The Dirty Dozen: 12 Things that the Lying Calvinists Want You to Assume
Originally published June 16, 2013
1. Total Depravity pertains to the unregenerate only. No, they mean the saints also.
2. Sola Fide (faith alone) only pertains to Justification. No, it pertains to sanctification also.
3. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) means “alone” and not other “subordinate” truth that also has authority though “subordinate.” No, creeds and confessions also have authority; it is not Scripture “alone.” What does “alone” mean?
4. Solus Christus (Christ alone) only regards the way to the Father. Not so, Christ is the only way to understanding all of reality. This was the crux of Luther’s Theology of the Cross.
5. Progressive sanctification sanctifies us and is separate from justification. No, they say, “never separate” but “distinct.” Then why not call it “progressive justification”? Why not clearly say that we are sanctified by justification?
6. Election predetermines our eternity. No, the elect have to persevere. The perseverance of the saints is not a characteristic of the saved, it is something that the saints have to add to their faith to complete their justification. They call this “already-but not yet.” The promises of God are “conditional.”
7. Proponents of synergistic sanctification are mistaken. No, Calvinists think they are lost and promote a false gospel.
8. Spiritual growth is about change. Absolutely not. Calvinists believe we experience manifestations of Christ as we live by faith alone.
9. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is only imputed for our justification. No, they believe it is imputed to our sanctification as well.
10. We should learn what the Bible teaches and apply it to our lives. No, they believe we should look for the cross in every verse which results in Christ manifestations in the Spirit realm. They call this “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
11. Calvinists don’t believe in absolution. Not so. Calvin believed Christians need a perpetual forgiveness of sins that can only be found in the church. Augustine and Luther propagated this as well.
12. Christ works within us. Only BY faith, and faith only exists in the object that it is placed in. Calvinists believe that when the work of Christ moves from outside of us to inside of us that it makes “sanctification the ground of our justification.” The contemporary doctrinal term for Calvinism is “the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us.”
If Calvinists want to deny this, have them explain to you what all of the aforementioned para-biblical expressions mean. If they don’t mean what is stated above, what do they mean? Perhaps there is a perfectly logical explanation for all 12.
paul
The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification, Part 5 – Law, Gospel, and Love
Originally posted April 27, 2015
Listen to show audio or download audio file.
Welcome to Blogtalk Radio False Reformation this is your host Paul M. Dohse Sr. Tonight, part 5 of “The Protestant Twisting of 1John: A Clarification.” If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.
If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at paul@ttanc.com. That’s Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat, paul@ttanc.com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in.
This is our final segment on 1John, and next week we will be doing a book review on “How People Change” by Paul David Tripp. I will be doing an overview of each of the 16 chapters in the book according to the theses of each chapter, and then will explain how the different points of each chapter fit together to form a particular doctrine. All in all, the book represents a pretty impressive application of Reformed mysticism.
Then, the following week, starting on May 8th, I think the time has come to do an in-depth evaluation of the Heidelberg Disputation. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses launched the Reformation, but all Reformed doctrines flow from the Heidelberg Disputation. Though very subtle, our present church culture is saturated with a collectivist doctrine of death, and I want to show exactly where this culture of death came from. We will be evaluating the Heidelberg Disputation theses by theses. How many Baptists know anything about the Heidelberg Disputation? Few, if any, yet the foundation of evangelicalism flows from this document.
Last week, I got away from our Gnostic theme and showed a correlation between John’s theology and that of the apostle Paul. The focus was the new birth, which Gnosticism denies. The historical backdrop is John’s pushback against Gnosticism which denies that people change. The Gnostics of that day believed that the material realm is evil and the spiritual realm is pure.
The goal is well-being that comes from getting beyond the five senses in order to gain knowledge. The particular vein of Gnosticism that John was contending against believed that sin only occurs in the body, and man’s spirit has never sinned per se. As a result, God’s people were being taught that what they did in the body was insignificant, and man didn’t need to deal with sin. Gaining spiritual knowledge for their own well-being was the key to having a happy life.
They denied that Christ really came as a man and was God’s Son. They taught that there were two Christ’s; one born of men and a Christ that was a spiritual avatar of sorts.
At any rate, the doctrine denied Christ’s deity, that He came to die for sin, and that mankind needed forgiveness for sin. Consequently, it also denied the new birth. In the same way Protestantism obviously denies that people change, redefine the new birth as an ability to perceive realm manifestation, and have their own unique distortion of the Trinity. When it gets right down to it, authentic Protestantism posits the Father and the Spirit as shadows of Christ.
