Lying About Tchividjian: Exhibit B; Jerry Wragg the Rabbit Hunter
“Pastor” Jerry Wragg was called on by John MacArthur Jr. to bring “clarity” to the sanctification issue at the 2014 Shepherds’ Conference held annually at MacArthur’s church. Wragg split the sanctification controversy into three camps within the present-day Neo-Calvinist resurgence: Reformed, T4G, and gospel-centered. While making Tullian Tchividjian the scapegoat for all of the confusion, the fact remains that these groups all believe the same thing. And frankly, like all of them, Wragg knows this. They all know that the Reformation was founded on a Dualism interpretation of reality as opposed to a grammatical interpretation of reality. None of this is about Bible doctrine—it’s about philosophy and they know it.
The contention is really about the communication of what they all believe to the masses. Wragg et al take exception to Tchividjian’s straight forward approach to Reformed metaphysics. Like John Piper has stated openly, God’s people are not ready for the hard truth of the authentic Reformed gospel.
I grew up rabbit hunting with my grandfather. We always hunted them with our favorite rabbit dog, “Jack.” Rabbit dogs are of the beagle breed. When you jump a rabbit, they run away in a big circle and will end the circle where they were originally jumped, but will then go to their hole or another hiding place. If a hunter does not ambush the rabbit while waiting in the general area of the original jumping point, the beagle, or beagles will be left running in circles as they follow the rabbits scent.
This is why all Reformed teachers are rabbit hunters. The rabbit is orthodoxy, and Reformed followers are a huge pack of beagles. The exception to this analogy is the Reformed hunters never shoot the rabbit—the goal is to keep the doggies running in circles. This hunting technique can be seen clearly in Wragg’s message. And hence, the pastor beagles at the conference will go back to their local churches and run the beagle puppies in the same circles accordingly.
In the message, Wragg makes Tchividjian the central point of contention while propagating the exact same thing that Tchividjian teaches. This is not commendable; even beagles know when the scent is different. To me, thousands of nodding pastors sitting under this academic bunny trail is no different from the saluting masses who listened to Adolf Hitler in the 30’s.
Wragg’s bunny circle was a big one, a whopping 12,000 words. He states the reason for this early in the run:
Hi. Well, I have the unenviable task of dealing with a subject that really could go about five or six different ways. In fact, this could be a whole seminar on law versus gospel or law and gospel relationship. This could be a whole seminar on the sanctification process itself and a host of other things. But since I’ve called it the new antinomianism, obviously, you know that I’m trying to deal, in this session, with this entire discussion of the relationship between justification, sanctification, and particularly as it relates to how we change and some of the terminology that is going around today.
First of all, none of these guys believe we change as people, that’s just a big fat lie and they know it. They believe we experience righteousness and God uses us to manifest righteousness in a realm. Righteousness is done to us while we are unable to do righteousness. Likewise, in regard to salvation, the ability to be persuaded is to act on righteousness instead of righteousness acting upon us. Again, they condone all of the assumptive language concerning the idea of obedience because we are not “ready” for the deep hard truths that they are gifted to accept with all joy concerning the majesty of God. As church historian John Immel aptly points out, these Reformed beliefs have significant kinship to Stoicism and the glorification of fatalism. The definition of bravery is to accept hopelessness and its supposed Theocentrism.
When we consider the great teachings of Scripture, they are not there just to give us information and they are not to teach us what we can do in our own strength. In Musings 34 (http://www.godloveshimself.org/?p=2018) we looked at how believing that the doctrine of justification is true is not the same thing as being justified. The new birth was also mentioned at the end. In the passage above (John 3:3-5) Jesus speaks pointedly and with power in a way that reflects on the issue being mused on here. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus that he must know the truth about the new birth in order to enter the kingdom. Jesus also did not tell Nicodemus that he must believe the truth about the new birth in order to enter the kingdom. Instead of that, Jesus told Nicodemus that he must actually be born again in order to enter the kingdom. There is a huge difference between believing what is true and what is true actually happening to you (God Loves Himself .wordpress .com: Musing 35; February 10, 2014).
And why is the relationship between gospel and law so complicated? It’s not complicated at all; the Bible will either judge those who are under its condemnation, or it will free those who now learn it and obey it as a way to love God and others:
Romans 8:2 – For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
The reason it is complicated is because it is the integration of Scripture with Augustinian Neo-Platonist philosophy. This is conspicuous church history for anyone who will investigate it on their own without a play by play from the rabbit hunters. That play by play is a circle. The beginning of the circle, and the fact that these guys don’t believe anything different is revealed by Wragg early on:
So on one side there is this group of people who are strongly believing that the lion share of their reformed brothers and sisters are drifting into sort of a legalism. They’re drifting away from the freedom of gospel grace. That’s the concern on the part of some, that somehow striving to obey the gospel is going back to the very law from which we’ve been freed in justification. And so they talk about believing in grace and remembering grace, and they major on the indicatives of our union with Christ. And so the warning goes up that they are concerned about the danger of becoming like a Pharisee and performing commands with no heart. The legalism term gets thrown around quite a bit at fellow Christians especially those who might talk about submission or duty to Christ or effort in sanctification. And even there’s a suspicion on the rise of any sermon or ministry that emphasizes obedience to commands rather than this language of the high thoughts of God’s grace.
Stop right there. If I didn’t know any better, and I am not sure that I do, the likes of Jerry Wragg think this is all a cute game in how they talk in code. They seem to be amused at how they can say something plainly and in broad daylight while knowing that the simplicity of the words they use will go right over the heads of those listening. It’s an arrogant show of intellectual superiority enjoyed by the other philosopher kings looking on in amusement. They think the Lord looks on in approval because they are telling the truth on a higher spiritual plane while pontificating the truth to the peasants in understandable mythological narratives. This is the mythological noble lie to keep the masses calm which was dignified by the Sophists, and integrated into Scripture resulting in orthodoxy. It reminds me, to a “T” of the dialogue between Socrates and his understudies.
What am I speaking of? Supposedly, Wragg is speaking against all obedience flowing from gospel contemplationism. He knows, for the most part—that beagle won’t hunt. But note carefully how he frames the issue at hand; viz, obedience in sanctification:
That’s the concern on the part of some, that somehow striving to obey the gospel is going back to the very law from which we’ve been freed in justification.
Please note: “obey the gospel” is a salvation term. It is a term that is exclusive to justification. Wragg is clearly talking about this term in a sanctification context:
Romans 10:16 – But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
2 Thessalonians 1:8 – In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1 Peter 4:17 – For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Wragg uses this exact same term regarding obedience in the Christian life—it’s no different than anything Tchividjian is saying. Wragg continues:
On the other side, there is this group of people that are strongly believing that this teaching either wrongly minimizes an outright – or a role of the law in the Christian’s life or outright ignores it. There is this concern on this other side of the aisle that reformed brothers and sisters are abandoning what it truly means to know and love Christ in the imperatives and are running headlong into full-blown antinomianism. If you think it’s nothing more than an intramural debate, I’ll tell you that so far I’ve been contacted by dozens and dozens of friends and churches who have said their churches are dividing over this.
