish leadership.
Jerusalem Directly Addressed: 2Ch 20:17, Ps 116:19, Ps 122:2-3 , Ps 137:5-6, Ps 147:12-14, Isa 40:9, Isa 41:27, Isa 51:17, Isa 52:1, Isa 52:2, Isa 62:6, Jer 4:14, Jer 6:8, Jer 13:27, Jer 15:5, Luke 19:41-44
When Jerusalem is directly addressed, it’s sometimes addressed as a city such as: “On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen”, but more often it is addressed in the place of its people, such as: “Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts lodge within you?”
Generally, the term Jerusalem when used figuratively stands for the people of Jerusalem.
Children of Jerusalem: 2Ki 19:21, Isa 37:22, La 2:13, La 2:15, Joe 3:6, Mic 4:8, Zec 9:9, Zep 3:14, Lu 23:28
The language of the children, sons or daughter of Jerusalem, is a bit more figurative and flexible and can either mean a specific individual addressed, or the people of Jerusalem. Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
In short, “Jerusalem” is simply never used in the Old Testament to stand simply for the leaders of the Jews.
Likewise in the New Testament, when Christ speaks of the children of Jerusalem, He is talking about it’s inhabitants.
Luke 19:41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
Lastly, we can see the early church didn’t view the passage as James White does.
2 Esdras 1:28-33 Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Have I not prayed you as a father his sons, as a mother her daughters, and a nurse her young babes, That ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my children, and I should be your father? I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face. When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.
This chapter was written about about A.D. 201-268 by early Christians. (link) It’s parallels to Matthew 23 are obvious, showing the way they understood the passages. Their exchange of ‘your children’ with ‘you’ shows the way they understood Matthew 23; those condemned were those who rejected.
So James White goes against the synoptic parallel, the Old Testament text Christ referred to, the general Old Testament usage, Christ’s usage of Jerusalem in the New Testament, and the way the early church understood the text. And for what? If it matters at all, it’s only for the opportunity to say absurdities like God wants and does not want to gather the children or God invites the children but does not want them to come. There’s a lot of good in Calvinism, but we must carefully sift through what we can accept and what we must reject.
Is Allah God?
Posted by: | CommentsMany people across the world think that praying to Allah is the same as praying to God – just another name or way of speaking about the true and living God. How does the Bible reference God? John MacArthur addresses this issue by answering a question posed to him from his church in California. Click [...]
THE POISON OF CALVIN
Posted by: | CommentsAfter the fall of the Puritan government, the Anglican establishment worked out its revenge against them by repressing the Puritans and their theology. The thoroughgoing Calvinism of the Puritans was moderated and persecuted during the Restoration era. By the time of John and Charles Wesley, many Anglicans were not strict Calvinists, and most “Dissenters” who stood outside the Church of England were.
Charles Wesley seems to have come by his Arminian perspective on salvation through the Anglican tradition and his own forays into the Scriptures, as well as his parents’ influence. The same could be said of John Wesley, but Charles also had his elder brother Samuel’s influence, and he too was a staunch Anglican and Arminian. When John was preparing to receive “holy orders” in the Church of England, his father recommended that he study the Dutch Arminian Hugo Grotius’s commentary on the Old Testament.
Their mother, Susanna Wesley, took an Arminian point of view, as is made clear in her publication of a pamphlet entitled Some Remarks on a Letter From the Reverend Mr. Whitefield to the Reverend Mr. Wesley, In a Letter from a Gentlewoman to her Friend (1741). In it she defended John Wesley’s treatise entitled Free Grace and opposed George Whitefield’s strict Calvinism. Susanna Wesley even sought to defend her sons against the label of “Arminian.” In the popular mind, “Arminianism” was [erroneously] associated with a “free will” approach to salvation, which did not take seriously enough either God’s grace or human sin. Thus, the Wesleys were (and are) sometimes mistakenly called “Semi-Pelagians,” to associate them with the heretical views of Pelagius, which were condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
The Wesleys saw themselves as standing in the heritage of the Protestant Reformation. As if to reinforce this point, the Wesleys and the preachers in connection with them explored this question in their “late conversations” at the Methodist Conference of 1744:
- Question: 23. Wherein may we come to the very edge of Calvinism?
Answer: (1) In ascribing all good to the free grace of God. (2) In denying all natural free-will, and all power [in humans] antecedent to grace. And (3) In excluding all merit from man; even for what he has or does by the grace of God.