Therefore, in chapter 3, John focuses on the new birth and why it changes us. But the dominate theme of the book, especially chapters 4 and 5, concentrates on love. Why is that? Because love in action should be the primary focus of Christians. Instead, what is the primary focus of Protestantism? Right; sin, sin, sin, sin, sin. Yes, our focus must be keeping our sins covered by the perfect righteousness of Jesus. Every song you sing, every sermon you hear is about how glorious Jesus is as set against our wretched vile selves. It boils down to praising our ability to see how rotten we are in the name of Jesus. (more…)
Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation, Part 3: The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9
Tonight (9/25/2015) @ 7pm. Live program link: Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 3; The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9 Call in and join the discussion!
Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 3; The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9
Welcome truth lovers to Blog Talk radio .com/False Reformation, this is your host Paul Dohse. Tonight, Election and the Real Golden Chain of Salvation: Part 3; The Potter and the Clay of Romans 9. Greetings from the Potters House and TANC ministries where we are always eager to serve all of your heterodox needs. Our teaching catalog can be found at tancpublishing.com.
If you would like to add to our lesson or ask a question, call (347) 855-8317. Remember to turn your PC volume down to prevent feedback over your cellphone. If you choose to use Skype to listen to the show, my advice is to just dial direct from your Skype account without using any of the Blogtalk links. 347-855-8317.
Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the show and listen to her perspective.
Remember, you may remain anonymous. When I say, “This is your host; you are on the air, what’s your comment or question”—just start talking.
If you would like to comment on our subject tonight, you can also email me at paul@ttanc.com. That’s Paul @ Tom, Tony, Alice, Nancy, cat .com. I have my email monitor right here and can add your thoughts to the lesson without need for you to call in. You can post a question as well.
Introduction
Christ said that salvation is of the Jews (Jn 4:22). That’s what election is; it is God’s chosen means of salvation that includes the Son of God, the nation of Israel, administering angels, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, and the patriarchs (Rom 9:4,5). The unregenerate are “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12).
Those of the Reformed tradition who define election as the preselection of individuals for either salvation or damnation deny the biblical definition of election through Replacement theology and Supersessionism. They must insist that the church replaced Israel in order to redefine election as individual rather than promises made to all that they can reject or receive. This far exceeds theological quibbling; the redefining of election is the propagation of a false gospel.
In this propagation, one of their proof texts of choice is Romans 9; specifically, Paul’s analogy concerning the potter and clay. Supposedly, Paul is driving home the point that God creates people beforehand as either vessels of glory or vessels for wrath, and He is glorified by both. Furthermore, God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad.
Also note: this view has even become known as the “gospel of sovereignty.” This is the idea that salvation must be all of God without any participation by man; the ability to believe, be persuaded, or choose God is a work. This is also known as “total inability.”
Let’s examine this proposition carefully. First, in the initial text of Romans 9 Paul makes it clear that the means of salvation belong to national Israel. It’s beyond obvious and pointless to make the case farther. Paul states that if national Israel has lost its election status, the word of God has failed. Paul’s point is that salvation comes through faith in “the promise” apart from anything man can do. More specifically, salvation comes through the promise of miraculous new birth beyond the control of anything human beings can do.
Romans 9:9 – For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Backdrop of Romans 9: The New Birth, and Law/Gospel
This is the subject in context: God elected miraculous new birth as the standard for righteousness. The giving of the law is part of that process, but the ruling class of the Jews made the law the standard for righteousness, and not the new birth. And frankly, this is exactly what Protestantism does as well which is why they have to interpret Romans 9 as individual preselection. One thing you should note about the election process follows: Sarah was already saved. She was used in the development of the election process after being a believer. Likewise, God used unbelievers in the process as well, but that doesn’t mean that they had no choice in the matter. Pharaoh was one of those individuals, and is discussed by Paul in Romans 9. Old Testament believers were saved by believing in the promise (election) and looking forward to it, New Testament believers are saved by believing in a righteousness obtained by new birth that has been fully revealed. The process is totally separate from anything human beings can affect, but they can obtain it by faith alone. Again, the law is part of that process, but the ruling class of the Jews made the fulfillment of the law the standard, and not miraculous new birth.
Let’s also interject some additional things here. EVERYTHING apart from the new birth is works; even a libertine or antinomian stance is a work because it perceives the so-called saved person as still under law, that is, the law of sin and death that condemns. So, in order to not be condemned by the law, you have to avoid any effort to keep it because that would be works salvation. But here is the problem: the avoidance is a work. Abstaining from something is doing something even if you aren’t doing the something. Here is some weird Pauline theology that you will understand as we progress: the new birth enables a person to obtain the law apart from the law. And something else; right now, let’s define “works salvation.” This NEVER means that someone is trying to earn their salvation by keeping the true intent of God’s law. Works salvation is ALWAYS an attempt to fulfill the righteous demands of the law through some shortcut, ritual, tradition, or obeying man rather than God. This is what happens when the law is the standard for righteousness rather than the new birth. The new birth results in a different perspective on the same law.