Here’s how the typical situation goes. At some point, a pastor or a leader or a group of pastors and elders will be rightly teaching and emphasizing the doctrine of justifying grace, and then they begin to give emphatic cautions about terms like duty and striving for holiness. And so their sermon starts to become laced with cross-centered terminology, free grace terminology. They speak of obedience as unrequired or spontaneous and rising only from love and gratitude as legitimate motive. And so that leadership team will make strong contrast between being gospel-centered and obeying rules. And this dichotomy is created. And then that’s when the word “legalism” starts to be generously applied to any emphasis on self-discipline, submission, and keeping commands. People in the congregation are hearing these new emphases, and they become concerned at what seems like a significant shift in the way we live the Christian life, in the way change occurs in the Christian life. And some in the church get together and they confirm their mutual concerns and they approach the leadership but unfortunately doesn’t seem to be a way to bring these reformed gospel loving groups to agree on the problem, what is the core of the problem or to bring some biblical balance.
What balance? You mean talking about being sanctified by justification in a more balanced way? Wragg then launched into a massive treatise regarding the supposed history of antinomianism through the prism of Reformed understanding. This is the Indy 500 of rabbit trails. These guys use a distorted definition of antinomianism to say the same thing in a way that seems more palatable to those who trust orthodoxy. Here is the way Wragg qualified antinomianism in light of the discussion:
Yet, while it’s true that only the power of the gospel can save, here’s how Tullian draws the implications from this story of Zacchaeus and his assumption that Jesus never told him what to do. He goes on to say that the law prescribes good works but only grace can produce them. I agree. The requirements of the law, listen, spring unsummoned from a forgiven heart. By definition, good works can’t be forced or coerced. They are instinctive, reflexive, and spontaneous. Then this, underserved grace creates a new life of unrequired obedience bringing forth more good works than any laying down of the law ever could. So basically, notice the terminology. Jesus never tells him what to do. Requirements of the law spring unsummoned from a forgiven heart. Undeserved grace creates a new life of unrequired obedience. And what the free grace movement is continuing to promote is the idea that the grace of justification generates works without any relationship to the obligations of the law, no relationship to the obligation sense of it at all. The need for holiness is never completely put out, but it’s become kind of this, I like to call it, I told my staff, it’s like a red-headed stepchild to the issue of grace.
The claim is that when believers fully understand grace, then vices, the kind that Hebrews says so easily entangle us, will be exposed for the fraudulent promises they are, and we will enjoy the liberating grace of God, listen, without having to strive, without having to struggle, or without having to obey from a sense of obligation. In other words, obedience, they say, out of duty is always wrong. Now I’m convinced that this conflates, intermingles, and blurs the issue of justification, the freedom we have in justification, it conflates that with progressive sanctification. And the free grace movement often bleeds the believer’s no condemnation status into the progressive sanctification dynamic so that the will is viewed as passive in spiritual growth and only moved upon by the motives of gratitude. That’s how they get there. That’s the tracing of the line. And this, by the way, beloved, was the battle of 17th century antinomianism. Antinomianism has always said that the promises of the gospel are the exclusive motivations for obedience. They’ve always denied that the Bible standards and the Bible’s warnings are a means God uses to motivate his people. They’ve always said that.
Now listen, this 12,000 word drone is designed to wear out the beagles and save the orthodox rabbit, so let me boil it all down for you. If you would like, you can view the transcript here Jerry Wragg in all of its literary marathon glory. Like all of these guys, Wragg is propagating a sanctification by faith alone, but is making the crux of the issue…the way sanctification by justification is experienced. He objects to Tchividjian et al narrowing sanctification to a joyful passivity that flows from gratitude alone; this is his definition of antinomianism. He asserts that even though sanctification is by faith alone, it is experienced “subjectively.”
And I don’t like talking about change that is always about visceral evaluations and experiential terminology. I don’t like that. I like the language of faith. It’s very clear to me, self-emptying and trusting myself to what God says. Is that subjective? Yeah, it affects me. And then I’m called subjectively to live out the truth. I get that. But my power to do so is not grounded in me or in my experience or even my evaluation of it. God has to accept a pretty imperfect duty and delight from Jerry Wragg every day. He has to accept a pretty imperfect version of all of that. And by his grace, I’m under no condemnation, but he empowers me to do that and the greater and more strong my faith, the more my everything will mature, emotions included. So people sometimes will list passages where God commands us to delight in him and love him and rejoice in him. In response to those things, I just say amen. But what seems missing quite often is the language of faith. And so by drifting into the place where you largely define and evaluate your spiritual condition by internal subjective senses, it becomes a bit of a dead end.
This is exactly what Tchividjian teaches. This is the hard work of “self-emptying” or stated another way by others, including Tchividjian, “a lifestyle of repentance.” Wragg seems to be accusing the “other” camp of rejecting any use of the law in sanctification, including its supposed purpose of showing our…as stated by others, “sinfulness as set against God’s holiness.” This isn’t so, but like the others, Wragg states that the subjective results are not grounded in anything we actually do, but…
my power to do so is not grounded in me or in my experience or even my evaluation of it.
Nothing different is being said here. The problem is: how it is being stated by the likes of Tchividjian is giving the beagles a heads up. It is causing the beagles to pause in the chase and say, “Is it just me, or are we running in a circle?” Moreover, John MacArthur has framed the discussion in the exact same way that Wragg contested at MacArthur’s 2014 conference; eg, that obedience is “always sweet, never bitter,” and the idea that Christians obey commands that they are mentally unaware of because the Holy Spirit is the one who applies truth. MacArthur has stated he only preaches the word, and the Holy Spirit applies it to life, comparing biblical instruction, disparagingly, to telling people how to get a parking spot at the mall.
Wragg seemed to be primarily addressing the following perceived problem within the overall beagle and rabbit show: Christians shouldn’t evaluate their spiritual condition by their joy level; they shouldn’t put any credence in that at all—they should merely come empty handed back to Christ by faith alone in the promise alone (as a Christian). You could barely slip a playing card between the two “differences.” This reveals a possible, and sad reality: the primary bone of contention that Wragg was addressing was not the sanctification by faith alone that James attacked in his epistle, but the supposed assertion by the “other” camp that joy is synonymous with the presence of saving faith.
