The Prophetic & Priestly Offices of Christ

Of all the books of the Bible it is Hebrews that is consistently among my favorites. The reason for this ought to be obvious. Hebrews is arguably the most Christ exalting book in the whole Bible. If it were possible to place a sub-title for this book it would be, “You name it, Jesus is Better.” Over and over again we see Christ being compared to the Old Testament types and shadows and each time Christ is represented as the consummation and final fulfillment of each of them. What a beautiful truth it is to realize that Christ embodies what those types merely pointed to.

However, this precious truth is not clearly understood by all. In my estimation, groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not understand the extent of Christ’s work on the cross or the current “offices” which he possesses as the overseer of his church. My point here is not to speak negatively about Mormonism, or any other group, but to speak positively about Jesus.

When theologians speak about “The Offices of Christ” they are usually referring to his roles as prophet, priest, and king. I do not intend here to discuss Christ’s role as King since that is highly debated and often coupled with eschatological baggage. Rather, I’d like to focus on the prophetic and priestly ministries of Christ.

When we survey the Old Testament we see that God called specific men to represent himself to his people: known as prophets. Likewise, God called specific men to represent his people to himself, which were the priests. The prophets were to speak the words of God to the people and to reveal God’s purposes to them, and the priests were to perform sacrifices on behalf of the people as an offering for their sins. The beautiful thing about Christ is that he has fulfilled both of these ministries.

The book of Hebrews begins by telling us Christ is the final authoritative voice for God. Whereas God use to speak through prophets, he now speaks through his Son. There is no more need for human prophets. Since the prophetic position entailed the representing of God to the people, who would be more qualified for this position then Christ? The whole point of the first eight verses of Hebrews is that Christ is able to represent God, as prophets of old did, in the fullest sense of the term because he is God. As John states in the prologue to his Gospel, “No one has seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (John 1:18).” He is most qualified because he is God.

Within the book of Hebrews we see a clear defense of Christ’s fulfillment of the Aaronic Priesthood and his sole possession of the Melchizidek Priesthood. Concerning the Aaronic Priesthood we know that under the old covenant, the high priest was required to enter the holy of holies each year to provide atonement for sins. Yet, under the new covenant of Christ, the atonement has been settled with his blood. We no longer need a high priest because Christ has “entered once for all into the holy places (Heb 9:12).” The former priesthood system was done away, and Christ remains our priest permanently (Heb 7:24). The former priests were required to sacrifice on behalf of their own sins as well as the sins of others. However, the author of Hebrews tells us, “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens (Heb 7:26).” Therefore, because of the perfect offering of Christ’s life on our behalf, not only do we have no need for the function of the Aaronic Priesthood through sacrifices and other rituals, but we are also imputed with his righteousness.

With regard to the Priesthood of Melchizidek we are told that Christ received this Priesthood “not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life (Heb 7:15).” No one can meet these requirements. The Aaronic priesthood required lineal descent from the tribe of Levi to Aaron, but Christ was from the tribe of Judah. Christ received the Priesthood of Melchizidek as the one that was victorious over death. The writer of Hebrews says that in light of this Christ remains a priest forever and is the mediator of a better covenant (Heb 7:21-22). Perhaps the clearest indication that Christ is the sole holder of this Priesthood can be found in verse 28, which says, “For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.” The law appointed the sons of Aaron to fulfill the temple rituals, although they were “weak.” Their weakness was in the ineptitude to fulfill the sacrificial system’s intent. However, “the word of the oath,” or the promise of his eternal office as priest, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. The idea is that the sacrificial system pointed to Christ. It is no longer that any man represents us before God, as the priests did, instead Christ is our mediator to God and the one who intercedes for us (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25). He is the only one able to do this because he is the one who has an indestructible life, the one who was sworn to be a priest forever, the one who mediates the new covenant, and the one who has done away with all priestly services. He is truly the only one worthy to hold this Priesthood.

As an extension of his priestly ministry Christ also fulfills the temple. Not only did Jesus fulfill the sacrificial rituals that took place within the temple, but he fulfilled what the temple’s symbolic representation of the presence of God. However, Jesus was not just a representation or symbol of the presence of God; instead he was the presence of God. This is because the fullness of deity dwelt within his physical body (Col 1:19, 2:9). Matthew makes this clear in the opening chapter of his Gospel by calling Christ “Immanuel”, which means “God with us” (Mt 1:23). Hebrews tells us that Christ’s priestly ministry, although not being fulfilled in a literal, or earthly temple, “is in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man (Heb 8:2).” Christ has indeed fulfilled the roles of prophet and priest, yet he continues to occupy these offices before the presence of God, the true temple. He both represents God to us, and represents us to God. This indispensable truth is at the heart of the Gospel and the very work of the person of Christ.

Responsibility Amidst Sovereignty

A Look At Compatibalism

Within modern evangelicalism we often talk about a concept referred to as “free will.” Most presentations of the Gospel today are loaded with this notion of an autonomous human will. A will that is free to act and choose according to one’s own desires without any cause directing those choices. As a Calvinist, it is clear that every plot of history finds it origins in the Sovereign God. Yet, it is also equally clear that man is a responsible agent. The question is obvious. How does divine sovereignty work with human responsibility?

The term “free will” does exist within Calvinism, just not in the moral sense. We are totally depraved creatures and therefore do not possess a “free will” in the common/modern sense. Because of Adam’s transgressions, all men have inherited a sinful nature (Ro. 5:12). The corruption of the fall left man deep in his sin and separated from God. Not only is our standing before God effected, but our mind is also affected and is hostile to God (Ro. 8:7). Because of this hostility of our minds we cannot submit to God. This is what constitutes our complete inability as depraved creatures.

Although we do not have a moral free will, we are still responsible for our actions. Our responsibility is held alongside God’s sovereignty. Both are true. This idea is called Compatibalism because it says that God’s sovereignty is compatible with man’s responsibility. The other two philosophical views do not find the two to be compatible and instead emphasize one in contrast to the other. These two views are Libertarianism, which says that man is free to act and choose as he wills (this excludes any form of Sovereignty that denies free will, or denies humans the ability to be responsible), and the other view being Determinism, which says everything is pre-determined (this is so staunchly emphasized that responsibility and freedom do not exist). Compatibalism states that ultimately God is the absolute Sovereign being, yet this fact does not diminish that man makes choices and is responsible for those choices.

Biblical Evidence

Gen 5:20 "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

In this passage, Joseph had just been reunited with his brothers after a long and crazy series of events, which originated with his brothers selling him into slavery out of their hatred for him. The amazing thing about this verse is that it teaches both God’s sovereignty over the situation and man’s responsibility for their choices. His brother’s intentions were to harm. They meant to harm him. Their choice, or “will,” was to put him into slavery. However, all along the Sovereign God meant this event for good. This verse is not implying that God had fixed this horrific situation and turned it into a happy ending, but that he intended it for good all along. Both God and man had their intentions. Yet despite the intentions to harm, God ordained all the sufferings of Joseph through the means of the evil intent of his brothers, for the overall good of saving many lives.

Acts 2:23 "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Acts 4:27-28 "Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."

Here is the linchpin of Compatibalism. This passage clearly teaches that God ordained the death of Christ. There is no dispute about this, but it goes further. Even the people who committed the act were predetermined to do it! The crucifixion is something that could not have NOT happened! It is the most important part of redemptive history. However, Herod and Pilate were raised up for this very event. They did “what [God’s] power and will decided beforehand should happen.” Now, are they not responsible for this action simply because God sovereignty ordained this event? Absolutely not! This was the most sinful act in human history. Killing the God of the universe is the most horrendous of sinful acts. They are most certainly responsible, even in light of God’s sovereignty.

Now, some might say, as Paul knew many would, “How does he still find fault, for who can resist his will?” (Ro 9:19). This obviously is the starting point of the whole election debate, but it goes deeper. Because the question here is whether or not we are responsible, despite our lack of a moral “free will.” Romans 9:17 says, “For the scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this reason, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Even though Pharaoh was wicked and did terrible things against Israel, God used it to proclaim his glory. In fact, God was the one who raised Pharaoh up in the first place! The sole purpose being the proclamation of his might and strength.

So then, how are we to truly understand divine providence and human freedom? The answer is that we will never fully understand how to the two work together. However, the Bible teaches both. The Bible teaches that God is absolutely sovereign, and that man is totally responsible for his actions. Therefore, since the Bible teaches both, both are true. Although the nuances will never be fully grasped, somehow God ordains the actions and choices of men in such a way that they willingly and actually choose to do those things, and remain entirely responsible for those choices.