This is why the Jews, that is, the ruling class, rejected Christ; He was elected to make righteousness apart from the law possible. The law was established for the imputation of sin:
Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
This is why Christ died on the cross to end the law (Rom 10:4). But, this is the law that condemns the unbeliever, and to which all of his/her sins are imputed because “all sin is against the law” (1Jn 3:4). So, when Christ died on the cross, He ENDED sin:
1John 3:5 – You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed [OFFSPRING] abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
This is why THE PROMISE was also to Christ (Gal 3:16). He died to end the law and all sin imputed to it, and was resurrected by the Holy Spirit as the first fruits of all of those who would be resurrected to new life by faith alone. The law held sin captive until “faith came.” Old Testament believers were held captive by the law in Sheol until Christ was resurrected by the Spirit; He then led them to heaven in triumph. During the three days He was in the grave, he preached to the captives in Sheol which was divided between believers and unbelievers. The unbelievers remain there and will be judged by the law at the white throne judgment at the end of the ages. To the unbeliever, the law can only bring death, condemnation, and judgment to varying degrees, but to the one who has died with Christ and has been resurrected, the new way of the Spirit (Rom 7:4-6) brings life through the same law:
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Only those who have been resurrected with Christ by believing in the promise of the Spirit can find life more abundantly in the law. To the unbeliever, the Bible is the LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. To the believer, it is the LAW OF THE SPIIRT OF LIFE (Rom 8:2). The law cannot give life; ie., righteousness, only the new birth can (Gal 3:21), but once a person has received the Spirit, he/she can have life more abundantly through obeying the law. An unbeliever can only have more or lesser death through the law while a believer can only have more or less life through the law. BUT, the difference is obtained by faith alone in the promise of the Spirit that resurrected Christ from the grave. The unregenerate can only find death in the law while the saved can only find life in the law, but righteousness is not obtained by the law, but only the new birth. Life is obtained by faith alone in the promise of the new birth executed by the Spirit. The food for growth once life has been obtained is the law. For the believer, the law did not obtain life; only the new birth can do that, but we grow by the milk of the word:
1Peter 2:1- Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby (KJV).
Translations of stouter Reformed tradition such as the ESV leave out, “word” because of the implications that the law can give life to the believer. This disrupts their single perspective on the law as the standard for righteousness. But the bigger point follows: when Moses called on the Israelites to choose life or death, he was calling on them to choose the promise by faith alone resulting in life or death as set against the law of God. The law of God could only mean life or death to them, and the difference is by faith alone in the promise. Hence…
Romans 10:1 – Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
What Moses stated follows: it is impossible for the one who has not believed in the promise by faith alone to obtain life by law-keeping. However, this is not true for the believer:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
All of this is the backdrop for Romans 9. The religious Jews insisted on obtaining righteousness through the law of Moses rather than believing on Christ who came to “end the law FOR righteousness.” They chose the law as a means of salvation rather than the promise illustrated by the miraculous new birth of Isaac, Christ, John, and eventually all who believe in the promise. But wait a minute. The religious Jews never intended to obtain righteousness by obedience to the truth as they knew, like all false gospels by works, that such is impossible. This was also Moses’ point: only the righteous can live by the law once they obtain righteousness through the new birth made possible by Christ and the promise of the Spirit. Therefore, by seeking a righteousness of their own in the name of the law they fell short of the law (Gal 4:21, Rom 10:3,11:30-32). What they did follows: They first made the law the standard for righteousness instead of Christ, and then they sought to fulfill the righteousness of the law through some ritual or tradition; primarily, circumcision:
Galatians 5:2 – Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Notice that the religious Jews thought that circumcision and the “recognition of days” (Gal 4:10) fulfilled the righteous demands of the law. Paul said no, the righteous demands of the law can only be fulfilled in Christ, not the traditions of men. The true fulfillment of the law has nothing to do with being saved, but is a natural result of the new birth. Protestantism is really guilty of the same exact thing; except they insert Christ into the process. The law is still the standard for righteousness, and through traditions of men and ritualism, the so-called perfect obedience of Christ that fulfilled the law is imputed to us IF we participate in certain traditions. It is still a righteousness by the law apart from the new birth; except Christ keeps it for us IF we persevere in the Protestant traditions of men. Of course, this removes any ability by the Protestant to exhibit a faith that “works through love” (Gal 5:6), and replaces it with circumcision-like rituals.