I will close with this excerpt that clearly reveals that there is really no difference in the camps:
So I would suggest that what this sensual, culture-immersed generation needs is not another excuse for their guilt and weakness but a message of real power, real power, the power that God assures us in the very gospel of grace and the power that comes by the means God chose. The Bible never pits indicatives against imperatives. The grace that affected and secured my justification is the same grace that empowers me in the use of God’s intended means, which are the word and prayer and service and praise, et cetera. And the key that unleashes the Spirit’s power in sanctification is through faith. When you entrust yourself to God’s word in the moment of temptation, that’s what starves the flesh. That’s mortification. The Scripture teaches us that Christ’s victory over sin and death in the past assures us of dynamic power over sin in the present, Romans 6:11 and following. And when we’re weak and experiencing defeat, the Bible’s answer has never been hit reset on your justification and stop trying. On the contrary, even an exhausted believer who’s been wrongly trying to perform for God shouldn’t gloss over the sorrows or some fresh-coated justification because they need to get at the roots of unbelief that prevent them from dying to self.
Wragg makes the definition of antinomianism those who rely on feelings only and reject any use of the law, but only hit a justification reset bottom. His answer is to strive in sanctification and feel the pain, but it is a striving to use the law for revealing how evil we are (as Christians), and the trusting of what Christ did in His life of obedience which is imputed to our Christian life: “The Scripture teaches us that Christ’s victory over sin and death in the past assures us of dynamic power over sin in the present.” It’s the same old Reformed double imputation that has always plagued the church for centuries:
The grace that affected and secured my justification is the same grace that empowers me in the use of God’s intended means, which are the word and prayer and service and praise, et cetera. And the key that unleashes the Spirit’s power in sanctification is through faith….[ALONE IN SANCTIFCATION!].
It’s all the same antinomianism that is really a rejecting of the believer’s participation in fulfilling the law of the Spirit of life. Instead of the law of the Spirit of life setting us free from the law of sin and death, the Reformed gospel keeps us under that law so that the Christian life must be lived the same way we were saved: by faith alone. Faith alone in sanctification keeps the law of sin and death satisfied because the works of Christ are perpetually applied to it by faith alone.
That’s what they all believe. And that antinomian dog will not hunt.
paul
Calvinist Gospel Sexy Time is a Longstanding Reformed Tradition
“Let me add one to the pile: Francis Chan has noted that Christ was his grandmother’s ‘lover.’ What did he mean by that? Well, he is paid millions to be a communicator—you be the judge. Is he overpaid or did he mean what he said?”
Unrivaled by the Marxist masters of propaganda, the Protestant Reformers of old and new have effectively sold the historic motif that they are the antithesis of mysticism. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind in all of human history. The results speak volumes: the Calvinist camp exemplifies steroidal confusion and weirdness dressed up in scholarly garb. A good example is John MacArthur Jr. who is the personification of religious academia, but in fact is the King of Confusion. Never in the history of the church has confusion been so well-articulated since the other religious John—Calvin.
You can only dignify mystical despotism for so long before remnants of it start showing; it is the proverbial Freudian slip at the formal dinner party. In regard to “intimacy” with God versus the dreaded “O” word (obedience), or the even more dreaded “D” word (duty), it starts with Jesus is my boyfriend music, and progresses to Jesus is my boyfriend theology, and culminates into including children in the wonderful intimacy with the more dignified covering for them. Admittedly, that is a bit snarky, but one wonders since intimacy is in the eye of the beholder. That’s the problem with going to the Bible with a prism, the results are always unpredictable.
It all starts with the idea that man’s fall was a total fall into madness and chaos. In fact, some in the Reformed tradition assert that man was fallen before the fall by virtue of the fact that he was material. Before the fall, man had some integrity, but lost all of it at the fall. That’s why he was fallible in the first place; his fallibility was predetermined for God’s glory. This was John Calvin’s position, also known as supralapsarianism.
In the scheme of determinism, God also predetermines chosen ones to save humanity from chaos and madness. Almost every leader in human history until the American Revolution, whether secular or religious, claimed determinism as the premise of their authority via the Universe, Mother Nature, or God. In Reformed circles, the practical application for that is reality being a narrative written by God. The elect, who get it, see life as a prewritten redemptive-historical meta-narrative (metaphysical narrative) where everything is predetermined for God’s glory including the good, bad, ugly, and mundane. Leaders that rule in God’s stead and save the masses from chaos are predetermined characters in God’s metaphysical narrative. And characters they are.
This is the premise of Pilgrims Progress written by the Puritan John Bunyan. Like the Bible, it is the “story of every believer” and for that matter, every unbeliever as well. Books like How People Change by Calvinist Paul David Tripp supply an interpretive prism for mentally processing life according to God’s gospel meta-narrative. It rivals any mysticism that a shaman from an obscure rain forest could muster up, but again, the traditional Reformed ability to present it as intellectualism is uncanny.
So, if the narrative is all about what God has done in redemption, and not about anything we do, of course, books like The Song of Solomon must be representative of man’s relationship to God. In this narrative of prewritten reality, everything must be vertical; any horizontal consideration is another story, specifically, man’s story. Martin Luther contended that all reality was interpreted through the cross story, and man’s story was darkness and insanity, what he referred to as the glory story. Anything at all to do with man was a contra reality of insanity—only the cross story was real. Luther asserted that only a theologian of the cross story was a true theologian.
Therefore, sex must have a vertical identity. Sex should reveal more about the gospel. Sex CANNOT be separated from the gospel narrative. Sex cannot be separated from its “gospel context.” So, when we have sex with our spouse, it’s not about us, it’s about the gospel. When you have sex with your spouse, or for the YRR crowd, your girlfriend, don’t you dare forget John Piper, John Calvin, or Charles Spurgeon. But fear not for you who are less able to worship, Viagra is sold at a retail outlet near you.
So, when Dort damsel Ann Voskamp wrote of her gospel sexy time with G __ __, was she able to defend herself from the rest of the Reformed, Oh crap! You can’t just come right out and say it plainly like that crowd? Absolutely. Note this post here: http://www.aholyexperience.com/intimacy-with-god/, along with the soft music in the background, where she shows decisively that gospel sexy time is a longstanding Reformed tradition. Let me add one to the pile: Francis Chan has noted that Christ was his grandmother’s “lover.” What did he mean by that? Well, he is paid millions to be a communicator—you be the judge. Is he overpaid or did he mean what he said?
True, at times, the apostle Paul used marriage as an idiom to make a theological point. But this goes far beyond that. This is the idea that sex enhances our actual experiential intimacy with G __ __. Paul used marriage as a metaphor to distinguish the differences between law and gospel. The goal was understanding law and gospel, not a means of experiencing part of our future glorification.
This is a segway into the vital union aspect of the Reformed gospel that keeps us saved by faith alone in our Christian life. The idea of the church being the bride of Christ, oneness with Christ like a married couple become one, and the Reformed doctrine of the vital union are closely related here. We remain one with Christ by faith alone by believing that we can do no work pleasing to God; we are merely playing the part he wrote for us in the gospel narrative. We have all said it: I didn’t do that good thing, it was the Spirit! lest we do a good work and make “the fruits of sanctification the root of justification.”