The Wesley brothers, subsequently, came to accept the title “Arminian” more or less by default. It was what people called them because they were not predestinarian Calvinists. Just as Charles had taken “Methodist,” the earlier title of derision, and turned it into a badge of honor during their Oxford days, so also did the Wesleys accept the title “Arminian” and work to redeem the epitaph from popular misunderstanding and reproach. Hence in 1770 John Wesley published his treatise What is an Arminian? and in 1778 began publishing his bimonthly journal The Arminian Magazine. . . .
Wesley’s distaste for the Calvinistic option on salvation, though it was certainly founded in his scriptural and ecclesiastical convictions, went beyond sterile doctrinal debate. He had a revulsion towards “the poison of Calvin” that was based in his practical experience. Just as he reveled in the “universal love” of God that was willing and able to save all people who turned to him [cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; Heb. 7:25], Wesley was repulsed by the haughty pride he saw in some of those who had come to consider themselves “the elect.”
Soon after the coming of “the sower of tares” Charles’s journal reports his counseling one such woman: “In the afternoon I spoke a word of caution to one who seems strong in the faith, and begins to be lifted up [prideful]; the sure effect of her growing acquaintance with some of Calvin’s followers.” In a similar way, in 1747, Charles wrote his wife Sally bewailing the practical effects of a friend pressing the doctrine of predestination [i.e., unconditional election] among unawakened souls: “To urge that doctrine on unawakened souls, is to stop them at the very threshold and to infuse it into those who are a little convinced, is, to drive them either into presumption or despair.” . . .
By November 1740 Kingswood was becoming the storm center of a controversy over predestination that threatened to divide the fledgling Methodist movement once again (even as the “stillness” controversy was raging in London). On November 30, Charles expounded the Scripture lesson from Hebrews 6, a passage that seems to teach that a person committing apostasy can lose salvation. As Charles spoke, however, several of the pillars (formerly faithful members) of his congregation began to rail against him. Wesley wrote of them, “The poison of Calvin has drunk up their spirit of love.” It turned out that the person John Wesley had sent to be their assistant in Kingswood and master of the Kingswood School, John Cennick, was a closet Calvinist who had been preaching against the Wesleys’ doctrine. “Alas!” Charles lamented, “we have set the wolf to keep the sheep! God gave me great moderation toward him, who, for many months, has been undermining our doctrine and authority.” . . .
As he moved throughout the busy circuits and duties of his ministry, he also saw what he considered the negative results of predestinarian theology. He counseled with people who had become convinced that they were reprobate because they had fallen into sin after receiving Christ. He met people who became haughty and full of pride, possessing “a narrow spirit” because they had become convinced that they were elect. And he met shocking examples of antinomianism in which people were so convinced they could not lose their salvation that they lived in willful disregard of God’s will and laws.
The effect of the Wesleys’ campaign against popular Calvinism was dramatic. Despite the controversy they faced from friends and former friends, John and Charles Wesley continued this campaign throughout their ministry. And while Dissenters, prominent theologians, and members of the aristocratic elite would do battle with them across the eighteenth century, the Wesleys’ preaching and hymns became powerful weapons against the strict Calvinistic interpretation of salvation for years to come.
__________
Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 9:1-15, 32-35; Acts 10:34-48; John 7:37-52.
__________
John R. Tyson, Assist Me to Proclaim: The Life and Hymns of Charles Wesley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 99-116.
BART’S PROBLEM: GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (CONTINUED)
Posted by: | CommentsArminius, noting that God was not to be blamed for causing the fall of Adam and Eve (nor was the Devil, strictly taken, for he did not force them to disobey God), states:
- It [the fall] was not an Internal cause; whether you consider the common or general nature of man which . . . was inclined only to one good; or his particular nature, which exactly corresponded with that which is general; nor was it any thing in his particular nature, for this would have been the understanding; but it could act by persuasion and advice, not by necessity. Man therefore sinned by his free will, his own proper motion being allowed by God, and himself persuaded by the Devil.2
We could never attribute the fall of humanity into sin to a mere decree of or causation by God, for He can neither be tempted by sin, nor tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13); nor can His eyes, being an absolute pure being, even look upon or approve or wrongdoing (Hab. 1:13). Contrary to what some atheists think, God does not — cannot — approve of sin in any form, and He never condoned sin in Scripture. One atheist, concerned about the Bible’s ambiguous nature, musing that perhaps Satan wrote the Bible, writes:
- Instead of conflicting messages about marriage, ambiguity about homosexuality, apparent approval of polygamy and slavery, God would have written, “Don’t have sex before you’re married.” “Marriage is only between a man and a woman.” “Slavery is a sin.” “A man may only have one wife, and a wife only one husband.” And so forth. Gosh, it seems pretty easy to me, writing clear, unambiguous commandments!