Back to Romans 9
So, because the religious Jews refused to obey the promise, and sought to establish a righteousness of their own, God judged them by hardening their hearts. But at the same time, he sought to make them jealous by also offering the new birth to the Gentiles. The word of God has not failed, and Israel remains God’s elect according to His foreknowledge (Rom 11:2). God’s elect plan includes foreknowledge about everything (Eph 1:8). He lavished grace upon the Jews according to election regardless of knowing they would rebel, and in fact, used their rebellion to save more people including Gentiles.
Romans 9:30 – What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
As an aside, Israel didn’t succeed in “reaching the law” because they did not pursue it by faith, not because God had preselected some over others. Just a thought. Nevertheless, God did judge Israel by hardening their hearts:
Romans 11:7 – What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” 9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”
Romans 11:11 – So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Romans 11:23 – And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Romans 11:25 – Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Notice in Romans 7:11 that the elect obtained righteousness, but the rest were hardened. The elect are the ones who answer the call and accept the gift of salvation (Rom 11:29, Matt 22:1-14). At issue is who God CALLS, not who He chooses. The means of salvation is chosen; all people are called, and in this case, both Jew and Gentile. Those who believe become part of the elect group whether Jew or Gentile.
Romans 9, 10, and 11 are the Book of Acts
When did this hardening take place, and when did the religious Jews stumble over the “stumbling block”? When they rejected Christ. When this happened precisely is arguable, but here are some possibilities:
Matthew 25:16 -Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Acts 1:1 – In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 13:46 – And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Acts 18:6 – But when they opposed and insulted him, he shook out his garments and told them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
Acts 22:17 – “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ 21And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’
The Potter and the Clay
As far as the time of the partial hardening of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Rom 11:25), we are in that time right now. The hardening took place during the ministry of the apostle Paul. However, God has retained a Jewish remnant for Himself until the day that all of Israel is saved. And this is the hypothetical objection that Paul addresses in Romans 9. The objection accuses God of being unfair for hardening the hearts of the Jews as a judgment; how can He then find fault with them? Paul’s hypothetical analogy has nothing to do with a plenary preselection of individuals for salvation, but rather God’s right to Judge Israel for rejecting their Christ and showing mercy to the Gentiles instead. Yet, God even does this to make the Jews jealous in order that some would be saved. Furthermore, the focus of God’s mercy is His calling according to election, not a preselection of individuals. His focus in our day is the calling of the Gentiles—that doesn’t mean no one has an ability to choose.
And what is it that they had the ability to choose? Christ and the new birth.
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
“Children of the flesh” are the descendants of Abraham who have not been born again through believing in Christ… “You must be born again.” God’s plan of salvation is founded on miraculous new birth demonstrated by Sarah, Rebekah, Mary, Elizabeth, and now those who believe. In the case of Rebekah, God broke tradition and gave the birthrights of the firstborn to Jacob.
Romans 9:10 – And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
A popular notion among the Reformed, based on this passage, is the idea that God decided to hate Esau and love Jacob, in a saving way, before they were born. But God’s position on the two prior to their birth was, “The older will serve the younger,” not a salvific preselection. The Reformed continually cite this text with no mention of, “The older will serve the younger,” but rather cut that out and insert God’s hatred of Esau and love for Jacob, supposedly prior to their birth. However, if you note carefully the passage that Paul cites the latter is based on Esau’s behavior and subsequent judgment:
Malachi 1:2 – “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”4 If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’” 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”
The point here is God’s judgment on Israel in regard to the descendants of Esau, or as some argue; God allowing the descendants of Esau to persecute the descendants of Jacob. On any wise, the topic is not individual selection, but the fact that God’s word has not failed in regard to God’s election of national Israel… “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”
And from a grammatical perspective with the fewest assumptions, an interpretive question must be asked: was God’s statement to Rebecah a prediction, or instruction due to God’s foreknowledge regarding the two? Rebecah’s manipulation of Isaac is often seen as less than honorable sibling favoritism, but was she in fact following God’s instruction?
Genesis 25:19 – These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham fathered Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to be his wife. 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” 24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. 26 Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. 27 When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents. 28 Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.