Hence, all spiritual disciplines merely enhance the gospel experience of grace in our lives resulting in a transformation from “glory to glory” as far as what we experience, see, or perceive, not anything we do. This is an increased experience of the actual full glory that we are to experience at the resurrection and a source of our present assurance. Experiencing more and more of the future full glory is evidence that we are abiding in the vital union. Church fellowship, the Lord’s Table, baptism as the initial experience, trials, John Piper’s exultation style of worship, and yes, sex, all contribute to the experiential future glory found in the gospel narrative. Otherwise known as the “means of grace (salvation).”
Justin Taylor, VP of Editorial at Crossway:
“I think Peter Kreeft is on the right track in his analysis:
For we are designed for something beyond morality, something in which morality will be transformed. Mystical union with God. Sex is a sign and appetizer of that.”
Mysticism is no less mysticism though dignified with credentials.
paul
Notes from aforementioned citation:
The Language and Analogy of Scripture & Historical Protestant Christianity:
John Piper:
“Hosea 2:14-23 is one of the tenderest and most beautiful love songs in the Bible…
In the context of a broken marriage being renewed with the fresh vows of betrothal must not the words, “and you shall know the Lord,” (v. 20) mean, you shall enjoy an intimacy like that of sexual intercourse.
~ John Piper The entire sermon is available here.
Timothy Keller:
“Sex is for fully committed relationships because it is to be a foretaste of the joy that comes from being in complete union with God. The most rapturous love between a man and woman is only a hint of God’s love for us (Rom. 7:1–6; Eph. 5:21–33). …
Positively, we are called to experience the spousal love of Jesus.”
J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Radio:
“When a man and a woman give themselves to each other in an act of marital love, they can know the love of Christ as no one else can know it.”
Jonathan Edwards in the Excellency of Christ:
“So again, we being united to a divine person, as his members –
can have a more intimate union and intercourse with God the Father.”
~ John Calvin:
“The strong affection which a husband ought to cherish towards his wife is exemplified by Christ, and an instance of that unity which belongs to marriage is declared to exist between himself and the Church. This is a remarkable passage on the mysterious intercourse which we have with Christ.”
~John Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians 5
“…a loving soul wants fresh food every day from the table of Christ.
And you who have once had the kisses of His mouth, though you remember the past kisses with delight, yet want daily fresh tokens of His love.”
–Charles Spurgeon’s sermon on “The Church’s Love To Her Loving Lord
“Consider he makes love to thee. Not one soul that hears me this day but the Lord Jesus is a suitor unto, that now ye would be espoused to him; “He came unto his own, and they received him not.” Whatever the secret purpose of Christ is, I regard not.
In this evangelical dispensation of grace, he makes love to all.…
‘Tis fervent, vehement, earnest love… The Lord longs for this… pleads for this,… mourns when he has not this… Take thy soul to the Bride-chamber, there to be with him forever and ever….” ~ Read the rest of the sermon at Puritan and Reformed Sermons
Peter Leithart, Reformed Pastor: “Sex is allegory… and as allegory it is …theology. For Christians, sexual difference and union is a type of Christ and the church… Only as allegory can the Song play its central role in healing our sexual imaginations.”
A.W. Tozer: The Pursuit of God … to read the entire compelling excerpt, click here …
“We have almost forgotten that God is a Person…
The continuous and unembarrassed interchange of love and thought between God and the soul of the redeemed man is the throbbing heart of New Testament religion.
This intercourse between God and the soul is known to us in conscious personal awareness.
It is personal: that is, it does not come through the body of believers, as such, but is known to the individual…
And to the body through the individuals which compose it. And it is conscious: that is, it does not stay below the threshold of consciousness and work there unknown to the soul (as, for instance, infant baptism is thought by some to do), but comes within the field of awareness where the man can ‘know’ it as he knows any other fact of experience.
From the hymn: The Church is One Foundation
The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died….
’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.
Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.
C.H. Spurgeon: Morning and Evening
Song of Solomon 1:2
Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth.
For several days we have been dwelling upon the Saviour’s passion, and for some little time to come we shall linger there…. let us seek the same desires after our Lord as those which glowed in the heart of the elect spouse.
How bold is her love! …
Esther trembled in the presence of Ahasuerus, but the spouse in joyful liberty of perfect love knows no fear. If we have received the same free spirit, we also may ask the like.
By kisses we suppose to be intended those varied manifestations of affection by which the believer is made to enjoy the love of Jesus.
The kiss of reconciliation we enjoyed at our conversion, and it was sweet as honey dropping from the comb.
The kiss of acceptance is still warm on our brow, as we know that He hath accepted our persons and our works through rich grace.
The kiss of daily, present communion, is that which we pant after to be repeated day after day, till it is changed into the kiss of reception, which removes the soul from earth, and the kiss of consummation which fills it with the joy of heaven.
Faith is our walk, but fellowship sensibly felt is our rest.
Faith is the road, but communion with Jesus is the well from which the pilgrim drinks.
O lover of our souls, be not strange to us; let the lips of Thy blessing meet the lips of our asking; let the lips of Thy fulness touch the lips of our need, and straightway the kiss will be effected.
This Evening’s Meditation
C. H. Spurgeon
Art thou, beloved one, with Christ Jesus? Does a vital union knit thee to Him?
… Come, my soul, if thou art indeed His own beloved, thou canst not be far from Him.
If His friends and His neighbours are called together to see His glory, what thinkest thou if thou art married to Him? Shalt thou be distant?
Though it be a day of judgment, yet thou canst not be far from that heart which, having admitted angels into intimacy, has admitted thee into union.
Has He not said to thee, O my soul, “I will betroth thee unto Me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness”?
Have not His own lips said it, “I am married unto thee, and My delight is in thee”? If the angels, who are but friends and neighbours, shall be with Him, it is abundantly certain that His own beloved Hephzibah, in whom is all His delight, shall be near to Him, and sit at His right hand.
Here is a morning star of hope for thee, of such exceeding brilliance, that it may well light up the darkest and most desolate experience.
~ Thomas Watson, Puritan (1620-1686):
There is a closer union in this holy marriage than there can be in any other.
In other marriages, two make one flesh, but Christ and the believer make one spirit: “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” (I Cor. 6:17).
Now as the soul is more excellent than the body, and admits of far greater joy, so this spiritual union brings in more astonishing delights and ravishments than any other marriage relationship is capable of.
The joy that flows from the mystic union is unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8).
To read his entire sermon: Mystic Union of Christ and the Saints
“Yet you were naked and bare.
Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love;
so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine,”
declares the Lord GOD.
Then I bathed you with water, washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil…
32″You adulteress wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband!“
“God very commonly takes on the character of a husband to us. Indeed, the union by which he binds us to himself when he receives us into the bosom of the church is like sacred wedlock…
“Therefore that joining together of head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance.”
John Calvin ~ Institutes of Christian Religion
14″Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness,
and speak tenderly to her…
16″And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’…
19And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.
20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.