As far as exercising “free will” in order to believe in God, we cannot change our depraved state unless God does something first. An analogy of how free will and God’s sovereignty work together in salvation would be if someone decided they were going to ride their bike to work one morning. Unless the conditions were altered, they would actualize their desire to ride their bike to work. But if it were raining outside, they would choose not to ride their bike but instead they would choose to drive their car. This person was not forced to drive their car, but chose to because of the added external factor. In this same way we are not forced into faith, but freely choose salvation because of the added factor of God’s drawing and the Spirit’s regeneration of our lives. The man who decides to ride his bike to work will willingly choose to ride his car when he realizes that it is raining. The realization that it is raining is analogous to realizing that we need a savior. Of course we will then freely choose God. However, we will not choose the contrary, just as the bike rider will not ride his bike to work when it is pouring rain outside. This is sometimes referred to as “effectual calling” in Calvinistic circles. It is a calling that breeds a saving response every time. This idea is obviously coupled with “Irresistible Grace.” Since salvation is from God, and is initiated by God, man cannot frustrate the work of God. John 6 is the best example of this. Through the drawing of the Father (John 6:44), we are awakened to the beauty of the Gospel and become able to receive it. This idea is seen clearly through Jesus’ words when he said that not only would all whom the Father gives to him come (indicating effectual grace), but that those who come would also never be driven out (John 6:37). Therefore God’s effectual calling cannot be resisted. This is not because God over powers us, but because when we are drawn by him (John 6:44), we are able to choose and will choose.

The "L" Word

A Discussion of Limited Atonement

Perhaps nothing appears more threatening to non-Calvinists then the concept of a “Limited” Atonement. Like most Arminians, I found myself perplexed that any Christ-loving believer would ever talk about the Atonement in such terms. It seemed to me that Christ’s shed blood on the cross was sufficient for all individuals and powerful enough to save the whole world. I wondered why anyone would ever believe anything less than that. However, I realized that my original thoughts on this issue was misguided and characterized by many misconceptions. As it turns out, the “L” word wasn’t the heretical position I once thought it was.

I do not intend to give an exhaustive defense of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption), but I have a few thoughts that may be helpful in understanding the dreaded “3rd point” of Calvinism.

The first thought deals with the exclusivity of Christ. Any cursory study of the scriptures will indicate that Christ is the only way to heaven. John 14:6 tells us that no one can get to the Father except through Christ. Likewise Acts 4:21 says that Christ is the only name given under heaven for our salvation. Clearly, the New Testament intends for us to understand that Christ is the only means to the Father. It is important to note that “coming to Christ” is an action that is preceded by the drawing of the Father. We find this concept demonstrated very clearly in John 6:37-44. We know from this passage that all people are not drawn by the Father, whether by prevenience or other means, instead those that are drawn are also those that are raised on the last day. There is a necessary link between the drawing of the Father, and the coming to Christ. No one can come (i.e. believe) unless there was a prior act of initiative on behalf of the Father. Now we are left realizing that the drawing of God necessitates salvation. For this reason alone we know that all are not drawn, otherwise all would be saved. There is no other alternative in this passage. This concept of all being saved is known as “Inclusivism.” This idea states that people practicing other faiths can be saved by Christ regardless of their personal faith in Him. However, we have seen that the Bible talks in explicitly exclusive terms. Now, if there is an “X” amount of people being described here, which most certainly are those elect individuals whom God predestined unconditionally for salvation before the foundations of the world were laid (Ro 9:11-23; Eph 1:3-11; 2 Tim 1:9; Rev 13:8), then most certainly Christ’s death was to secure the salvation of those individuals. The question then becomes, would Christ die for the “non-elect” as well?

There a few reasons as to why the answer for this question is “No”. If Christ died for every individual person’s sins then why will anyone spend eternity in Hell? The idea is simple, as a substitutionary atonement Christ took our place. He met all the necessary requirements to satisfy the wrath of God on our behalf. Now, if Christ has appeased the wrath of God on behalf of all men everywhere then everyone should ultimately end up in heaven. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, Christ did not die in the place of every individual sinner. John 17:2 says, “You have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you [The Father] have given him.” Once again we see a definite group of people being given to the Son for him to redeem. Later on in this “High Priestly Prayer” Jesus says that he is praying not for the world but for those whom [the Father] has given to him (John 17:9). There are also a few other examples that teach this idea of a Particular group of people being redeemed at the cross. Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5:25 to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Also, we are told in Acts 20:28 that the Church of God was “obtained with [Christ’s] own blood.” Perhaps this concept is most clearly depicted in John 10:11 where Christ says that he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Now this is important because Christ describes his sheep as ones who hear the voice of Christ, are known by Christ, and follow Christ (Jn 10:27). This is contrasted with those who are not Christ’s sheep. Christ tells those near him that they do not believe because they are not of his flock (Jn 10:26). Believing in Christ depends upon whether or not someone is one of “Christ’s sheep.” Therefore, when it says that Christ laid his life down for his sheep, he was indicating that he was doing it on behalf of them alone.

Another point is that if the Father has elected a group a people for salvation, then it would demonstrate disunity within the Trinitarian counsel for Christ to die for those whom the Father has not elected. However, we are told that there is a unified purpose between all three members of the Godhead. In Ephesians 1:11 we are told that God works “all things according to the counsel of his will.” It would not make sense for Christ to go against the immutable decrees of God.

The last point I’d like to make is this: Calvinists, if they’re honest, are willing to admit that the atonement is definitely limited in it’s intent. That is, although it is sufficient for all, it is only efficient for the elect. However, it is the Arminian who truly “limits” the atonement. The reason for this is because the Arminian position has to admit that, in reality, no one was saved at the cross. Essentially, from an Arminian standpoint, Christ merely made men “savable.” This ought to indicate that the Arminian position limits the atonement of its power, since it is not capable of saving anyone. It is inconsistent for an Arminian to talk about “Christ dying for them,” because such an idea is bound in the Calvinistic doctrine of “Limited Atonement.”

In closing I think it is necessary to quote Charles Spurgeon's response to Arminians who questioned Limited Atonement, “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

Replacement Theology?

It is often proposed that the Reformed position of Covenant Theology teaches the Replacement of Israel by the Church. Obviously, such a position would lead to anti-Semitism and a lack of evangelism toward ethnic Jews. But does the Bible teach Replacement theology?

The first thing that needs to be addressed is that Israel is not replaced or superseded by the Church. Neither is the “Church age” a parenthetical dispensation unknown to the prophets of Israel. God’s council and plan is immutable. The over arching theme of the covenants demonstrate that God has a unified purpose that continues into the Church age. So what are we to believe about the relationship between Israel and the Church? Are they separate economies or a unified body of the people of God?

Nobody likes to be misrepresented, but frankly this happens constantly to those who line up in the Reformed camp. It needs to be noted that Covenant Theology does not teach the replacement of Israel, but the expansion of Israel. In the new covenant, the people of God are those who belong to Christ. Galatians 3:29 tells us, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” In this same manner, Ephesians 2:11-22 says that those who are “in Christ” are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Israel or it’s covenants and promises. Christ has taken people from every tongue, tribe, and nation and made them into one body; the church. This church includes Israel as Romans 11 tells us that God always keeps a remnant of Israelites. Not only this, but Romans 11:17 says that Gentiles are grafted into the same olive tree. Clearly, the New Testament teaches us that both Jews are Gentiles are being made into the same body, a body whose roots are in the olive tree of Israel.

Further demonstration of the Church being included in Israel (as opposed to replacing it) ought to be noted. 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches that the Church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” and “the people of God.” Each of these assertions are exclusive to Israel in the Old Testament. Why would Peter use such language to the Church? Peter tells us the reason in verse five when he says that we are “like living stones being built up as a spiritual house” with Christ as the cornerstone. This passage then applies to all those who are built upon Christ.

Perhaps the major reason why Dispensationalists are afraid to allow the Church to be included in Israel is because they believe that the Old Testament assigns certain promises specifically to ethnic Israel. It is also believed that this present “Church age” was not foreseen by the prophets but was added parenthetically in God’s overall plan. Dispensationalists believe that eventually God will restore Israel and all the previous prophecies will be literally fulfilled to them. However, this is maintained from a failure to understand these promises being fulfilled in Christ. The promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ, as Galatians 3:16 says; “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” All the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ.