So, you have this miracle to begin with because she was barren, and then God tells her that the older will serve the younger. And per the usual, the Patriarchs favor the guy that God doesn’t, right? With Abraham, it was Ishmael, and then Isaac favors Esau, and apparently, God had to use Rebekah to get things on track. You know, we read our Bibles and wonder why we have to suffer through all of the concubine drama. The verses prior to Genesis 25:19 is an example. But past getting hung-up on why God allowed all of that drama, it certainly establishes the fact that the problem wasn’t with the fathers, but God chose barren women to bear the righteous offspring, and everyone but them were having the babies until God intervened, and the point is this: miraculous new birth, miraculous new birth, miraculous new birth, and more miraculous new birth, and for good measure; miraculous new birth. “You must be born again.” That’s the point. The righteous line ends with Christ who then makes it possible for the Gentiles to become the offspring of Israel through the same miraculous birth made possible by the Holy Spirit.
The Purpose of the Hardening
And let’s remember, the partial hardening of Israel while maintaining a remnant, and refocusing the call towards the Gentiles to make the hardened Jews jealous for purposes of saving some of them (Rom 11:13,14), was in response to steroidal rebellion and outright rejection of plain truth. Paul uses Pharaoh as an example, and a close observation of the historical event in Exodus reveals that God hardened his heart after Pharaoh willfully hardened his own heart against God. We also see an example of this in Romans 1:18ff. God not only made sure that the Jews understood the difference between the promise and righteousness based on the law, he prophesied/warned them that they would rebel against it:
Romans 10:14 – How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 – But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” 19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” 20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” 21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
In addition, at least in Israel’s case, the hardening does not exclude the possibility that the hardened will yet believe. Paul states clearly that making the Gentiles equals in the commonwealth of Israel was designed to make the Jews jealous with the anticipated result of saving some of them (Rom 11:13,14). So, the hardening was not to solidify some individual preselection by God, but rather to facilitate the salvation of many. Note what the apostle Paul wrote:
Romans 11:23 – And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
In conclusion, do a test. Read Romans chapters 9,10, and 11, and wherever there is a cause and effect statement, or purpose transition, or reference to the calling, and where also the word “choose” would fit into the sentence grammatically, take note of it, and see how many times the word “choose” is missing when that is supposedly the crux of these chapters. The theme is the “purpose of election,” and then the purpose is stated throughout these chapters. And conspicuously missing is the idea that God preselects certain individuals for salvation and others for damnation. In these passages, the clay pots refer to people groups; namely, the offspring of Abraham, the hardened, the remnant, and the Gentiles.
Also, Paul states that these groups come from “one lump of clay.” I think the one lump of clay is Israel, and symbolizes God’s purposes in uniting Jew and Gentile into one body. I think election is God’s means of working all things together for those who love him according to foreknowledge. Israel was God’s elect through foreknowledge as Romans 11:2 states which means He devised His plan of salvation according to all wisdom and knowledge of future events (Eph 1:8), including Israel’s rebellion. He worked all of this foreknowledge together into His election purpose for the goodwill of all men (Lk 2:14).
Let’s go to the phones.
TANC 2015, Susan Dohse, Session 1 – Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to the Man of Many Words
I love history, and although I give my dear husband fits when I am preparing for our conferences, this studying and doing research does give me an element of enjoyment. This is also one of my preventive measures to staving off Alzheimer’s – engaging in mentally challenging activities. However, I am motivated by truth. That is the mission of TTANC, The Truth About New Calvinism.
For our new guests either here or in cyberspace, I will quickly introduce myself. My name is Susan Deborah Dohse. I was married to Wayne St. Denis for thirty-six years, and together we had three sons: Timothy, Benjamin, and Philip. Wayne passed away in December of 2009 of congestive heart failure and diabetes. The Lord blessed me with a new husband and so I lost my “sainthood” when I married Paul 4 years ago. I actually married him twice. We eloped on January 1st and, April 9th, had a public marriage ceremony to announce our union. I am in my 42nd year of teaching, and my present title is that of a Developmental Specialist. This means I get to play with babies whose ages range from birth to age three. I have taught every grade except Kindergarten and the first fifteen years of my teaching career was at Xenia Christian. Two children were added to my clan, Heather, and Paul Jr. Together, Paul and I have four grandchildren, Blayne, Benjamin’s son, whom you will meet on Saturday, and Hannah, Jacob, and Joanna, who live in Puerto Rico with their missionary parents Heather and David.
If I were to take a survey such as what might be taken for the game show Family Feud, and ask people to name one thing they know about Jonathan Edwards, here is what I believe the top answers might be:
1) Who?
2) He wrote that anti-war song, Sunshine.
3) Wasn’t he the man who fell into the hands of an angry God?
4) I know, he woke up during that Great Awakening.
5) He’s running for President, isn’t he?