Edward Fisher in his 1650 book The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Christian Focus, 2009):
––––––––––––––––––
I tell you from Christ,
and under the hand of the Spirit,
that your person is accepted,
your sins are done away,
and you shall be saved;
and if an angel from heaven should tell you otherwise,
let him be accursed.
Therefore, you may (without doubt) conclude
that you are a happy man;
for by means of this your matching with Christ,
you are become one with him,
and one in him,
you ‘dwell in him, and he in you’ (1 John 4:13).
He is ‘your well beloved, and you are his’ (S. of S. 2:16).
So that the marriage union betwixt Christ and you
is more than a bare notion or apprehension of your mind;
for it is a
special,
spiritual, and
real union:
it is an union betwixt the nature of Christ,
God and man,
and you;
it is a knitting and closing,
not only of your apprehension with a Saviour,
but also of your soul with a Saviour.
Whence it must needs follow that you cannot be condemned,
except Christ be condemned with you;
neither can Christ be saved,
except you be saved with him.
And as by means of corporeal marriage all things become common betwixt man and wife;
even so, by means of this spiritual marriage,
all things become common betwixt Christ and you;
for when Christ hath married his spouse unto himself,
he passeth over all his estate unto her;
so that whatsoever Christ is or hath,
you may boldly challenge as your own.
‘He is made unto you, of God,
wisdom,
righteousness,
sanctification,
and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30).
And surely,
by virtue of this near union it is,
that as Christ is called ‘the Lord our righteousness’ (Jer. 23:6),
even so is the church called, ‘the Lord our righteousness’ (33:16).
He leans on Christ his beloved and lives by communications of grace from him.
“His life is hid with Christ in God;” and “the life which he now lives in the flesh, he lives by faith on the Son of God.”
This is the vital or real union; the union of affection between Christ and believers. Faith has be some been called the hand or instrument by which believers lay hold on and receive Christ.
But with more propriety may it be called the act of unition itself, or the uniting act, by which Christ and the believer
become one.
~ Jonathan Edwards: The Works of Jonathan Edwards
And would you have him nearer to you than to be in the same nature, united to you by a spiritual union, so close as to be fitly represented by the union of the wife to the husband, of the branch to the vine, of the member to the head; yea, so as to be one spirit?
For so he will be united to you, if you accept of him.
~ Jonathan Edwards: the Excellency of Christ
There he is, for “he feeds among the lilies.” The spouse sees him of whom she speaks; he may be a mere myth to others but he is a substantial, lovable, lovely, and actually beloved person to her.
He stands before her, and she perceives his character so clearly that she has a comparison ready for him, and likens him to a gazelle feeding on the tender grass among the lilies. This is a very delightful state of heart. Some of us know what it is to enjoy it from year to year.
Christ is ours, and we know it. Jesus is present, and by faith we see him.
Our marriage union with husband or wife cannot be more clear, more sure, more matter of fact, than our oneness with Christ and our enjoyment of that oneness.
Joy! joy! joy! He whom we love is ours!
Calvinists Disagree on Calvinist Ghost Sex
Here we go again. Dignified Protestant mysticism is offended by the fruits of their redemptive interpretation of all reality. You know, the Bible isn’t a book of do’s and don’ts, every verse is about what Jesus did, not anything we do. It is a book that shows us more and more how sinfully depraved we are which results in more and more gratitude for the cross which results in obedience being, as John MacArthur has stated, “never bitter—always sweet.” The mystic exploits of the who’s who of Calvinism is hanging on the Reformed tree in plain view for everyone to see—it’s totally old news.
Yes, on the one hand, the Bible is a gospel meta-narrative, but on the other hand, when a Reformed philosopher king or queen isn’t nuanced enough, all of a sudden, Calvinists start covering up with a grammatical interpretation of Scripture. Hark, all of a sudden the plain sense of Scripture is appealed to in order to reassure the herd that said weirdness isn’t “orthodoxy.” It reminds me of Steve Camp whining and moaning about Jesus is my boyfriend music while holding to the same Reformed gospel that is destined for various and sundry stuff that you couldn’t begin to make up.
The latest How are we going to explain this one? comes in the form of Dort damsel Ann Voskamp claiming that she has sex with G__ __ . Usually I type His name out, but not in that sentence along with that thought—way too creepy.
Here is the problem: the Reformed camp uses the Redemptive Historical or Christocentric method of interpreting the Bible (and all of reality as well, but that is another post). So, in The Song of Solomon, what is written, which is pretty steamy in places, has to necessarily be symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church. Poke the Reformed wild pig anywhere; this is their take on that book. And that my friend is pretty darn creepy. And of course, this idea runs so deep in the Protestant psyche that even Arminians quickly attest to the “fact” that we are the what?…right, “bride of Christ.”
Such are we: while ratcheting back in horror at Voskamp’s assertion, we speak ourselves of “intimacy with God” etc. Reformed authors who are wildly popular in our day speak of our relationship with God in these intimate terms on a continual basis. One example is the book Crazy Love written by Francis Chan which reeks of Jesus is my boyfriend theology from cover to cover. Chan asserts in the book that our relationship with Christ should feel like our first love of the opposite sex. He states in the book that such exhilaration is proof of a true relationship with Christ. Duty, he says in the book, “feels like work,” but true love “feels like love.” According to the Sola Sisters blog, Voskamp states the following in her wildly popular book, One Thousand Gifts:
I fly to Paris and discover how to make love to God. (One Thousand Gifts, p 201)
I think how lives, whole generations, were laid down to built this edifice, to find a way in. But they thought the steps to God-consummation were but three: purgation, illumination, union. (One Thousand Gifts, p 208)
I remember this feeling. The way my apron billowed in the running, the light, the air. The harvest moon. I remember. The yearning. To merge with Beauty Himself. But here…….Now? Really?…….I am not at all certain that I want consummation…….And who wouldn’t cower at the invitation to communion with limitless Holiness Himself? (One Thousand Gifts, p 211)
I run my hand along the beams over my loft bed, wood hewn by a hand several hundred years ago. I can hear Him. He’s calling for a response; He’s calling for oneness. Communion (One Thousand Gifts, 211)
This invitation to have communion with Love—is this the edge of the mystery Paul speaks of? A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one (Ephesians 5:31-32). The two, Christ and the church, becoming one flesh—the mystery of that romance. Breath falling on face, Spirit touching spirit, the long embrace, the entering in and being within—this is what God seeks? With each of us? (One Thousand Gifts, pp 212-213)
If Christians would only abandon Protestant orthodoxy and read the Bible with the mind God gave them. The Bible states plainly that we are the guests of the Bridegroom, we are not the bride. The bride is New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven immediately after the new heavens and new earth.
Look at the unstoppable crazy train that is Protestantism for yourself. Whether it is ghost sex, John Piper’s scream of the damned etc., it is going to continue to get crazier and crazier.
