John 6 - Fourfold Repetition

Okay, so the title...No, I am not going to posit a bizarre theory about the importance of fourfold repetition.

If I was, I would obviously choose sevenfold repetition.


In the latter half of John 6, Jesus gives an extended discourse moving from His presentation of Himself as the Bread of Life to the necessity for His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood.  Unsurprisingly, many of His followers left Him soon after.

What is significant is several statements Jesus made in the middle of this discourse. 

"³⁹ This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." John 6:39.

"⁴⁰ And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”" John 6:40.

"⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44.

"⁵⁴ Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:54.

 - Emphasis mine in each verse.

Jesus promises to raise up on the last day:

- Those whom the Father has given Him
- Those who see the Son and believe in Him
- Those whom the Father draws
- Those who eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood

The first points to the election of believers.  The second points to the responsibility of men to believe for eternal life.  The third points to the impossibility of salvation outside of the prior work of God.  The fourth points to the necessity of regeneration in Christ as a prerequisite for eternal life.

The final one is, as can be expected the most difficult to understand, but the Greek verb is aorist, referring to a single one-time action as opposed to a continual repetition such as the Mass or Communion.  It seems to refer to a union with Christ, which is what takes place at regeneration. 

Sadly, it was here at the event of Jesus' most complete teachings on the concept of salvation that many of His followers rejected Him.  This seems to have been largely in response to the final teaching, which they did not understand. 

Personally, I find it to be one of the most glorious expositions on the subject of salvation in Scripture and I would encourage you to read the whole section (John 6:22-71).  And as you do it, rejoice in what God has done for you!

Of Hymns and Hymnbook Oversights

Why do some hymns disappear? From what I've noticed, it tends to be because they have lousy tunes that put one to sleep rather than aid one's worship of God. So what's the story with "Let All Things Now Living"?


"Let all things now living a song of thanksgiving
To God the creator Triumphantly raise.
Who fashioned and made us, protected and stayed us,
Who guideth us on to the end of our days.
His banner is o'er us, his light goes before us,
A pillar of fire shining forth in the night.
Till shadows have vanished and darkness is banished
As forward we travel from light into light.

His law He enforces: the stars in their courses,
The sun in His orbit, obediently shine;
The hills and the mountains, the rivers and fountains,
The deeps of the ocean proclaim Him divine,
We too should be voicing, our love and rejoicing,
With glad adoration a song let us raise,
‘Til all things now living unite in thanksgiving
To God in the highest, hosanna and praise"

I mean, in my opinion, the music is great, the lyrics are great. Yet I can only find it in one of our 4-5 hymnals. And when searching for an mp3 with lyrics on it on Amazon, the best I could find was one by Michael Card. What's up with that?

And we should seriously sing Before the Throne of God Above more. I had heard it sung at Together For the Gospel's 2008 conference for the first time (I wasn't there, sadly, but I got a cd (in a manner of speaking) of the singing time). My initial thought was that it was a more contemporary piece, but I come to find out it was written back in the mid 19th century. The tune was, admittedly, updated from Sweet Hour of Prayer's tune to a new one used in more contemporary circles. But I like the new tune and and it would feel odd to use Sweet Hour of Prayer's tune for another song, anyway.

"Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood,
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God."

They rarely produce such elegance in lyrics these days. I just recently got a copy of Philip Webb doing a version of it. That lifts my soul up. I wish we had either or both of these in our hymnbook.

Finally - this is almost an afterthought, actually, as I remembered this song as I was writing this post - I can't skip Robert Murray M'Cheyne's piece, When This Passing World is Done. I think it suffers a great deal from using the same tune as Rock of Ages. It could really use a new tune, in my opinion. The second verse is one of the great verses in all hymnody.

"When this passing world is done,
When has sunk yon glaring sun,
When we stand with Christ on high,
Looking o'er life's history;
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.

When I stand before the throne
Dressed in beauty not my own,
When I see Thee as Thou art,
Love Thee with unsinning heart;
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.