The same can be said of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the Mosaic Law by living a perfect life without failing at all. Christ has also fulfilled the Davidic covenant. Although Dispensationalists believe that Christ is not reigning on the throne of David at the present time, but will do so during his millennial reign, the NT writers clearly portray Christ fulfilling this role. Luke 1:32 says, “And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." More importantly, in Acts 2:30-32 Peter says that David prophesied about Christ sitting on his throne.

“Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus, God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God…”

When Christ was exalted to the right hand of God, he fulfilled the Davidic promise. The present reign of Christ, though often overlooked, is one that is taught all throughout the New Testament. Now, what about the mysterious aspects of the Church? If Christ has fulfilled these things, as suggested, can it still be demonstrated that the prophets foresaw the church age?

Dispensationalists believe that the present church age is a mystery unknown to the prophets. Some have even referred to it as a “parenthesis” in God’s plan for Israel. If this were true, then the Church would have began at Pentecost, rather than starting with Abraham. Although there are significant blessings unique to the new covenant (i.e. the presence of the Holy Spirit), the prophets most certainly looked forward to this age. Acts 3:24 tells us, “And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.” The important thing about this assertion is that it is speaking of the present age since it is after Pentecost! The Spirit has already come and Peter says that the prophets foresaw this.

To reiterate, the Church has not replaced Israel, but is included into Israel. The reason for this is because Christ has bought the Church. To belong to Christ is to belong to Abraham (Gal 3:29). Christ has fulfilled all the promises that were made to Israel because he is the true Israel. He obeyed all the requirements of the Mosaic Law and is currently reigning from the right hand of the throne of God. The present age is not the result of a “parenthesis” in God’s plan, but is the fulfillment of all of the shadows and types presented from the previous Covenants that God initiated with Israel.

What about the New Covenant? At the Last Supper Jesus spoke in Covenantal terms when he said that the New Covenant was in his blood. Is the New Covenant a present reality, or something that God is postponing for a future restoration of Israel? The covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31 was said to be made to “the House of Israel” and “the House of Judah.” This leads Dispensationalists to postpone this prophecy to the millennial reign of Christ in which Israel will be fully restored, although a few Dispensationalists might contend that some of the effects of this covenant are presently felt. The author of Hebrews, however, quotes the passage from Jeremiah 31 and applies it directly to the present age. Hebrews 8:7-13 clearly teaches that Christ brought the New Covenant for the present age. It needs to be noted then that the Church is included into this prophecy, which was originally made to Israel. This is not because the Church has replaced Israel, but because Israel has expanded. Once again, although the Church exists primarily of Gentiles, ethnic Jews are also members of the same body by faith in Christ.

Before concluding, it is important to note that the Bible does teach a universal “re-grafting” of Israel at the end of the age. Paul tells us in Romans 11:11 that Israel did not stumble so as to fall. There is a partial hardening to the Gospel of Jesus Christ at this present time, but before Christ comes back, All Israel will be saved (Ro 11:25-26). This inclusion of ethnic Israel will be an eschatological event in which a lot of Jews come to faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. There is no room for Replacement Theology in the Bible, however Israel has most certainly expanded to include Gentiles. Truly this is indicative in God’s promise to Abraham that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3). It is because of the promises made to Abraham that Gentiles have been included into Israel, without replacing the foundation upon which they stand.

Reflections on the Carmen Christi

Philippians 2:5-7 explains the heart of the Incarnation. The study of Christology is laden with complex philosophical ideas and intense theological assertions. One small mistake can brand someone a heretic. Christology is perhaps the most nuanced and specific branch of evangelical theology, and which it should be. However, this passage states the best aspects of Christology. Jesus, who was in the form of God, did not count equality a thing to be grasped. In being God, Jesus had a humble spirit and did not consider his status as something that he would not lay aside. Instead, he made himself nothing; lowering his status on our behalf. The King of the Universe became the servant of man. The one who gave us his image, took on our likeness. The one who is majestic, became defiled by men. The one who had every right to maintain his status in heaven as the most holy being, departed willfully from his throne and became in every way like us. Such clear Christological themes are presented in this passage. Christ is God. Christ became man. All of our theological terms and philosophical terms cower in comparison to this passage. Christ represents the highest degree of humility in this single act. Therefore, if our God can humble himself in this way, we ought also to act as he did.

In Philippians 2:8 we see the greatest example of humility demonstrated in all of human history. Not only did the God of the universe come to the world in the likeness of men, but he came and died. This idea becomes even more profound when we consider that we died convicted as a criminal, when he himself knew no sin. But it gets worse! They didn’t just hang him, or stab him. Instead, they killed him in the worst way possible. They crucified him! He hung on a tree. Still it gets worse. The law says that cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. Christ became a curse for us. The sinless, perfect, matchless, undefiled, unblemished, spotless King of Glory was treated worse then most murderers today in America are. What absurdity! Now, I know that this tells me a lot about my Savior. He is humble, loving, and gracious in a way that no words could express and in a way that no actions or deeds could equal. However, this event tells me a lot about myself as well. I am so evil, so utterly despicable, so incapable of goodness, so profoundly inept, so wicked, and so totally depraved that it took all of that to atone for me. Not an angel, or any creation could fix my problem. Only the subsiding of God’s wrath through the propitiation of Christ could draw me out of darkness.

In Philippians 2:9-11 we see the crowning moment in Christology. In becoming a man, Christ willfully subjected himself to suffering, yet he is now highly exalted above all things to the glory he previously had with the Father before his incarnation. His name is superior to all other names. God did not exalt Mohammed. God did not exalt Joseph Smith. God did not exalt anyone other than Christ. The very name of Christ exhorts such glory that even at the sound of his name, everyone will confess and bow to his lordship. This is an amazing thought. Our Savior is also our King! Now, something that is very interesting about this passage is that Christ is the one who is exalted, and Christ is the one with the greatest of all names…If God is jealous, desiring his own glory in all situations, what does this tell us about the Deity of Christ? The entire “Christ hymn” ends with such a profound statement that if not considered with its proper ramifications, it could be shrugged off as an old cliché statement about Christ. However, of all the things stated about Christ in this passage that point so clearly to his Deity, this one shouts it! Christ is the name above all names. No one else can say that. God would not be giving glory to himself if he allowed a creature to have the name above all names. Instead, Jesus is God. And there is no other way to understand this passage. When we read this passage we ought to sit back and proclaim that Christ is our Savior, King, and God!

Biblical Anthropology

God chose to create man for his own glory (Is 43:7, 21; Eph 1:12), and did not need to do so (Acts 17:24-25). Man is therefore dependent upon God (Acts 17:28), and is distinct from Him (Num 23:19; John 8:23). However, God created man uniquely among His creation by giving him dominion over the animals, and allowing him to name them (Gen 1: 28, 2:19).

All Men are created in the image and likeness of God regardless of status, race, or gender (Gen 1:26-27, 5:1; Prov 22:2). Our creation in the image of God demonstrates our worth, purpose, and dignity. This is not based upon what we do, but who we are as humans. Therefore, we are not to kill or even curse those who bear his image, but love them as ourselves (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:8; Mt 22:39). God’s image is manifested through our creative abilities, innate morals, abilities to relate to others, reasoning skills, and spiritual nature.

God created Men and Women equally, yet with different functions. Man was created first and the Woman was created as his helper (Gen 2:18, 23; 1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13). Man was made as the head of the Woman in a functional sense (1 Cor 11:3), yet the differing functions do not change their ontological equality, how they relate to God, or the fact that they both bear His Image (Gen 1:27, 5:1-2; Gal 3:28).

Man is essentially composed of two distinct substances; the physical and spiritual (1 Cor 7:34; 2 Cor 7:1). These two substances do not work separately but are unified and can affect each other. After the death of our bodies, the soul does not die but continues to live eternally in either Heaven or Hell (Mt 10:28; Lk 23:43; Phil 1:23, Rev 6:9). Although physically we inherit our parent’s genes and DNA, we do not inherit our spirit for it is given to us from God (Ps 139: 13; Ecc 12:7, Zech 12:1).

Adam was originally created in a state of righteousness, but through his disobedience death and sin spread to all men (Ro 5:12). Consequentially, man inherits Adam’s sin (Ro 5:18-19), and is born as a sinner (Ps 51:5; Eph 2:3). Sin has ruined man’s relationship with God and renders him without an inclination towards doing good or pursuing God (Ps 14:3; Jn 6:44, 65; Ro 3:10-11, 7:18, 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14). The failure to meet God’s perfect standards is ultimately what constitutes sin (Ro 3:23; Jas 2:10).