Come out from among them and be separate.
paul
The Confused Gospel: Sinners Saved by Grace Disgraced when they Sin
I continue to be amazed at how “Christian” leaders with national visibility are disgraced when they get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. What is amazing about this is for the most part their ministries are predicated on the idea that Christians are just “sinners saved by grace.” This is how it is stated: “I’m just a sinner saved by grace.” That’s in the present tense, and that’s good news because humbleness hath no greater friend than a guy named Zero, as in, Zero Accountability.
Woe is me, “I can do nothing.” Christians shrink back in horror in regard to thinking that they would get credit for doing something good. Tullian Tchividjian once tweeted that he knows he is going to heaven because he couldn’t remember one good work that he had ever done. There is a lot of confusion on this point in regard to the authentic Reformed view of mortal sins versus venial sins. Luther taught that Christ performs all righteous works through us and these works are experienced subjectively. In other words, we really don’t know whether we are doing the work or Christ is doing the work. But, to think that we actually did the work, or were a part of it beyond the mere experience of it, is apart from justification by faith alone and is a mortal sin. But, if we ask forgiveness for doing the good work or “attend the good work with fear” just in case it was actually us doing it, that is only venial sin. Every time you hear Baptists say, It wasn’t me who did it! It was the Holy Spirit! –that’s the Lutheran in them.
This isn’t terribly difficult to understand. If you are standing in the rain, you are experiencing the rain, and anthropomorphically, you have the inner ability to experience the rain. But you can take no credit for the rain; it is being done to you instead of you doing the action to someone else. And just because the experience is in you, does not mean the good work of the rain is in you—you are only experiencing it. The human heart has the ability to experience good works, but not to perform them. The belief that the heart can generate a good work is not of faith and mortal sin. That’s Reformed metaphysics 101.
Take the homeschool icon Doug Phillips for example. It has come out, by his own admission, that he had a long-term inappropriate relationship with a woman that was not biblically sexual [enter pause here for laughter]. In his disgraceful fall, he actually presented himself as a righteous person who slipped up a little bit, but has such high standards that he voluntarily resigned from his immense gravy train to recalibrate his life. After all, everyone knows that a man can have a crush on a female that is just a friend, a “woman” right?
Well, as it turns out, it was the nanny, and a very young nanny, and he denies the nonsexual inappropriate behavior that she is claiming. Apparently, it was less inappropriate than she claims. Phillips denies her allegations, but refuses to specifically cite what the behavior was, that would be gossip [enter another pause here for more laughter]. Apparently, the nanny isn’t up with how this is all going down and is going to get everything on the record in court. And of course, he must be telling the truth because if it was as bad as the evil nanny tells; his wife wouldn’t be supporting him. In fact, in interviews sanctified as ungossip, they claim that God has used the evil nanny to make their marriage better than it has ever been! This is not funny at all; it is a classic example of an elitist throwing away a peasant that he is done using for his own pleasure.
But now my point: Phillips, in his glory days as a Christian icon routinely introduced himself as a “sinner.” Sooooo, what’s the big deal? He is a sinner acting like a sinner, but he can’t keep his job as a sinful leader among sinners? Gee whiz, even the apostle Paul said he was the “Chief of sinners,” and Phillips didn’t even penetrate! So, why can’t he keep his job? Perhaps lack of penetration, the “biblical” definition of sex, disqualified Philips from being a Chief among sinners.
Pardon the sarcasm, but the world is watching this mess play out time and time again while Christians chalk it up to… you got it… “We are all just sinners saved by grace.” “Judge not, lest you be judged.” Newsflash: for the most part, the who’s who of Evangelicals remain silent regarding these scandals other than to say…you got it…”We are all just sinners saved by grace.”
Got church mess? Got church deadness? Got church a mile wide and an inch deep? Go figure, we don’t even know who we are. The Bible never, never, never, never, never, identifies Christians as wicked in the present tense. Usually, Romans 7:24 is cited to make the case that Christians are still “wretched,” but the word actually means to persevere in the midst of affliction. I could point to many other Scriptures that are taken out of context in this way, but the fact is that the Bible refers to Christians as “righteous,” “holy,” “full of goodness,” and “able.”
So, who are we? Don’t you think that it would be a good idea if we knew? Evangelize if you will, but if you don’t know whether we are saints or sinners, good luck with that. But this brings me back to the strange silence of other leaders when one “falls from grace.” That is, other than…well…you know. For the most part, leaders do believe Christians only change positionally and not personally. I have documented the quotations en masse on this blog and will not belabor the point here.
But the fact is, most Christian leaders of our day believe that we should get rid of the whole, “living out our testimony” routine and have said so in no uncertain terms. The likes of Michael Horton have said that living by our testimony is an attempt to “be the gospel rather than preaching the gospel” which supposedly destroys the whole point of the gospel to begin with because, “it’s not our doing—it’s Christ’s doing and dying.” Notice that doing in sanctification is the same thing as doing in justification. James MacDonald stated that he has “resigned from fixing people” because they can’t be fixed. John MacArthur has stated that his ministry no longer requires people to “jump through hoops.” He has also suggested that Christians don’t apply the word of God to their lives; the Holy Spirit does the application for us. He then suggested that Christians therefore often obey unawares. And, we know when the Holy Spirit is obeying for us when the obedience is experienced as “always sweet, never bitter.”
This comes from Luther’s Simul iustus et peccator – “At the same time righteous and a sinner.” Luther believed we are only saints positionally, and are still sinners personally. We don’t change, only our status changes. So, it’s not even like Facebook where a status change means a personal change. This is the reason for the silence. Like John Piper has stated, most Christians are not ready for the real Reformation gospel of Simul iustus et peccator. We are all sinners, and nothing more or less should be expected. Away with all of this “behaviorism” and “moralism” in Christianity; viz, the idea that we do righteousness rather than righteousness being something that is done to us instead of by us.
Who are we? Are we saints or sinners? If my cat, Coaster, had a Facebook page, he could change his status because he just learned how to walk through a cat door. If a door is not shut completely, he can open it with his paw, but it took him awhile to figure out vertical swing versus horizontal swing. It’s the paw for normal doors, but you have to head-butt the cat door. So, is that our message? If we can do more than a cat without Jesus we are going to hell?
When we evangelize, which isn’t often to begin with, do we get a blank stare because the listener hasn’t been sovereignly illuminated, or do they just simply think we are stupid? It would be hard to tell because we don’t even know who we are.
paul
Romans Series Interlude: Predestination, a Potter’s House Journey, Part 3; Election and Total Depravity were NOT New with the Reformers and Far from being Unique
“MacArthur’s common assertion that inability is contrary to all other world religions is a gross historical fallacy. The necessity of predeterminism due to inability has been a common doctrine in both religious and secular camps since the cradle of civilization. The idea of total depravity is not unique to Calvinism by any stretch of the imagination.”
“Predeterminism and election are in the Bible, but the biblical view is one view among many that have dominated the philosophical landscape of human history. The Reformation was NOT philosophically unique—it was the norm. I think it important to note in our journey, as a stepping stone of understanding, the following: The biblical view of election and predestination is unique, but Calvinism takes its place in the philosophical norm of human history. Our journey must be an honest one that does not allow the rewriting of history.”