E'en on earth, as through a glass
Darkly, let Thy glory pass;
Make forgiveness feel so sweet;
Make Thy Spirit's help so meet:
E'en on earth, Lord, make me know
Something of how much I owe."

Is Knowledge Really the Problem? Part 2

So here is the response to my previous post on this subject.  First, take the poll.



Which answer did you go for? 

You know, the other night in prayer meeting, we sang the song, "The Wonder of It All". 


"There’s the wonder at sunset at evening

The wondrous sunrise I see

But the wonder of wonders that thrills my soul

Is the wonder that God loves me"

When we sing words like that, do we really mean them?  Or is grace something that we take for granted?

Last week, we asked the question, "Would someone who had a perfect knowledge of heaven and hell and God and eternal punishment still choose hell?"  The answer, yes.  Why?  Trickier.  However, our poll question does relate.  Why do we tend to be surprised by God's hatred of Esau and simply accept the fact that He loved Jacob?  They were both sinners who had rebelled by their actions against God.  Why would God love Jacob?  Why wouldn't that surprise us?

The basic human problem is pride - or self-love; a desire to put self first rather than God.  Which is why the great commandment is to love God above everything else (and, subsequently to put others before ourselves).  We need to reject the instinct to put ourselves first.  Yet invariably, we tend to put God on the low end of the scale, even after being saved, we still think of the 'good' of other humans before God.

In Eden, Eve rejected God's command as did Adam.  They put themselves ahead of God.  Eve, Paul tells us, was deceived (1 Tim. 3:14).  Apparently Adam's sin was deliberate.  Some believe that while Adam knew he was sinning, he chose to follow his wife rather than to follow God.  He put both himself and her first before God (though, interestingly, when push came to shove, Adam threw Eve under the bus to try to exonerate himself before God). 

Since that point, mankind has a basic inclination against God.  We are at enmity with Him (Rom. 5:10).  No one seeks God (Rom. 3:11).  In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Abraham told the rich man that seeing someone rise from the dead was insufficient to convince someone to be saved who had already rejected God's law (Luke 16:29-31).  Arguing that all it takes to be saved is simply giving a penitent prospect enough info is to be biblically naive.  It suggests that it comes down to that person's choice.  Yet we have been separated from God by our sins.  We have need of reconciliation.  God does not need to be reconciled to us, we need to be reconciled to God.  We are unwilling to return. 

Basically, in order to trust in Christ for our salvation, we have to, in humility, recognize that we have sinned against Him and, in humility, submit to His authority over us.  So at the end of the day, no matter how horrifying hell might be to us, we will never ultimately make that decision unless Christ reconciles us to Himself.  Some argue that God, through 'prevenient grace' overcomes the total depravity of all men, allowing us to make the final decision.  Yet, in looking over Ephesians 2, is that really how it looks to you?

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,"

(Ephesians 2:4-6)

I mean, doesn't that sound like a complete work there?  It sounds to me like God's the pilot on the whole thing.  We were dead....He made us alive; raised us up; made us sit in the heavenly places. 

Humility comes from God.  We are incapable of humbling ourselves on our own.  That is why we need the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  The Father chose us, the Son paid for our sins and the Spirit made us alive so that we could be conformed into the image of Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria

Is Knowledge Really the Problem?

Some time back while driving to work, I was listening to an Alistair Begg sermon. In it, he asked a question that was brought back to my mind recently: Would anyone choose hell?


Assuming knowledge of heaven and hell, of God's love and wrath, would anyone still look down both streets and take the wrong one purposefully?

While listening, I immediately answered out loud, 'Yes." But then I paused and thought about it for a minute. I pondered over why my instinctive thought led that way and whether or not it was biblical. After considering, I believed then, and still do now, that that was the right answer.

Anyone care to respond either in favor or against that?  I'm pretty clear in my own mind biblically, but I'd love to hear any thoughts relating to this.  Let's be honest, how you answer this question has profound implications for how you understand evangelism. 