God is transcendent above mankind in his nature and abilities (Is 55:8-9; John 8:23), yet he also displays immanence through upholding creation and showing intimate concern (Lk 12:6-7; Acts 17:27; Col 1:17). God acts within his creation for the praise of his glory and according to his own purposes (Is 46:10; Eph 1:11-12), which includes natural disasters and man’s evil intents (Gen 50:19-20; Is 45:7; Am 3:6; Acts 4:27-28). However, God is not charged with evil (Job 1:22). God’s sovereign purposes also do not minimize man’s moral accountability (Gal 6:7-8). However, salvation is ultimately God’s work and is not based on man’s will or efforts (John 1:13; Ro 9:16; Acts 13:48; Eph 2:8-9).

Technorati

Technorati Profile

Check out my Blog and interact with me!
I primarily blog about Theological issues related to soteriology & eschatology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

How I Became An Amillennialist

The current state of eschatological studies within evangelicalism is quite polarized. Describing yourself as either a Premillennialist, Postmillennialist, or Amillennialist can carry an incredible amount of theological baggage. Our hermeneutical methods are automatically exposed, and somehow we get labeled as either "spiritualizing" the text, or taking it too literally. Recently, I've been spending some time studying this issue and although I don't think that I understand everything that pertains to each view, I've come to a personal conclusion after weighing the evidence.

Like most American evangelicals, I grew up attending a dispensational church. I also attended a Christian high school that taught basic Dispensationalism. This is usually enough to create any evangelical into a dispensationalist, but throw in reading the increasingly popular end-times series, Left Behind, and you have all the necessary pre-requisites to be a full blown pretribulational premillennial dispensationalist. Obviously, when you're a dispensationalist nothing is more abhorred then Amillennialism. I too was there. I hated Amillennialism. I viewed it as liberal theology like most do (never mind the historical precedence), and I thought that it essentially threw away the book of revelation and simply turned it into a giant symbolic analogy of the present age in an arbitrary fashion. Amillennialism, I thought, was a horrible position to hold.

My own wanderings in eschatology over the past year have lead me towards an Amilleninal conclusion, despite my prior assessments. The first problem came with pretribulationalism. After studying the "rapture" I realized that it is always in relation to Christ's physical return. Despite the arguments about imminence, I realized that 1 Thess 4, and Mt 24 give us no understanding of a "secret" return. Without going into detail here, I quickly rejected the notion of a pretribulational rapture. I realized that the view of a pretribulational rapture is actually more tied to ecclesiology then it is to eschatology. This seemed highly problematic to me. The only reason the pretrib rapture exists in theological studies is because of a staunch dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Something that I have now rejected for a covenantal approach to their relationship (cf. Ro 2:29; Ro 9:6-8; Gal 3:15-29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; Phil 3:3; 1 Peter 2:9-10; Heb 8:6-13).

In accepting Covenant Theology, I became afraid about how this would affect my eschatology. I knew that Dispensational Premillenialism was out as an option, but Historic Premillenialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism were still left to study. Initially Historic Premillenialism seemed good because it embraces a posttribulational rapture, and covenant theology. However, my problems further extended into areas of the resurrection, judgment and the end of the age. Historic Premillenialism gave insufficient answers to these questions. How can there be two resurrections? Two judgments? Or a thousand year transitional period before the age to come? Outside of Revelation, I found the NT writers teaching that the resurrection, judgment, and end of the age all happening at Christ's return. This posed as an incredible problem for any form of Premillenialism. Because of these thoughts, I started to seriously doubt Historic Premillenialism.

So I decided to study Amillennialism. I knew that Amillennialism would have a lot of explaining to do for me to accept it... and to my surprise it exceeded all of my expectations. At the outset I determined that unless Amillennialism gave a sufficient answer to my problems then I would turn to Postmillennialism, or embrace a form of eschatological agnosticism. My initial problems with Amillennialism were threefold. How could this present age be the millennial reign of Christ? How could Satan possibly be bound in this age? And How Does the Amillennialist explain the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:5?

Although there are other important texts to this study (Mt 24; Ro 11; Dan 9; 1 Thess 4; 2 Thess 2; 1 Cor 15, etc…), everything ultimately hinges upon Revelation 20. Therefore, I will only deal with this particular text. I obviously won’t be able to do this issue justice at any length, so I will give a simple explanation based upon my recent studies. I’ve come to conclude that the answer to the daunting system of eschatology within Revelation can be answered in one word: Recapitulation.

Dispensationalist's view Revelation 19-20 in a chronological fashion. However, there is good reason to believe that the two chapters describe the same event from different perspectives. The battle described in Rev 19 after the second coming of Christ is one in which Christ destroys the nations in his judgment. Following this incident is the millennial reign of Christ, according to dispensationalists, which is followed by yet another major battle. However, it makes more sense to view these battles as the same event. A few reasons suggest this. One: the battles of Rev 16, 19 and 20 use imagery from the same event described in Ezekiel 38-39. Demonstrating that these major battles are not sequential but recapitulated. Two: If Christ has already judged the nations and destroyed them in Rev 19, where do the nations come from to fight Christ once again in Rev 20 and why would Satan be bound so as to not decieve them? Especially since 19:18-21 describes the completeness of the battle in all-inclusive terms. Three: In revelation there are references to battles in general terms in chapters 9, 11, 12, and 13. Yet, in the last three times a battle is described (16, 19, and 20), a definite article is used in the Greek text. These chapters are the last three times a battle is described and the only time the word battle is used with a definite article in Revelation. Four: Since Rev 15 tells us that 7 bowls will be poured out for the completion of God’s wrath, and because Rev 19:11-21 marks the end of God’s wrath against the world, then Rev 20:7-10 must be recapitulated with the battle of Rev 19. All these reasons were very convincing to me.

Therefore, if the battles of Rev 19 & 20 are recapitulated then the thousand-year reign of Christ is the present age. This would make sense because we are told multiple times that Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the throne of God, indicating that he is reigning, and because Rev 19 describes the judgment that Christ brings at his second coming. The implications of this would mean that Satan is currently bound. This idea isn't as problematic as it initially sounds. Not only do the NT writers demonstrate this idea generally all throughout their writings with the great spiritual victory that Christ won against the forces of Satan, but also Christ himself had some interesting things to say.

In Mark 3:27, after casting out a demon, Christ said, “But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man.” Likewise, In Luke 10:17-18, after the seventy-two returned to Christ and announced that the demons are subject to the name of Christ, Jesus told them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven.” Clearly, the symbolic idea of being bound by a chain in Rev 20 demonstrates that the Gospel of Christ will advance and so will his Kingdom. Another thing to consider is that Rev 20:3 tells us that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations. Therefore, Satan is bound in relation to the expansion of the Gospel. There is no doubt that he is still the prince and power of the air, and the god of this world, but his relation to the expansion of Christ’s kingdom is that he is bound from deceiving those nations that Christ commissioned his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to. Because of the binding of Satan during this age, the four living creatures that encircle the throne of God in Rev 5:9 are able to sing, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe, and language, and people and nation.” Truly, the binding of Satan is in effect, and the Gospel is expanding to the nations. (Paul also speaks of the restraining aspect of evil in 2 Thess 2:3-8, which ends in Christ’s coming and the ultimate destruction of evil. This passage would then further tie the battles of Rev 19 & 20 together!)

The last question that I needed answered was the idea of the first resurrection in Rev 20:5. According to Dispensationalists, the first resurrection occurs at the commencement of the millennial reign of Christ, in which believers are resurrected, and the second resurrection occurs at the end of the millennium, in which those who come to Christ during the millennium are resurrected along with the rest of the reprobates. Not only is the idea of two resurrections nowhere to be found in the bible outside of this passage, which ought to indicate something on its own, but there is contextual evidence which should not lead us to believe that the two resurrections are sequential, but of different kinds. Rev 20 contrasts the first resurrection with second death. The second death is not the second sequential death of man, but a different kind of death: a spiritual death. This would seem to make sense for the first resurrection as well, since those who participate in the first resurrection will not face the second death, as Rev 20:6 tells us. Therefore, the first resurrection is not the first set of bodily resurrections followed by another set of bodily resurrections, but is instead a different kind of resurrection. The first being spiritual, the second being bodily. This makes sense when you consider that the thrones mentioned in 20:4 are for those beheaded for their testimony of Christ. These thrones are not earthly, but heavenly. They are for the saints. With this in mind, and the multiple passages in the NT that tell us that the bodily resurrection occurs after Christ’s physical return, it further adds support to such a conclusion.