Purveyors of Calvin’s election soteriology often boast that there is no doctrine more humbling to man who is naturally self-dependent. Election is presented as the most despised doctrine among men in all of human history, an anomaly that grates against his very being that clings to some claim of righteousness, no matter how minute.
The doctrine of human unwillingness and inability is perhaps the most attacked doctrine wittingly or unwittingly. The idea that sinners are completely helpless to redeem themselves or to make any contribution to that redemption from sin and divine judgment is the most attacked because in the big picture, it is the most despised doctrine.
Consequently, it is the most distinctively Christian doctrine, contrary to all non-Christian views of men. All religions in the world are some form of a works righteousness system. And at the foundation of all those religions other than the true faith in the true gospel is the idea that people can be good and good enough to contribute to their salvation, to somehow merit favor with deity and a happy after life. Because this is the universal foundational doctrine of all false systems of religion, it is therefore the most – because, I should say, the opposite of it is the foundation of all these religions, it is therefore the most attacked Christian doctrine. It is distinctively Christian because it affirms the absolute inability of man to do anything to contribute to his salvation.
It is a contrary doctrine as well. It doesn’t sit well with the sinner because one of the dominant features of universal human fallenness is deception about one’s true condition. Based on the dominating reality of human pride, the sinner is unwilling to see himself in his true condition and is convinced to one degree or another of his goodness (John MacArthur: 2008 T4G session 3).
This is not the case at all. MacArthur’s common assertion that inability is contrary to all other world religions is a gross historical fallacy. The necessity of predeterminism due to inability has been a common doctrine in both religious and secular camps since the cradle of civilization. The idea of total depravity is not unique to Calvinism by any stretch of the imagination.
Total depravity, or the incompetence of mankind, has always been a close companion to predeterminism. Obviously, any doctrine of predeterminism minimizes man’s ability to participate in his own fate. Predeterminism precedes total depravity, and elitism follows; this in fact has always been the predominate social model of humanity. At the root of humanity’s various caste systems is predeterminism. Sure, even though some men are arrogant and boastful, humanity has never been at loss for the humble who believe humanity has no worth.
One example of this is environmentalism. Proponents deem man worthless and harmful to planet Earth. The only purpose for man at all is to save the earth from man himself.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because, in the group’s view, it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of man-made human suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation.
VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an American activist who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth’s biosphere and humanity… Knight believes that Earth’s non-human organisms have a higher overall value than humans and their accomplishments, such as art: “The plays of Shakespeare and the work of Einstein can’t hold a candle to a tiger”. He argues that species higher in the food chain are less important than lower species. His ideology is drawn in part from deep ecology, and he sometimes refers to the Earth as Gaia. He notes that human extinction is unavoidable, and that it is better to become extinct soon to avoid causing the extinction of other animals. The potential for evolution of other organisms is also cited as a benefit. Online source | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
Obviously, John Calvin has nothing on Les U. Knight; in fact, in regard to human depravity Knight has raised the ante. Nor is VHEMT anywhere near to being a fringe nutball minority. The impact of this philosophy on our culture should be evident as the same people who put their lives in peril to save whales are strong proponents of abortion, and not to mention insane legislation that protects the snail darter and turtles at the expense of national security. Lazy-thinking Evangelicals chalk it all up to the insanity of sin, but that’s not the case at all. Insanity is not the issue; logic is the issue, and presuppositions concerning mankind. In regard to logic and presuppositions concerning mankind, there is absolutely NO difference between Knight and Calvin: both believe in the total depravity of man and a predestined outcome. This makes MacArthur’s well-traveled theses at T4G 2008 utter folly.
And this is paramount in our journey to understand predestination. If we buy into a prism of understanding, we might as well buy into the final analysis and call it a day. The tenet of Calvinism’s inability doctrine as a distinction that opposes all other schools of human thought stacks the metaphysical deck in Calvinism’s favor, but the premise is utterly false.
Predeterminism and election are in the Bible, but the biblical view is one view among many that have dominated the philosophical landscape of human history. The Reformation was NOT philosophically unique—it was the norm. I think it important to note in our journey, as a stepping stone of understanding, the following: The biblical view of election and predestination is unique, and Calvinism takes its place in the philosophical norm of human history. Our journey must be an honest one that does not allow the rewriting of history.
Inability begins in the garden. Satan approached Eve and suggested she had an inability to properly understand God. Satan then presented himself as an elitist efficacious to proper understanding. This is fairly evident. This isn’t a children’s story; this is the beginning of the very fiber of human existence: the totally depraved unenlightened masses being led by the elitist enlightened. Either by a natural selection, or a personal god, the enlightened are preordained to rule over the great unwashed masses. Everywhere you look in human history, you see social caste and economic strata along with the unpardonable sin of social mobility.
There is no sin against self; there is only sin against the collective good. This boils down to the question of purpose in the metaphysical schema of predeterminism. Whether the preordained are destined to lead man in the sole purpose of glorifying God and giving him pleasure with their own destruction, or leading man in his own destruction for the purpose of saving lower life forms so that true goodness will have a better chance—it’s the same metaphysical prism of understanding:
Predetermination →Total Depravity → Elitism → Social Caste → Collectivism → Final Solution.
Social caste is the fiber of culture in its historical duration and metaphysical spectrum. All blood ever spilled upon the earth finds its root cause in the question of free will, ability, individualism, and social mobility, and its effect on the collective. Fate is predetermined, and it is a war between those who hasten fate and those who are perceived as kicking against the inevitable. It is a war against those who prolong humanities mercy killing to the glory of a god, natural selection, or some other higher power of your choice. And the final solution is usually an escape from the material—a disdain for anything that can be perceived with the five senses. Calvinism is no different when all of these factors are considered. Calvinist Paul David Tripp has said that the essence of sin is sin against relationships. That’s code for the collective community. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Seminary has said that Reformed pastors are preordained to save God’s people from ignorance. In the aforementioned session by John MacArthur, he stated that we should “Call the sinner to flee from all that is natural and all that powerfully enslaves him.” Let us now update our predeterminist prism:
Predetermination →Total Depravity → Elitism → Social Caste → Collectivism → Final Solution → Escape from all things natural/material.
We have no prayer of having a biblical understanding of predestination if we are led astray with red herrings—the Reformed construct is not unique, it is the same old song and dance. Everyone admits that Augustine is the father of Reformed doctrine, and a cursory observation of his writings reveals that he integrated the Bible with Platonism. Plato dignified ancient predeterminative doctrines. What was once mythology became dignified orthodoxy. Plato’s Academy set the mode of operation for Western education in both realms of secular and religious until this day. The ability for those of lower social strata to obtain a formal education that enables one to influence society did not come till very late in history (post WWII America). Slavery and prejudice find their roots in the cradle of civilization and its accompanied doctrines of predeterminism.