A (Potential) Cure for Christian Insomnia

At the Together for the Gospel 2010 conference in Louisville several weeks ago, John MacArthur preached from Mark 4 on the Theology of Sleep.  I thought it was a tremendous exposition of the passage and had excellent thoughts that are of benefit not only to preachers, but to all believers.  Here's the video link:


T4G 2010 -- Session 5 -- John MacArthur from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.


Or, if you prefer, audio: The Theology of Sleep - John MacArthur

Let me know what you think. 

"My Way"

A few weeks ago, the Lord drove home a point of practical theology, so to speak, while I was at work.  It seems that this fellow came up wanting to mail off an envelope express mail.  For an express mail form, I have the customer fill out the label portion - the to and from - bring it back, and I finish the rest of the info on it.  However, this gentleman decides he's going to try to figure out himself how to fill out of the rest of it.  So he begins writing down info on the rest of the form that he doesn't know.  He brings it back.  I groan inside.  I explain that he's ruined the form by putting other info on it.

"I told you to just fill out the 'to' and the 'from'," I told him, hopefully sounded less exasperated than I felt.  I handed him another form and told him to just fill out what I told him this time.

Then a lady comes up to send something out certified mail with a return receipt.  More paperwork.  She brings back the forms.  She, too, has entered more info than I asked for.  She, too, has ruined the forms.  Acting less annoyed than I felt - I mean, come on, two in a row?  Two people in a row completely ignore the instructions I give them? - I had her fill out the forms again, pleading with her only to fill out what I told her to fill out.

Later, it occurred to me that that's kind of how we are with God.  He gives us the roadmap, but we ignore it and do our own thing.  Incidentally, my two customers both got it right the second time, so the parallels end there.

Praise God, we read throughout Scripture that God is longsuffering and abounding in mercy.  Not like me.  I would've been very frustrated if those people had kept making the same mistakes.  But God is not like us.  And so much the better for us.  Praise God for His mercy!

What's With All This Negative Energy Towards Calvinism? - Day 2

I have an intuition.  In fact, one might easily call it a hunch.  We are commonly informed today that Calvinists distort scripture.  We are told that passages which speak of Christ dying for 'all', or 'the world', are edited by Calvinists to mean, 'the elect'.  And while I can't comment on individual verses in a relatively short blog post, I would like to suggest that perhaps it is not in fact the Calvinists who twist scripture, but their opponents. 

In order for Christ to have died an atoning death in which he paid for the sins of all men, one of two statements must be true.  Either:

- Christ paid for the sins of all completely, but the unbelieving pay for those same sins again.

or

- Christ died for the sins of all potentially, but this atonement is only applied to our account following belief in Christ.

The first seems at best unlikely, and as far as I know, few, if any, hold to it.  The second, however, requires that we make certain assumptions regarding the atonement which are not clear in scripture.  They only follow as a result of the theology of a general atonement. 

Passages on Christ's atonement are certainly not easy to interpret, yet, if one does a word study, say, in the writings of John, on the uses of the word, 'world', one discovers some interesting usages of it.  For instance, in John 3:17,

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

also, in 1 John 4:14,
 
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world."
 
I'm curious: How could Jesus be the Savior of the world if all the world is not saved?  We may argue all we want as to whether or not Jesus paid for their sins, but at the end of the day, the world has not be saved, because people are going to be eternally punished in hell. (2 Thess. 1:8-9).  I challenge you to do a word study on that Greek word and try to tell me that the word always means all people to ever live. 
 
The only possible alternative is to say that Christ was thwarted in his plan.  That is a serious charge to make, and one would be well to consider carefully before making that kind of statement.
 
A further question:  'Cui bono'?  It's a legal term that is latin for, 'To whose benefit?'  To whom does a universal unsaving atonement benefit?  If we consider over it, that kind of atonement has no value to God or man and seems to fly in the face of passages such as John 6:37 and John 10:26-29. 
 