There is obviously so much more to discuss in relation to this view of eschatology. Our opinion of the nature of Israel, and our view of dispensations also determine what we believe about eschatology. There simply is too much that pertains to our eschatological views. Although I haven’t addressed those issues in this study, the arguments in favor of recapitulation in Revelation are staggering. Since Rev 20 is the only passage that teaches the millennial reign of Christ, then how we understand this passage is obviously the linchpin of our personal eschatology. In conclusion of this study, Satan is most certainly bound to the Kingdom of God, which Christ oversees from the right hand of the throne of God. Most importantly, Christ is sovereignly reigning over the history of this world during this “thousand year” period. It seems appropriate therefore, to understand that the thousand years began at Christ’s resurrection. Consider the words of Peter for further support to this wonderful truth about Christ’s exaltation!

1 Peter 3:22 "[Christ] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, powers, and authorities having been subjected to him."

Also consider the words of the author of Hebrews,

Hebrews 1:8-13 "But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. And, You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end. And to which of the angels has he ever said, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?"

What The Bible Says About Jesus

Jesus Christ was fully and completely human, being born of a virgin (Mt 1:23; Gal 4:4), and growing in human likeness both mentally and physically (Lk 2:52; Heb 5:8-9). Christ also had human needs, such as the necessity of having water and rest (Jn 4:6,19:28). Although Christ was tempted by sin like all men, he overcame his temptations and never sinned (1 Peter 2:22; Heb 4:15-16).

Jesus Christ is fully and completely God. He is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb 1:3); having the fullness of Deity dwell within him (Col 1:19; 2:9). However, Christ did not become God. He is the creator of all things and therefore is not created (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16-17). The Deity of the Son of God is one that is eternal with God the Father (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5). During his earthly ministry Christ demonstrated his Deity by forgiving sins (Mark 2:10-11), reinterpreting the Law (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-8), calming the seas (Lk 8:22-25), and receiving worship (Mt 28:9).

The Deity and Humanity of Christ are two distinct natures that compose the one person of Christ. However, these two natures are also completely unified, demonstrating that Jesus was a man and “God with us” (Mt 1:23). According to his earthly genealogy he was the Son of David, yet he is also the Son of God (Ro 1:3-4). He is the eternal Word veiled in human flesh (John 1:1, 14). Only Christ as a man could die for our sins, and only Christ as God could provide the perfect atonement to satisfy the wrath of God (Heb 2:17; 1 John 4:10). It was in God’s sovereign wisdom to place our iniquity upon him so that he would be our substitute for salvation (Is 53:6; Acts 2:23; 2 Cor 5:21). After his death, he did not descend into Hell, since the efficacy of his atoning work was enough (Jn 19:30).

In coming to earth, Christ provided the greatest demonstration of humility. Though he was in very nature God, he lowered himself and became a servant (Mark 10:45; Phil 2:6). Furthermore, he humbled himself by obeying his Father’s will and dying on a cross (John 17:4; Phil 2:8). Although three days later God raised him from the dead and exalted him with the name above all names. After appearing to more than 500 witnesses, Christ physically ascended to heaven at the right hand of the Father (Mt 26:54; Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 1 Cor 15:6; Phil 2:9-11), where he will continue in his physical resurrected state for all eternity (Lk 24:39; Acts 1:9-11). Because of Christ’s humility and obedience, God has highly exalted him to the glory he shared with him before creation, demonstrating that Christ is forever glorious and worthy of all praise (John 17:5, 24; Rev 5:9-12).

Christ is now our prophet, king, and priest. As our prophet he has brought the final revelation of God’s truth to us (Heb 1:1-2). As our King of Kings he is the preeminent head of the Church who ushered in the kingdom of heaven under his lordship (Mt 4:17, 23; Col 1:18). As our permanent high priest he offered himself as a blameless sacrifice for our sin; enabling us to enter God’s presence (Heb 6:19-20; 7:24-27). He is also continually making intercession for us as our mediator with God (Ro 8:34; 1 Tim 2:5).

In Six Days

A Brief Case For Young Earth Creation

The question of How God created the world is often debated amongst Christians. To be sure, the most important issue at stake in this whole debate is Who created. Whether or not we have an unbiblical view of How the Earth was created is peripheral to the question of Who did the creating. So, may we enter into this dialogue with an understanding that God did in fact create everything, and let us remember that is ultimately what is most important.

As a matter of introductory into this discussion I'd like to first make a few remarks as a way of prefeace. I do not believe that God is more powerful for creating in six days as opposed to six billion years. Obviously my argument would be stifiled by the thought of God creating in six seconds. So, I am not concerned with what is more powerful. Also, I am not concerned with Young Earth. Although that is the view that I will advocate, I do not do so for the sake of being Young Earth. I do so because I believe there are major theological implications at stake. I only intend to briefly outline some of these thoughts as well as provide opposing viewpoints.


Naturalistic Evolution

Naturalistic evolution is the explanation of the origin of the universe through the course of nature and not by God. According to the theory the earth came to be the way we see it now over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection were the factors that created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between. The age of the earth allows for multiple mutations and adaptations to occur in order to change species into one that is more complex. “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings, ” wrote Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species.

One of the biggest forms of “evidence” for evolution is said to be found in the fossil record. Carl Sagan agreed by saying, “Evolution is a fact, amply demonstrated by the fossil record.” In order for a fossil to occur there has to be a rapid burial of a living creature. After this occurs, the chemicals of the creature will begin to undergo a series of changes. As the creature decays, water infused with minerals passes through it, replacing the chemicals in the shell with rock-like minerals. The evolutionists believe that this process must also include millions of years of slow decay to occur, but this is not the case. A rock hard miner’s hat was found in a mine in Tasmania, Australia. The hat was permeated with mineralised water in its burial site. The minerals replaced the materials of the hat showing that millions of years are not a factor of fossilization after all (answers in genesis).

The Bible gives an account of a global flood that destroyed all life on earth. It also says that the “fountains of the deep” were broken up. This would have meant that catastrophic events were occurring along side of the flood. Considering that volcanic rocks are interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record, it makes sense that volcanoes were erupting underneath the oceans which would have shifted the earth rapidly, and mineralise the water. Both of which are needed for fossilization. It is also interesting to note that 95% of all fossils that have been found are marine invertebrates. Obviously, at a time when the earth was being transformed by oceanic volcanoes, marine life would not be able to escape the wrath of these cataclysmic events. The Flood account helps prove that the Earth is not as old as some scientists say. Another recent discovery in Montana has added some more heat to the issue of the earth’s age.

A group of paleontologists, led by Mary Schweitzer, discovered a T. rex thighbone in a sandstone formation of Montana. During the removal of the bone, the researchers were forced to break it open in order to extract it via helicopter. Once they broke open the bone they discovered soft tissue and elastic blood vessels within it. The dinosaurs, which are considered some of the most ancient tetra pods of the earth, are seen as living around 70 million years ago, and with this new discovery of “fresh” tissue, which supports the creationist view of young age, the evolutionist’s theory is being questioned due to the newly found hard “soft” evidence. When Mary Schweitzer discovered the tissue she said, “The bones are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her statement was both interesting and sad. Instead of questioning the new evidence she should be questioning the presupposed age of the bone. Because evolution is a theory of the earth’s origins that takes God out of the equation, the evolutionists will never see God’s hand in science until they actually start looking for it.


Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution garners all of the factors of Naturalistic Evolution and adds God into the mix. Basically, God created the evolutionary process. Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution leads to major compromising of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith.

Many creationists put theistic evolution into question since it denies some fundamental beliefs. The first problem is that evolution places man at the end of the whole overall process, contradicting Mark 10:6 which says, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” According to this passage man was made at the beginning of creation. If evolution were to have occurred then man would have been made near the end in the overall scheme of the evolutionary process. This is a problem.