The young, restless, and reformed call him their “home boy”, and pastors elevate him to equal importance of the Apostle Paul. There is a Jonathan Edwards Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, a Jonathan Edwards Classical Academy in Whites Creek, Tennessee, a Jonathan Edwards Conference held by John Piper, Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University which houses all his known writings, a Jonathan Edwards College at Yale, and a Jonathan Edwards Gordon Conwell Seminary. The list can go on. Just Google it. This Puritan minister of the 1700’s is immortalized, idolized, and almost canonized. The Puritan Board Blog holds Edwards in high esteem, and why wouldn’t they? It’s the Puritan Board. They extol his life and elevate his teachings to be on par with Scripture. John Piper rarely has an original sermon because of his heavy reliance on the theology and epistemology and writings of Jonathan Edwards. “Alongside the Bible, Edwards became the compass of my theological studies,” writes Piper. Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones made this claim: “I am tempted perhaps foolishly, to compare the Puritans to the Alps, Luther and Calvin to the Himalayas, and Jonathan Edwards to Mt. Everest. He has always been to me a man most like the Apostle Paul.” Author Stephen Nichols speaks of a lecturer who stated, “Next to Scripture, Jonathan Edwards’s Religious Affections stands as the single most important book for any Christian to grapple with.”
He is called the Prince of Pastors, America’s greatest theo-philosopher, and America’s Augustine. Do I even try to say something the least bit negative about this golden boy of the Puritans?
So, the Why question. Why study history in general and Jonathan Edwards in particular? We live in the here and now, the present. We are supposed to be planning for the future, our retirements, Christmas, our next conference, lunch. We plan for and perhaps worry much over the future. With all that we have to do today, and with all that we have to look forward to in the future, why bother with discussing someone from the past? Consider all the demands that press on us daily and the anticipation of what is. Peter Stearns said, “Any subject of study needs justification.” Why is Jonathan Edwards worth our study, worth your attention? What is the justification for my sharing what I have learned about this man?
Let’s look at it from this perspective: How can we evaluate war if the nation is at peace –unless we use historical material? How can we understand the role that beliefs play in shaping church history, and family life if we don’t study the impact of such historical figures as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine, and Jonathan Edwards? Let’s use this analogy: Jonathan Edwards is our laboratory and the data learned from him and what he taught serves as the evidence in figuring out the answers to other Wh questions: Why is Protestantism, i.e. Christianity, pursuing New-Calvinism? What factors contribute to this resurgence? What elements of Protestantism persist despite change? When we unfold his record, it could provide some light on how New Calvinism works, and the road it is taking us down.
Jonathan Edwards, destined from birth to be a Puritan minister. His parents, Timothy and Esther Edwards, hearty Calvinists, believed in predestination and the sovereign will of God, but were not disposed to helping God define the direction, shape the will, and mold the mind of their only son, Jonathan. He had no other calling but that of a Puritan minister. His mother, father, and older sisters made sure that he would follow in the path of their father, Timothy, and grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. He was the fifth child of eleven, and the only boy. He was extremely loved and doted on but not spoiled. His father was a micro-manager and had the highest of expectations for his only son. He learned Latin at the age of 6, and before entering the Collegiate College of Connecticut, later named Yale University, at the age of 13, he would know both Latin and Greek. His father, Timothy, a teacher himself of Latin and Greek would see to it that his son would know the languages necessary to enter college.
From an early age, religion was a preoccupation with Jonathan. He dated his interest in spiritual things to when he was 9 or 10, calling it “a time of remarkable awakening” when he had been for months concerned “about the things of religion and [his] soul’s salvation.” Moved to both private meditation and prayer, and religious exercises with other children, he often went to “secret places” in the woods, “a booth in a swamp, in a very secret and retired place, for prayer.” He later wrote, “I seem to be in my element when engaged in religious duties.”(Samuel Miller, Jonathan Edwards, and Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards.)
He entered the Collegiate School of Connecticut at the age of 13, intellectually precocious, and an un-regenerate pre-teen who did not measure up to his father’s expectations because, although overly pious, Jonathan did not show a heartfelt love of God, which was the true sign of conversion.
He went off to school with ten other boys ages 13-15; typical age for boys to attend college during those days. The course work was rigorous, and life structured. Breakfast followed morning prayers, with classes through midday; an hour and half of free time after the noon meal and before afternoon classes, more prayers, Bible reading and explication. Supper came after early-evening recitations, with study hours from 9-11. Lights out at 11. Monday through Thursday first year students studied Greek and Hebrew grammar, sophomores began work in logic, and the upper classes moved on to natural philosophy, mathematics, and metaphysics. All students studied rhetoric, oratory, ethics, and theology. This puts the common core philosophy in a bad light, doesn’t it?