Essentially, as far as I can see, doing my best to understand the position, a view favoring a general atonement requires two understandings of the text: 

First, that kosmos is not a general term that can refer to people out of all nations (Rev. 5:9) but refers to all individual people to ever live,

And second, that atonement for sins is applied upon faith in Christ Jesus.  The only place I know of that seems to speak of Christ dying for an unbeliever is in 2 Peter 2:1,
 
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
 
The text seems to say that although their ransom had been 'bought', they were facing destruction.  I can only interpret it to mean that it speaks of Christ having bought them in the same sense as Jesus refers to unfruitful branches on the vine being taken away in John 15.  In both cases, the people in question are those who have made a profession of faith but have turned away from Christ.  Just as in John 15 where the branches appeared to have been part of Christ yet showed by their lack of fruit that they had no real connection to him at all, so also in 2 Peter 2:1, they claimed to have been bought by Christ, yet now they denied His name.  I think in relation to the full revelation concerning Christ's atonement, that is not an unreasonable explanation. 
 
I have yet to hear a meaningful response to the passages in John 10 where Jesus speaks of His flock and His sheep whom His Father gave Him and for whom He laid down His life (not to mention Eph. 5:25-26 where it speaks of Christ dying for the church).  It is disheartening to hear so many reject the idea of a particular redemption as an unbiblical idea built strictly on logic.  I have yet to hear someone admit that the case for general atonement has any holes in it or that there is a biblical case for particular redemption. 
 
I don't explain all verses that are used in favor of a general atonement in the same way.  But I have yet to find one that does not have an alternate interpretation to the general atonement view that makes perfect sense.  I would further submit that many of the verses used in favor of their view, if read objectively, do not plainly and straightforwardly advance their view, but point rather to universalism.  We are told that we can't reexplain texts to fit our theology, yet do they really believe that they are not guilty of what they accuse us of?
 
Apologies for the apparent harshness of this post.  I am trying to be reasonable, but in particular on this post, it struck me that the advocates of the opposite view are less than reasonable themselves.  My purpose here was primarily to point out holes in their view in order to stress the importance of reading all scripture carefully so that we are able to rightly divide the word of truth.  I was also partially attempting to defend my viewpoint as one not divined by logic, but from the Bible. 
 
Possibly to be continued.  (The possibly would most likely be on a less doctrinal level and more on a practical level relating to something I read online this morning.  Whether I post about it or not will be determined later).

What's With All This Negative Energy Towards Calvinism? - Day 1

What exactly is it that makes Calvinistic theology so odious to some people? I actually began studying Calvinism and theology in earnest two years ago when I heard an anti-Calvinist speak at another church. Just to give an idea of what kinds of things are being said about it, here's a few blurbs from the front of Dave Hunt's work, "What Love Is This?" (Excerpts only - full comments are lengthier).

"To suggest that the merciful, longsuffering, gracious and loving God of the Bible would invent a dreadful doctrine like Calvinism, which would have us believe it is an act of 'grace' to select only certain people for heaven and, by exclusion, others for hell, comes perilously close to blasphemy." Tim Lahaye.

"Calvinism makes our Heavenly Father look like the worst of despots..." Joseph R. Chambers.

"...Calvinism, like dandelions, comes in the spring. Students get wrapped up in arguing the issues of Calvinism. Those students who don't like aggressive soul-winning use their view of Calvinism to defend their position. Those who are aggressive soul winners attack the weaknesses of Calvinism. Very little of their discussions are grounded in the truth of the Word of God. In the final analysis, their arguments are like weeds, i.e., dandelions that bear no fruit." Elmer L. Towns.

This is to say nothing of the attacks that Dave Hunt himself makes throughout the lengthy (414 pg.) work.

But the criticisms are not new ones. They are all well-worn in their usage. First, Calvinism, it is said, discourages evangelism. Interestingly, Calvinists have throughout history been just as staunch in their evangelism as their detractors. It was Charles Spurgeon who was reported to have said, "Lord save your elect...and then elect some more!"

George Whitefield, the associate of the Wesley brothers, was firmly Calvinistic in his view of salvation. (Ironically, it was Charles Wesley who wrote one of the most popular hymns among Calvinists today: "And Can It Be"!) Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, both evangelists, both convinced of the doctrines of grace; to say nothing of the other great names who were convinced of the complete sovereignty of God in salvation.