Another problematic theory, though not necessarily associated with theistic evolution is known as The Day-Age Theory. This theory teaches that each day as recorded in the creation account is not literal days, but is actually time periods of possibly millions of years. Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…” According to this verse the creation process was six literal days and not a period of millions of years. This has huge implications for the Sabbath, which was the linchpin of Judaic Law. Jew's were to cease from all working activities and rest, just as God had done with creation. Now, what kind of idea would God be presenting to the Jews if he in fact created in billions of years. The concept of ceasing work on the seventh day would have no real meaning, and would certainly not be applicable. However, each day in Genesis is given a number to represent it and at each day's pass the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning" was used. Such dileniations are represenative of literal days. Day-Agers would argue that each day can simply represent a time period in which God created. However, plants were created on the third day, and the sun was created on the fourth. If these days are to be understood as millions of years, then plants would have no chance of survival.

Again there is another Biblical teaching that the theistic evolutionists deny. This one is concerning the Flood. The question is not whether it occurred or not, but rather it is a question of whether it was a global or local flood. The Bible tells us that “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” But according to the theistic evolutionists, this is only referring to the life that existed at that time. Since man had not populated much of the world then, God only needed to destroy them and not the whole earth. This belief contradicts Psalm 104:5a, 6, &8 which says, “You who laid the foundations of the earth, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.” When God decided to destroy the Earth he did not mean solely the people around at that time, he meant the whole thing. The theistic evolutionists would attempt to counter with “where did the water go?” Psalm 104:7 gives an answer by saying, “At your rebuke they (the water) fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.” God put everything in its place. Since the world was changing form during the Flood. Larger mountains and deeper sea basins would have been created, giving a perfect physical explanation for the location of Noah’s water.

Another critique can be seen in Romans 5:12 which says, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Evolution is simply an unbiblical concept because it demands death in order to explain the fossil records and bring about the vast mutations that life has experienced. Clearly, when Adam transgressed against God, he brought death. Without sin, there is no death. Therefore, before Adam there was no death, and consequentially no evolution.

Biblical Christianity

The basis for the origin of life in Christianity is found in the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis it is recorded that God created all of creation within a span of six literal days, and that man was made in his image in a distinct way from the rest of creation. Man was made out of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7), and not from an evolutionary chain. To the evolutionist this is impossible because they believe there needs to be millions of years to form stratification levels of rock. As seen with Mt. St. Helens, six hundred feet of strata were formed during a three-week period, disproving that only millions of years can form such layers. The event of Mt. St. Helens helps prove the Global Flood as recorded in the Bible. Demonstrating that even one small catastrophe in the face of a worldwide disaster can create canyons and stratified rock layers.

The creation account cannot be simply an allegorical story for how God really created the world. Paul warned against people that would formulate false sciences in 1 Tim 6:20 saying, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” We as Christians cannot compromise scripture to fit-in with the crowd. 1 Peter 2:9 says we are a “peculiar people,” and we should not attempt to find middle ground on this subject.

For Further Study

www.aig.org

What The Bible Says About God

God has eternally existed as three persons within one being. The persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in their relation and function (Mt 3:16-17; 1 Pet 1:1-2; Tit 3:4-6), yet they remain ontologically one in their essence, nature, and substance. The three persons of the Godhead are unified in all their attributes and are co-equal with each other. The Father is God (Gal 1:1; Eph 5:20), the Son is God; being the exact imprint of His nature (Heb 1:3; Jn 1:1,14; Col 2:9; Phil 2:6), and the Holy Spirit is God for he is eternal and omniscient (Acts 5:3-4; Heb 9:14; 1 Cor 2:10-11). There exists eternally only one God and none will come after him (Deut 6:4; Is 43:10, 44:6-8). Therefore the three persons of the Trinity have eternally existed as one God.

God is unchanging in his nature throughout all eternity (Ps 90:2, 102:24-27). His gifts, purposes and plans are also not subsequent to change, but stand true (Ps 33:11; Heb 6:17; Jas 1:17; Ro 11:29). God is outside of time (2 Pet 3:8), and does not experience a succession of moments. Therefore, He does not need anything, nor does he change, grow, or mature (Mal 3:6; Acts 17:24-25). He is the Great “I Am” (“YHWH” Ex 3:14; John 8:58); the uncaused, self-existent, self-sufficient and immutable God.

God is a holy and perfect being who is completely unlike His creation (Ps 18:30; Mt 5:48). He cannot sin (Heb 6:18), since it would be contrary to His holy character. God’s vast holiness demonstrates his infinite worth and glory, which He jealously desires to be recognized for Him alone (Ex 20:4-6; Deut 4:24, 5:9; Is 48:11). The wrath of God is kindled against those who act contrary to His ways and do not acknowledge Him as God (Hab 1:13; Ro 1:18). This wrath is only satisfied through Christ’s atonement since God’s infinite holiness demands justice for sin (Heb 9:11-14; Ro 3:25-26; Is 30:18). The atonement wrought in Christ is the ultimate demonstration of God’s love (Ro 5:8; 1 John 4:9-10), which he wisely determined to do because he embodies love (1 John 4:16). He is wrathful and just towards sin, yet gracious, merciful, and forgiving (Ex 34:6-7; Ps 145:8).

God is the Almighty One (Ex 6:3 “El Shaddai”), able to sovereignty accomplish all of His purposes without anything hindering Him in any capacity since He is the Creator of all things (Is 46:10-11; Dan 4:35; Eph 1:11, Job 42:1; John 1:3). God is an ever-present Spirit; unable to be divided into parts spatially or seen with human eyes (Ex 33:20; Ps 139:7-8; Jer 23:23-24; John 4:24; John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16). God is the only wise God (Ro 16:27), having unlimited knowledge of all things including future events and man’s thoughts (Ps 147:5; Mt 6:8; 1 John 3:20; Ps 139:16, Is 46:10; Acts 15:18). God’s mind cannot be known and his thoughts are far superior to ours (Ps 139:6; Is 55:8-9; Ro 11:33-34). He is incomprehensible, yet He has chosen to reveal Himself through His Word and creation sufficiently for life, godliness, and obeying His commands (Ro 1:19-20; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:2-3; 1 John 2:3, 4:7). This demonstrates that God is both transcendent, being utterly distinct from us, and yet immanently involved in His creation for us to know him.

The Cosmological Argument

Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Thomas Aquinas, in his book Summa Theologica, makes arguments for the existence of God in the third article. Aquinas is trying to prove that God exists without anything being required of him to exist. He is also trying to prove that God is the starting point of all things that exist in reality. He therefore asserts that without God there would be nothing.

Aquinas begins by saying he has five reasons why God must exist automatically without any denial. The first reason Aquinas gives has to do with the idea of “motion.” We know from observing our world that things move because something has moved them. When a little boy kicks a small rock, the rock will move, but if no one kicks or moves the rock it will not move. Everything in our world is moved from something else. These occurrences are based on the cause and effect relationship of the world. The natural world reacts every time to this process. If one thing is moved then it definitely had a mover. If that mover itself had a mover, and the process continued, no matter how long it went it would end with a starting point and a first mover. Just like dominoes. The last domino can attribute its falling to the domino before it and that one to the domino before it and all the way back until it reaches the very first domino. The regression of movers is not infinite; it is finite and always has a starting point. So Aquinas asserts that since our natural world has been given this characteristic of cause and effect, we must conclude that our world came to be from a first mover: an ultimate starting point. This idea also ties in with his second reason for the existence of God, which is about the order of efficient causes. The first efficient cause could not have been caused itself, or it would not be the first starter. God is therefore the first mover, and the first efficient cause that started everything that is in existence. Since it is not logically consistent to believe in an infinite regression of causes, there must have been a first efficient cause, and that cause is the only necessary entity, which is God.

The third point that Aquinas makes is that “the effect is taken away if the cause is taken away.” (Aquinas, pg. 42) According to Aquinas, if you take away God then nothing would exist. We know that this is not the case and things do in fact exist. Since we are dealing with finite things Aquinas says that they have the possibility of not existing, and whatever could not exist anymore at one point must not have existed. Therefore, if something finite does exist, then there must have been something existing out of necessity before it that doesn’t owe it’s existence to anyone, but exists alone. This being would have to be intrinsically necessary because just like the efficient causes, there cannot be an infinite regression of necessary beings.

The fourth point that Aquinas makes has to do with the gradation of things. When we refer to something being more beautiful or more perfect, we are comparing it to some idea that must be the most beautiful or perfect. The same as when we say there is more of something here and less of something there. For his argument, Aquinas uses the example of fire to show that it is the greatest source of heat. He says that the fire is what causes other things to be hot, and to get hotter. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, there must be someone who has the attributes of what is most good and most excellent in which we are able to compare ourselves to. This idea of the “ultimate” has been an argument for the existence of the supernatural all the way back to the time of Socrates. He says in Phaedo, “If we had this knowledge, we knew before birth and immediately after not only the Equal, but rather the Greater and the Smaller and all such things… So we must have acquired knowledge of them before we are born.” (Phaedo, pg. 66) Socrates was arguing that when we call one stick unequal to another stick in size we are comparing an understanding of something that is equal. We cannot refer to something being equal, however, unless we have some idea of what true equality is. Because of the gradation of things in our world it follows that there must be an ultimate.