Christ spoke of predeterminism, and in our journey, we must document what we can know for certain as building blocks to a final conclusion. This part has a building block that we can write into the conclusion column: Christ’s predestination construct had different fruit. Christ came to push back against predestination as usual. When Christ came he crashed the predestination status quo. He was righteousness in a human body, that turned a lot of religion upside down in and of itself. The material can possess goodness. The material can possess pure knowledge.
He also completely bypassed Plato’s education model. Christ threw orthodoxy and its authority to the dogs. He deliberately chose twelve uneducated blue collar workers to lay the foundation of His assembly. He chose them against status quo predestination. His authority didn’t come from the certification of men; it came directly from heaven and was verified by miracles. No doubt, He chose the twelve, but it is interesting that we have here a predestination against a predestination—the two have different fruits.
Another fruit of Christ’s predestination is individualism versus collectivism. The fate of the individual is a higher priority than the collective good. The individual is not expendable for the “collective good.”
John 11:45 – Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
54 Jesus therefore no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and there he stayed with the disciples.
Even though Caiaphas unwittingly prophesied the will of God, this citation demonstrates the age-old collective good mentality. The few are expendable for the collective good. This can even escalate into the idea that an inferior race can threaten a superior race—that’s commonly known as genocide. The collective good mentality is set against what Christ taught:
Matthew 18:10 – “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Luke 15:8 – “Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
In religious caste systems, the enlightened are deemed unexpendable because chaos will ensue if the inept sheep-like masses have no shepherd. Many among the unenlightened masses often buy into this philosophy as sold to them from generation to generation. This, and nothing else, explains why Protestants and Catholics alike cover for those who abuse parishioners, especially when the religious figure is iconic to the organization. The fall of the individual could harm the group as a whole. Therefore, the victim is expendable for the sake of the collective. This mentally was seen over and over again in the ABWE/Donn Ketcham scandal. It was continually suggested to the victims that they fall on their swords for the sake of ABWE and all of the good that it does for the collective.
This elitist construct is always predicated on a choosing by God, a predetermination. Hence, anyone who has received a dollar for every time they have heard a man say that he was “called” by God would certainly be a billionaire by now. Again, the idea of choosing and predetermination is in the Bible, but in our journey for understanding, we are noting that biblical election prescribes different fruit from the typical approach throughout the ages.
Another different fruit is leadership versus authority. This is under the category of individualism. If the individual is competent and culpable, he/she needs gifted leadership more than authority.
Matthew 20:25 – But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
1Peter 5:1 – To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away (NIV).
1Corinthians 14:29 – Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
1Corithians 11:1 – Be imitators of me, in so far as I in turn am an imitator of Christ (Weymouth New Testament).
Acts 17:10 – The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Caste systems always enforce the predestined pecking order by authority, and force if necessary. Christ never endorsed the use of force to compel acknowledgment and the following of truth. It is clear that what He endorsed was the freedom of choice. It is clear that the Reformation fathers endorsed force for purposes of compelling people to follow orthodoxy in the face of glaring scriptural contradiction.
In regard to social strata, the gods of religious caste have always collaborated with the power-brokers of the world. We find evidence in the New Testament that people equated wealth as proof of special favor from God. Well, God did choose a social strata (not to the complete exclusion of the other), but it wasn’t the typical upper crust:
1Corintians 1:26 – For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
James 2:1 – My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
Yet another distinction between the two predestinations is one mediator versus multiple mediators between God and man. Clearly, the Reformers believed that elders had the authority to forgive sins. Absolution was no less a Protestant concept than Catholic. This gives new meaning to you were chosen in Christ. There is only one mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ. Christ was also elected according to the Bible; this is in contrast to many being elected as our mediators. There was only one elected to be our mediator: Christ the Lord. In Reformed thought, even though one’s life is predetermined, the preordained elders seem to be able to trump fate with Calvin’s power of the keys to the kingdom; viz, whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Hence, making sure the elected elders like you is your free pass out of fatalism.
Another distinction is real time cause and effect as opposed to plenary predeterminism. In more contemporary Reformed circles, the Christian living paradigm is the willful entry into a redemptive meta-narrative completely preordained by God. This is why the Christian life as “story” is a dominate theme in today’s Christianity. Those of the Reformed camp often refer to the “divine drama” and use other similar phrases. Some refer to the gospel as an invitation by God to “enter into the plot.” Living outside of the redemptive narrative preordained by God is the very definition of madness and living in a contra-reality world.
The Bible is supposedly a prototype of the meta-narrative, and is organized into categories that “your own story” fits into. In the book How People Change by Paul David Tripp, the Bible narrative is categorized by heat, thorns, cross, and fruit. Your preordained story may be a different experience, but always fits into one of those four categories. The “Christian” classic Pilgrim’s Progress was based on this same principle. In contrast, Christ continually emphasized cause and effect in regard to our choices, and in the final analysis, man will be judged according to his choices. The Bible states that what happened to Old Testament believers is an example to us that we are to learn from for the purpose of making better decisions:
1Corinthians 10:11 – Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
The word “instruction” is also translated “warning.” For certain, there is predestination in the Bible, but yet, the Bible is also saturated with the idea that we are individually capable of making godly decisions and personally responsible for them. Perhaps our journey can sort this out, but yet, that will not be possible if we do not begin by weeding out the traditions of men.
Let’s look at another distinction. All forms of predestination look for world domination by a single entity. This is always the wiping out of distinctions between peoples. Genocide and Aryan-like theories of predestination are always associated with purity of genetics that produce race. However, instead of a one world empire that enforces utopia, sometimes called, “destiny,” God elected little Israel to eventually be the head of the nations and not the tail while allowing distinctions between the peoples. That would be the millennial kingdom.
All other forms of predestination that make up the vast majority of religious and secular thought hold God’s election of Israel in contempt. The Reformers held that Israel’s election was based on a covenant between Israel and God and Israel broke that covenant. Therefore, Israel was replaced with the “church.” And of course, Israel’s rebellion was predetermined. It begs the question: “Does biblical election allow free will while predeterming an overall outcome desired by God?” This is one of our working theories in the journey, and would certainly answer a lot of questions about election. At any rate, the point here is the election of Israel versus all other (or at least most) predestination constructs that hold Israel in contempt.
Let’s sum up with the illustration below (click on to enlarge):
Christ came and turned a predominate worldview completely upside down. Predetermination was the dominate worldview until the Enlightenment era. Deism and Natural Theology does not arrive until the seventeenth century, yet, MacArthur et al make Deism the essence of man’s psyche and the root of all false religions. This is a metaphysical and historical fallacy—it is utter folly.
For certain, Deism was an overreaching pushback to the norm, but the amount of good heaped upon the earth as a result of its premise should be well noted and demands our consideration. A tree is known by its fruit. If we are to have a biblical understanding of predestination, we must weed out the traditions of men.
Lord willing, our journey will continue next week with part 4.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
8 comments