I would submit that ones soteriological viewpoint makes little difference in regards to his evangelistic zeal. In either case, we still have the command from Jesus to preach the gospel to all peoples.

To paraphrase a thought from D.A. Carson's, "A Call to Spiritual Reformation", people will pray for the lost or they won't. A Calvinist who was indolent might say, "Well, God has predetermined who will be saved. I see no need to pray for their salvation." In actuality, that would more accurately represent a more hyper Calvinistic viewpoint, but in either case, it is woefully errant.

On the other hand, a person who held to a synergistic view of salvation (God enables all men to come to him, but men must individually make the final choice themselves), might say, "It is no good praying to God for so-and-so to be saved. He's already doing his best to save them".

People who hold Christ as their Savior will either follow the Bible's teachings or they will not. If a person has no desire to evangelize, he doesn't need to become a Calvinist to avoid it. I suspect, though I cannot say for certain, that those anti-Calvinists who make such statements can`t see the forest for the trees. That is, they see Calvinists who are disinclined to evangelize, and use faulty logic to link the two together. They suggest that correlation implies causation between the two things where it does not of necessity exist.

Using this kind of logic, one might just as easily say:

A. Sales of hot chocolate increase in the winter time.

B. More people go ice skating in the winter time.

Conclusion: drinking hot chocolate causes people to want to ice skate.

In actuality, both are traditionally more prevalent due to a common cause: Cold weather.

Similarly, though not quite the same, a belief that God is completely sovereign over salvation and must effectually call individual sinners to salvation before they can respond, which nullifies the need for evangelism, and a disinclination towards evangelism, may seem as though they represent a case of cause and effect. However, the common cause in both cases is unfaithfulness to the Word of God which tells us that we must evangelize the lost. To read the Bible plainly, it seems to state both that God is absolutely sovereign in election for salvation, yet we are to preach the gospel to all men.

To be continued.

Spurgeon and Songs of Praise to the Savior at 2 AM.

Last night I was in bed listening to mp3's from T4G '08(?) of several thousand men singing hymns. That was great, but for whatever reason, my dinner hadn't fully digested, causing me to cough a lot. Also, last night was my insomnia night of the month. So at 2 in the AM, I was awake and wishing I was asleep.

Having no better ideas, I got up, drank a glass of water and pulled out volume 1 of Spurgeon's Park Street sermons. This was when the old boy had just come to preach in London at the age of 19. With the devotional skill of a man twice his age, Spurgeon moved through the text of Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."

Few people can encourage me through the simple text of their sermon the way that Spurgeon can. What a blessing those who heard him in the flesh must have had!

I wonder if there'll be any videos of him for viewing in heaven...

Blog title

I was stuck between my current title - referencing Collin Hansen's '06 Christianity Today article (and book of the same name) - and Between Two Worlds. The latter was already taken already, however, so I went with the former.

It seemed as though both the title and article description fit me, so there you have it. I'm definitely young: A struggling postal clerk by day and a struggling college student by night.

Restless? Well, as restless as any young man, I expect. At any rate, more restless than some and not as restless as others.

Reformed is a bit trickier. That term has different meaning to different folks. I affirm the historical five points of Calvinism (popularized in the acrostic TULIP) and agree with the Synod of Dort's decision in 1619. On the other hand, I do not (at the moment, anyway) affirm infant baptism or any model of eschatology that rejects a future for an ethnic Israel.

My personal study of salvation both through the Bible and works of theology has convinced me of the doctrines of grace. On the latter points, I've studied them less, and coming from a more Dispensation Baptist background, it is not unsurprising that I hold those views. At the present I see it unlikely that my view will change on either, but due to my lack of personal study into those issues I cannot guarantee a total resistance to change. My views are molded by how I understand the teachings of scripture, not traditions of men.

The purpose of this blog is for personal musings on theology and anything else I end up putting up here. I don't pretend to really have a totally clear idea where this will lead. We'll just have to wait and see.