The final examination for receiving the Bachelor of Arts degree was: a student had to convince his rector of his expertise “in Reading the Hebrew into Greek, and into Latin and grammatically resolving said languages and in answering such questions in their systems of logic and in the principles of natural philosophy and metaphysicks.” Edwards did so well that at the commencement in 1720 he gave the valedictory oration, in Latin. He returned to work on his Master’s degree.
Scholasticism gave him satisfaction and recognition in the collegiate community, but not peace. Although well-read and informed in the reading and study of philosophy, particularly European high culture ( Locke, Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Henry More, Malebranche, the Cambridge Platonists, to name a few), he still anguished over the issue of conversion. In his Personal Narrative he reported his earliest religious experiences and wrote that just prior to going to Yale he believed that he had experienced spiritual transformation. But he lost his exuberance. He had at least four spiritual awakenings, he records.
When 16, he became bed-ridden with pleurisy and almost died. He wrote that it was a divine intervention, for God held him over the pit of hell and it was his sinful life that brought him to the verge of death. Believing, as all good Puritan Calvinists do, that experiences such as this is part of the sovereign will of God and part of the spiritual conversion process, he resolved to rearrange all things in his life to allow him to focus on Christ alone. He tried to renounce his former ways and obey the Lord’s Word. He “fell again” into the “old ways of sin” which led him to many great and violent struggles in his soul. He broke off all former wicked ways, all known outward sin, and applied himself to see salvation and to practice many religious duties. (Please note these words: see salvation and practice religious duty: they are important in the pursuit of salvation) Through self-searching he felt the need to change his attitude from “seeking salvation” to contemplation of Christ’s place and role in the world—develop a new awareness of Christ’s glory. Please note the first two steps one takes to conversion: recognizing how wicked you are by identifying all known sin, and contemplation of Christ’s glory. Now he needed to shift his attention to God. Only by turning to God would he be able to experience a true spiritual transformation. He writes that when he saw the once horrible doctrine of God’s sovereignty he was able to “see further.” His reasoning was that he “apprehended the justice and reasonableness regarding the doctrine of God’s sovereignty” and became “convinced and fully satisfied as to this sovereignty of God and his justice in thus eternally disposing of men according to his sovereign pleasure.” He found the breakthrough to being converted. Only through the full realization of the glory of the Divine Being did he develop new convictions about Christ and the work of redemption. He describes his mystical and existential conversion as “an inward, sweet sense” of the work of redemption, “a calm sweet abstraction of soul from all the concerns of the world.” His experience had been so overwhelming that he writes in his diary that “often he had a kind of vision, or fixed ideas, and imaginations of being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapped and swallowed up in God.” (Diary, Works of Jonathan Edwards)
Now on the verge of complete conversion, on the edge of self-transformation according to his new and vivid experience of the sovereign majesty of God and Christ’s glorious work of salvation, he needed a stamp of authority to certify that these spiritual experiences were indeed evidence of conversion. He traveled from New York in 1723 to tell his father his spiritual odyssey. Without the approval of his father, the long and agonizing journey of the past two years might prove invalid. “Not long after I first began to experience these things I gave an account to my father of some things that had passed in my mind. I was pretty affected by the discourse we had together.” With his father’s final affirmation and approval, his son’s process of conversion was complete. In his Personal Narrative he tells his readers that after the discourse with his father, he went for a short walk, when “[i]t came into my mind so sweet a sense of the glorious majesty and grace of God…The appearance of everything altered. There seemed to be as it were, a calm, sweet cast or appearance of divine Glory in almost everything. God’s excellency, his wisdom, his purity, his love, seemed to appear in everything.” Although he writes that he does not know the exact moment when conversion happened, he knows that one day he had a “delightful conviction” accompanied by a “sort of inward, sweet delight in God and divine things” that he had never experienced before. He dated this remarkable change in attitude to the time between his graduation from Yale and his pastorate in New York.
It is important to keep the steps of his conversion in the back of your mind because we will revisit these again.
Throughout his life Jonathan Edwards spent a considerable amount of time and energy in fashioning the conduct and character of his person. At the beginning of his literary activity he kept to being the careful, organized writer, following the rules he wrote in his Cover-Leaf Memoranda where he would engage the reader, and gently lead them into some new dimension of belief. By the 1730’s he abandoned his rule book and became aggressive and assertive with the intent to expound serious Christian doctrine rather than just chronicle events.