The fifth and last argument Aquinas makes for the existence of God has to do with the governance of things. We know from observing nature that inanimate objects do not work towards anything. Their purpose does not come from goals that they have placed. Their use is based off something that has knowledge taking that object and using it for their purpose. Aquinas used the example of an archer who takes his bow and arrow and makes it shoot at something. The arrow cannot shoot on its own because it lacks the intelligence. Someone who has knowledge must come along and use the arrow. Therefore, Aquinas argues that an entity with intelligence must be in control of all the laws of nature, and of all the order of nature.

Final Thoughts

The five evidences that Aquinas gives makes the claim for an uncaused, first moving, efficient, necessary, ultimate, and governing God. His argument is a strong non-deductive argument that although does not prove outright that God exists, it makes incredibly brilliant observations that point to a greater-than-can-be-thought God. His arguments consist very well with logic because without God there would be no rational explanation for the existence of the world. To assume that there must have been an infinite number of causes is illogical because we live in a finite universe. Also, to assume that this universe did come into existence at one point and before that point nothing existed is absurd. Just as Aquinas argued, from nothing, nothing comes. The arguments of Aquinas show the existence of God in a very effective and logical manner. However, since Aquinas is merely dealing with general revelation and issues of creation, it does not lead anyone to the knowledge or specifics of God. This argument is strictly arguing for Natural Theology. Socrates, who understood the idea of a gradation of perfections, did not come to the same conclusion as Aquinas. He argued for the existence of the soul and therefore the rest of the supernatural realm, but that’s as close as he got to the truth. I believe that this argument is a good stepping-stone that can lead atheists and agnostics to a true knowledge of Christ, but there is an element of danger there. Not only does the door open to the possibility of God, but also it opens the possibility of any God. In my opinion, that is a major weakness in the argument. This is considered a false alternative. Aquinas is only arguing for God’s existence, and neglecting other possibilities. For example, instead of God creating everything, there could be a “cosmic scientist” that is conducting experiments on us, or a group of aliens from deep in outer space who created us. Basically, he left out other possibilities that weren’t mentioned, but made the argument to be either God exists, or he does not. Nevertheless, I still appreciate the points Aquinas makes. His argument shows that God really has given us an understanding of who he is through the creation like Romans 1:20 says, ““For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” I believe that Aquinas’ argument goes extremely well with this verse because it shows us that God has made the evidence of himself clearly seen to all of us in his creation.

Egalitarian In Essence, Purpose, & Relation To God... But Not Function

Recently there has been a movement within evangelicalism that has caused the traditional forms of church government to be reexamined. This specific new movement, known as egalitarianism, has questioned the traditionalist view that only men are able to hold positions of leadership within the church. Egalitarians see the hierarchal distinctions established in the world today as a result of the fall and not how God originally intended it to be. Since men and women were both equally created in the image of God, and both equally given the command to have dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26-27), it appears that God’s original intentions were to establish a unity in equality and roles. In Christ, the fall’s plague upon man in creating this patriartical society was finally abolished. There is no longer male and female in Christ (Gal. 3:28). For the egalitarian, this represents the social distinctions that are being renewed. From this basis, the possibility of a woman entering authoritative fields of leadership within the church is no longer something that should be shunned due to the work that Christ did to abolish such distinctions.This has lead to a new wave of exegesis of the applicable texts. With this growing influence it is important to understand what the bible is teaching on the subject systematically. The egalitarian movement jeopardizes both the inerrancy and the clarity of scripture because the clearest readings of the text are being challenged and because some egalitarians (not all), have even stated that Paul must have been wrong on the subject, or else he didn’t write it at all. Such a doctrinal position will have great consequences upon the Church, especially in a culture where the relativity of truth is so pervasive.

Key Biblical Evidence

1 Timothy 3:1-13 gives the biblical basis for the specific requirements of both the position of elders and of deacons. Paul gives a list of strong requirements for someone who is aspiring for the noble position of being an elder. He characterizes these requirements by saying that the elder must be above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2). Elders must be married to one wife, and must be able to manage their households well (1 Tim. 3:2, 4). Paul notices that the way in which the aspiring Elder controls his household will have a close tie with how they will control the church (1 Tim. 3:5). Elders are given the highest position within the local church and therefore must not be recent converts (1 Tim. 3:6). These requirements essentially make up the same characteristics for deacons, except Elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2).

1 Cor. 11:3-16 provides a cultural example within its historical context for a greater universal principle that God has established for his creation. In order to demonstrate the cultural need for head coverings within the Corinthian church, Paul tells them that the head of the wife is her husband just as the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3). From this absolute statement Paul demonstrates the woman’s need for head coverings. Notice that head coverings themselves are simply a cultural idea, since Paul allows for its dissuse upon contention (1 Cor. 13-16). However, the universal principle of man's headship in verse three still stands. He furthers ties the idea together by appealing to creation. He notes that women were made from man and for man (1 Cor. 11:8-9). God made Eve from pre-existing Adam and created her to be a helper fit for him (Gen. 2:18). By appealing to creation and saying that the head of the wife is her husband, Paul was not demonstrating that women are inferior to men, because that would mean that Christ is inferior to God by fulfilling the analogy, rather it is a reference to authority. Therefore the need for women to wear head coverings was in order to demonstrate the husband’s authority over his wife. In doing so, Paul was also demonstrating that the authority established on earth mirrors that of the Trinitarian authority of God the Father. The three persons of the Trinity are all equally God and one in essence, yet they have different roles. In this same way men and women are both equally created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), yet they have different roles. The difference in roles does not designate inferiority either between man and woman, or in the Godhead. Some would seek to argue from here that the word "head" (kefale), means source, and would therefore remove any concept of male headship in the sense of roles. However, if the analogy in verse three is to demonstrate man being the source of woman, then God would be the source of Christ. This would compromise the eternality of the logos, and would have grave implications on the nature of God.

1 Cor. 14: 33-40 teaches another cultural issue that demonstrates the male authority in the church. Paul says that women must keep silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:34). He tells us that if they desire to learn, they must ask their husbands at home, because it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:35). After Paul makes all these statements about women in the church he provides the ultimate basis for his teachings. He says that the things that he is writing are a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul was not wrong on the subject. God’s very commands are recorded here by Paul. The point was not to usurp women of their rights or equality with men, Rather Paul was demonstrating that authority within the church belongs to men. All forms of speech are not being prohibited as women are allowed to pray and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:5). In context, Paul is discussing disruptive behavior within church that ought to be done away with as much as possible. He first mentions those that speak in tongues. Those that speak in tongues are to do so in order and with an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27). Likewise Paul says that those who prophesy are to do so one by one (1 Cor. 14:31). Clearly Paul is looking for order within the church and is attempting to avoid disruptions. After establishing this basis Paul adds that women are not to speak in church, but should ask their husbands at home if they desire to learn something. The type of speaking associated here, most likely asking questions with the intent to teach or demonstrate authority on the issue, would be considered disruptive along with the other things mentioned. This is not because women are undeserving or of less value, but because God has ordained man and woman to function differently.