I thought, however, that the Bible was completely clear about some of the issues he mentioned. After all, the Bible teaches: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). One of the qualifications for an overseer and deacon is that he be, literally in the Greek, a “one-woman man” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12). Moses writes: If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable (Lev. 20:13). The apostle Paul writes: Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (lit. dominant partner in a homosexual relationship) nor practicing homosexuals (lit. submissive partner in a homosexual relationship) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). How ambiguous were those passages?
As far as God’s “apparent approval of polygamy” is concerned, where is it written that God condones polygamy? He never commands polygamous relationships. But merely because God did not strike someone dead for marrying more than one wife, is this any reason to assume that God condones such activity? Or is this an argument from silence? God can have no part in actively causing sin. Too many theologians (namely, Calvinists) are far too prolix concerning what God has foreordained. This is due to their exhaustive determinstic view of God, for to them, if God does not ordain whatsoever comes to pass, in the strictest sense, then God is not sovereign, and thus, God is not God. And by attributing every minutiae of life to the decree of God has, I fear, given enough rope for the atheist to therewith hang him- or herself. This is unfortunate and needless. Adam and Eve did not fall by necessity. Arminius, regarding the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, continues:
- The serious enormity of that sin is principally manifest from the following particulars: (1.) Because it was a transgression of such a law as had been imposed to try whether man was willing to be . . . subject to the law of God, and it carried with it numbers of other grievous sins. (2.) Because after God had loaded man with such signal gifts, he . . . had the audacity to perpetuate this sin. (3.) Because when there was such great facility to abstain from sin, he suffered himself to be so easily induced, and did not satisfy his . . . inclination in such a copious abundance of things. (4.) Because he committed that sin in a sanctified place, which was a type of the heavenly Paradise, almost under the eyes of God Himself, who conversed with him in a familiar manner.3
God endowed Adam and Eve with a measure of free will to do (or not to do) those things which He had commanded them to do (and not to do). I wonder: Does anyone think that he or she would not have done the exact same thing as did Adam and Eve? Think about it in this way. God could not have made infallible gods of Adam and Eve. Only God can be God; only He can be pure in all of His eternally infinite ways. The manner in which He designed human beings (and angels for that matter) necessitated that they possess a measure of free will, for what He created were beings in His likeness who possessed varying degrees of personality, skill and creativity, emotions, intellect, and will, as well as the potential to do that which is contrary to the will or desire of God. This, you will note, is not strict determinism (or necessitarianism) but libertarianism.
Why do bad things happen? We live in a fallen world among creatures who are immersed in sin. Why does God not stop all evil from manifestation? He will one day, when Christ returns and renews the universe. But to do so now, or from the very beginning, every time a person desires to do something wrong, would be to infringe upon the very freedom with which He has granted us — freedom which God desired to bestow, and freedom which holds people responsible and accountable for their choices. How much evil do you want God to stop? Your evil? My evil? Should there be no free will whatsoever, even if that freedom leads to evil?
“Does suffering make sense?” asks Bart Ehrman.4 It does when sin and the present state of a fallen world is figured into the equation. Do not forget that this present world system, if you will, is not what it should be (nor what it will be). While I appreciate his honest questions, what he poses as “God’s problem” is far more Bart’s problem with God’s sovereignty, purpose and plan than it is a negative reflection upon God’s nature or character. God has never turned a blind eye to the suffering of humanity. He knows full well what His plans are for the future (Rev. 22:1-5). He even sent His one and only Son into the world to reconcile humanity back to Himself (2 Cor. 5:14-19), so that whoever would trust in Him (John 3:15-17, 36) would never despair in isolation (i.e. in hell), but would be forever united to Him by grace through persistent faith (Matt. 10:22; 24:13).