The timeline of events from his conversion experience to his death revolve around Edwards establishing his ministerial authority. Called to be an assistant pastor to his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, was a major role for Edwards. He was entering a territory with increasing social instability and potentially explosive situations. Corn, cattle, and land were central to the region’s interests and social divisions within the town had become significantly exacerbated. The Stoddard family controlled the military, the judiciary, and the church, and this control was a constant thorn in his flesh. Edwards did not long have the benefit of his grandfather’s counsel or authoritative position. On February 11, 1729, after 60 years in the same town and ministry, the great man finally died, leaving his 26 year old grandson to continue his work. Elijah’s mantle had fallen on his shoulders, but he was far from earning the respect it marked, for he would always live in the shadow of the Pope of the Connecticut Valley, his grandfather. From 1729 to 1743 he was on the rise as the sole pastor of the prestigious Northampton congregation that experienced awakenings in 1734-35 and 1740-42. Some historians calls these times the Little Awakening, and the Great Awakening.
His strategy during these years consisted of three elements: cultivate a patronage of influential people in Northampton, cultivate a patronage of influential people beyond Northampton, and continue to grow his self-confidence in the rightness of his personal beliefs as foundational to true religion. He accomplished this not through his preaching solely, but through his prolific writing.
The congregation of Northampton had to get used to a minister that was “stiff and unsociable”, a man of few words and a man reserved with strangers. He was never comfortable visiting people’s homes and making small talk. He wrote, “I prefer the study of books than to the company of people.” When they had spiritual concerns, he preferred to counsel them in his study, not visit them in their homes. Unlike his grandfather, who preached without notes and with much emotion, his pulpit manner reflected his constitution and habits. His voice was not particularly loud, but that did not diminish the fact that he commanded his audience with distinctness, clearness, and precision. He rarely moved his hands or looked out on his audience unless it was to stare at the bell rope in the back of the church, for he wrote out his sermons and read from his texts.
His life was marked by rigid structure –rising early, thirteen hours of study in which he wrote treatises, and prepared his sermons. Edwards wrote in his diary in 1728, “I think Christ has recommended rising early in the morning, by his rising from the grave very early.” After the evening meal, he often devoted one hour engaged with his children in conversation and singing. He also wrote “I judge that it is best when I am in a good frame of mind for divine contemplation, or engaged in reading the Scriptures, or any study of divine subjects, that, ordinarily, I will not be interrupted by going to dinner, but will forego my dinner, rather than be broke off.” After family worship, he would return to his study for 2-3 more hours before retiring to bed. Much praise must be given to his wife Sarah, for she was glue that held the household together. She was responsible for running the household, discipline and instruction of their eleven children, and caring for the steady stream of visitors and apprentices, often overseeing their home and 50 acres while nursing one child and pregnant with another. When it came to the management of a household, it has been said that Jonathan Edwards had no common sense, often unaware of how many sheep they had, or the condition of their fields. It was Sarah that helped to make the man, Jonathan Edwards.
From 1744-50, he became embroiled in controversies and conflicts in which his downward spiral in the eyes of the town led to his dismissal in 1750. Edwards had inherited a church socially fractured and in spiritual decline. His effectiveness as spiritual leader diminished with each passing year. He was dismissed from his ministerial position and on July 1st 1750, he severed his formal connection with the church of Northamption. To pour salt on his wounds, the church retained him for another year, hiring him by the week to preach to a congregation that was having difficulty in obtaining a new minister, in no part because of the town’s reputation for contentiousness. In the summer of 1751, he moved 60 miles west of Northampton where he was to be the minister and schoolmaster at an Indian mission school in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.
Finally convinced that his talent was writing, in a few short years he completed 4 theological treatises on topics of transatlantic interest. The strategies he developed after graduation from Yale were now being played out in the wilderness of Massachusetts.
The theme of his writing was the most important and urgent: the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and excellence. He now had the self-confidence and the growing conviction that he had the duty and right to communicate this message. He had internalized the message to the point where it was shaping him, the message became the man. The message of God’s sovereignty with its human counterpart of the need for total dependency on God dominated him to where he was convinced that he had a role as proclaimer of that message. Now his role became one of quasi-apostle. He journeyed from the desire to be heard, to one who felt he had the right to be heard, to this quasi-apostle, one who must be heard.
Now more than 290 years and 4,000 words of scholarship later, we see that the person of Jonathan Edwards was shaped not by his practice, but by his writing. Is it no wonder that the young, restless, and reformed are urged to “take up and read Edwards”? He fits well in their TULIP cult; since the TULIP cult works from the principles taught in the highly fallible writings and sermons of men, men such as John Calvin, and their home-boy, Jonathan Edwards.


leave a comment