Ehrman is right about one thing. No one asked to brought into the world, into this darkness, born into a realm of sin. But God foreknew all of it, and He made a way to see us through it in the work and Person of His Son Jesus Christ. The goal of our faith in Jesus is for reconciliation, salvation, redemption, and glorification. But these things belong to those who persevere in faith in Christ to the end. Ehrman has forfeited that faith, that hope in Jesus Christ. To those affected by the Bart Ehrmans of the world, I say, Don’t give up trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not blame Him for this present darkness. He has done all that it took to make things right, and things will be made entirely right when He returns. Will you trust Him until the end? __________ Daily reading from The Book of Common Prayer: Daily Office Year Two: Job 8:1-10, 20-22; Acts 10:17-33; John 7:14-36. __________
1 Bart D. Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer (New York: Harper One, 2008), 120.
2 James Arminius, “Seventy-Nine Private Disputations: Disputation XXX: The Manner in Which Man Conducted Himself in Fulfilling the First Covenant, or On the Sin of Our First Parents,” in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:372.
3 Ibid., 373.
4 Ehrman, 159.
Conversations Which Turn To Evangelism
Posted by: | CommentsLike you I have been watching the news concerning the building of the mosques at Ground Zero in New York City. I can see both sides of the issue as some want to allow the building of the mosque to show that Americans are much more tolerant of Islam and other religions than in any Islamic nation but I can also see the other view as well as people see the building of the mosque as radical Muslims trying to assert their power and laws upon the United States. The middle approach is a “who cares” attitude and I think most people fall into this category. Conservatives are correct in pointing out that the Left in America only cares about religion when it involves conservative Christians and in this case many conservative leaders have asked for the mosque not to be built.
And then you have some in the seeker/emergent movement who say that we should try to encourage conversation between Muslims and Christians. Jim Wallis says that what is needed is more “dialogue” between Christian leaders and Muslim leaders to try to find common ground on social issues such as world hunger, AIDS, human trafficking, poverty, war, etc.
Now I am all for talking with Muslims but where I differ with Wallis and other liberals is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God (John 14:6). Jesus is not a way but He is the way to God. Paul said that Jesus alone is our advocate to the Father (1 Timothy 2:1-6). This is why Paul longed for the salvation of the Jews (Romans 10:1-4) because Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. The work of God is not to be a good Muslim or a good Christian but to believe in Him that we might be saved (John 6:29). We are not saved through good works of religion but through Jesus alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7). The only hope we have is to be born again (or from above as noted by the ESV; John 3:3-7). Peter said that we are born again not by perishable things but with the precious blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1:18-25). The Muslim, the Jew, the atheist, the agnostic, the rich, the poor, the American or the Arabian – all these have only one hope for eternal life and that is to be saved through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30-31).
So when I encourage dialogue among Christians and Muslims it is for the purpose of bringing Muslims to salvation. I don’t mind learning about Islam from a Muslim but my main goal and my main focus is the same focus as Jesus: their salvation (Luke 19:10). Jesus told us to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and Jesus said that we are to preach the gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15-16). Both of these commands would include Muslims and everyone in-between. All must come to faith in Jesus (2 Peter 3:9).
To me, the mosque being planned for Ground Zero is nothing more than a sign of failure for the American church. My earnest desire would be that there would be no Muslims or atheists or Mormons in America but only Christians who have been saved by the precious blood of Jesus. There are dozens of churches in New York City and there are many Muslims and my prayer is that a church of Christ would rise up and see many (and I pray all) Muslims in New York City come to faith in Christ. The way that we will defeat Islam is not by simply protesting a building but by evangelizing Muslims for Jesus and showing them the futility of their religion. My prayer is that all Muslims would repent before its eternally too late and that Jesus would be Lord of the Islamic world. Then we wouldn’t ever hear about a mosque being build anywhere as Jesus would be worshiped and adored by millions of currently lost souls.
Paul asked for the disciples in Colossians 4:2-6 to pray for him to proclaim the gospel as he should and he encouraged grace to be on their lips in turn. The gospel is a gospel of grace and we need to allow the Holy Spirit to take the gospel to all of creation to the glory of God. Muslims, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. all need Jesus. He, after all, is the Savior of the world (John 4:42) and there is no hope of eternal life apart from His gospel (Romans 10:9-17). May the Holy Spirit help us to share Jesus with everyone that we meet from now to eternity (John 4:35).