The Complimentarian Case

In Paul’s first pastoral letter to Timothy he said that he did not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Being that teaching is specifically mentioned as something that women should not do in the church, it follows that since an elder must be able to teach in order to be qualified (1 Tim. 3:2), women are not permitted to be elders. Another point given within the qualifications for elders is that they must be the husband of one wife, which implies more then just the singularity of spouses. It specifically refers to them as husbands. This point is not mere semantics, as the qualifications for widows to be enrolled requires that they have been the wife of one husband (1 Tim. 5:9). Just as widows are clearly women, and therefore once wives, so also elders are men and are therefore husbands. Paul could have easily have said that elders must have one spouse, but yet he uses a masculine reference here in the same way the widow requires a feminine reference. Most egalitarians, though, like to point out Galatians 3:28 as demonstrating the social barriers that Christ has done away with, however the major point that Paul is trying to demonstrate to the church at Galatia is that there is no more difference in how we relate to God. We all have access to Christ. This includes the once exclusive nature of salvation as pertaining to the Jews. Through Christ gentiles now have access to salvation (Acts 15:8-9). The distinction that is being abolished is in how we relate to God, not to each other. Just as the functional differences between man and woman have been demonstrated through Paul’s command that women are not to teach, so also are the social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles still maintained even though they received the same Spirit and have the same access to the God. At the Jerusalem council Paul doesn’t require the Gentiles to partake of Jewish rituals and live as Jews, instead he merely gives them a short list of things to abstain from out of respect for the Jewish culture (Acts 15:19-21). Although we are all unified in salvation and redemption, there are still social distinctions. This however, does not mean that women cannot hold any position in leadership. Just as the body functions as a whole with different distinct parts, so also does the church (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Since the qualifications of the position of deacons do not require that one have the ability to teach, it seems that women are not excluded from this role. Being that the deacon position mainly entails service and maintaining the physical aspects of the church, it seems all the more possible that women could fulfill such a role. When Paul was concluding his letter to the Romans he mentioned Phoebe who was a servant of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). Since the Greek word for deacon and servant are the same (διάκονος), this verse could demonstrate that Phoebe was in fact a deaconess at her church. Although this could be speculation, it is entirely possible given that women are only excluded from teaching and positions of authority over man, not from service (1 Tim. 2:12).

Final Thoughts

Ultimately God's word is absolute truth. His requirements for the church are not arbitrary and they are not to be altered based on culture or context. If we made the Bible relative in one area of teaching, would that stop us from continuing to make scripture relative in other areas as well? We as Christians cannot redefine scripture simply because our culture has changed and become more egalitarian with women’s suffrage and women’s rights. Scriptural principles are universal and are to be held as such.

For Further Reading

"Women & Men In Ministry" by Robert Saucy & Judith Tenelshof
"Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth" by Wayne Grudem
"Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood" by John Piper & Wayne Grudem

God's Sovereign Election

What is Election?

The Doctrine of Election is the teaching that before God created the world he predestined those whom he would call to salvation: demonstrating both his loving-kindness and sovereignty over creation.
The Doctrine of Election is established upon God’s Initiative. Long before he created the heavens and the earth he chose whom he would save (Eph. 1:4, 2 Tim 1:9). It is simply his work, and not our efforts (Ro. 9:16, Eph 2:8-9).
The Doctrine of Election demonstrates man’s utter inability to please God on his own (Ro. 3:10, 23), it also further demonstrates man’s depravity in that he cannot choose God unless God has drawn him (John 6:44).
The Doctrine of Election is based upon God’s complete foreknowledge. Since God knows all of his actions before he does them (Acts 15:18), he planned out the course of history and chose whom he would justify and glorify (Ro. 8:28-29). Election therefore means that all whom God has chosen will receive salvation and sanctification by the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13).
The Doctrine of Election is also the election of Christ as the Savior of the world. Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world to be our atonement, and reconciliation to God (Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:18-21). He was the one chosen by God for the specific task of redeeming us from the fall (Gen 3:15, Is. 42:1, 1 Pet. 2:6).
NOT: The Doctrine of Election is not about working for salvation. It is God’s redemptive work in man’s heart that justifies him from his former state of ungodliness (Ro. 4:4-5). Otherwise grace could not be called grace since the contingent factor would be man’s efforts and not God’s gift (Ro. 11:6).

A Brief History of the Debate

The beginning of the debate on election started in the late Patristic Period with Augustine and Pelagius, but it did not become as much of a mainstream debate until the Reformation. John Calvin, who was a second-generation reformer that lived during the sixteenth century, attempted to systematize biblical data, which for him mostly concerned soteriology (EDT, “Calvinism” pg. 201). Calvin’s main point of emphasis was on the sovereignty of God. Salvation was therefore a providence of God and a part of his eternal plan for fallen man. God’s specific design for salvation was necessary because of man’s complete corruption. Not only is man unable to please God, but he is also incapable of seeking or accepting God, because he does not recognize his need for God. God therefore chose to elect by his own pleasure, since he didn’t need to save any. It is God who calls those whom he wills to save and seals them for the day of the Lord. This attempt by Calvin to systematically approach the Bible was a great theological advancement for the Church. By upholding scripture as God’s inerrant Word, Calvin was able to delve deeper into the mystery of salvation and ask the question what does the Bible teach as a whole. It was very important for Calvin to uphold the Bible as authoritative in what it taught on the subject.

Jacob Arminius, who also lived during the sixteenth century, studied theology at the University of Leiden where his professors taught against Calvinism (EDT, 98). After his schooling, Arminius eventually became a pastor in Amsterdam and openly taught against Calvin’s teachings. Where he found the greatest area of disagreement with Calvinism was not on whether or not there is an elect, but on how someone is a part of the elect. Arminius went against Calvin and taught that man comes to knowledge of Christ by prevenient grace, rather than God’s effectual calling. This grace is available for all and is part of God’s drawing of all men to himself. The elect therefore are not chosen unconditionally, but upon God’s foreknowledge of their faith response. Although I don’t fully agree with the Arminian emphasis on man’s free will, I don’t think that this doctrinal position has ruined Christianity. The issue of election tries to solve the tension between human responsibility and God’s sovereignty, with Arminianism putting the emphasis upon man’s responsibility. In many ways Arminianism brings about how one ought to act in application of a doctrine. Since Arminians believe that man has the ability to choose God, they are very outgoing in presenting the gospel. This is not to say that Calvinists are not, but only to say that Arminians are not wrong in their application of wanting to preach the gospel to all people. Since that is the essence of the great commission for all believers.

Key Passages For Understanding This Doctrine

Eph. 1:1-11 teaches plainly the nature of election. Paul begins his letter to the Ephesians by stating several key truths about God’s sovereign plan of salvation. First, he mentions that his apostleship is strictly due to the will of God (Eph. 1:1). God’s sovereign will for Paul to be an apostle was indicated by the nature of his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-18). After Paul received the vision of Christ and became blind, Ananias also received a vision in which Christ told him to go to Paul because he was a chosen vessel by God (Acts 9:15). Clearly, Paul’s life and mission were based upon the will of God. The next thing Paul states about election is that we were predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Not only were we elected before we were created, but we were elect in Christ. In Christ we were also adopted, but not because we are anything special, but because of his will (Eph. 1:5). This adoption is our inheritance and guarantee of salvation (Eph 1:14). It is for this reason that we can be so certain as to call it a guarantee. Our predestination as adopted sons of God is based solely upon his purposes, which he works all things according to (Eph. 1:11).

John 6:22-65 reveals how someone comes to the knowledge of Christ as Savior. A discussion arises about God’s providential manna for the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Jesus equates himself to manna, explaining that in the same way he has come because of the providence of God, although in a greater way then the temporal provision of manna. Those who ate manna eventually died (John 6:49), but Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life, indicating that God’s provision of him is one of eternal significance (John 6:35,50-51). Although Jesus tells them that whoever believes in him would receive the ultimate demonstration of God’s providence, he then begins to tell them why not everyone will come to him. The first thing Christ mentions is that all whom the Father gives to him will come to him (John 6:37). This tells us that not everyone will partake of the bread of life, but only those who are given by the Father. These who are given to Christ will also not be lost, but will be raised on the last day (John 6:40). Christ then tells the multitude, that only those whom the Father draws will come to him and be raised on the last day (John 6:44). So the ones that are raised on the last day are given by the Father to Christ, and were also drawn by the Father. These statements teach us that the reason why not all come to Christ is because not all are drawn by the Father. If all were drawn then all would be raised on the last day, since that is the result of the drawing of God (John 6:44). Therefore not all are drawn. Jesus told the disciples after this that it is the Spirit who gives life, and that is why he told the crowd that no one can come unless the Father draws him (John 4:63-65). Aside from the Father’s drawing, and the Spirit’s working we cannot partake of the bread of life.

Gen. 25:19-28 is an example of God’s unconditioned election. Isaac’s wife Rebecca was barren, but Isaac prayed that she would conceive and God answered his prayer. When Rebecca conceived, the Lord told her that she would have twins. The Lord also told her that there were two nations within her womb, and that the older would serve the younger (Gen 25:21-23). This declaration by the Lord was part of his sovereign plan for the nation of Israel. Paul tells us that although neither of them were born, and had not done either good or bad, God chose Jacob in order to continue his purpose of election (Ro. 9:11). This election of Jacob was the very election of the nation of Israel as God’s covenant people. God chose Israel because he loved her (Deut. 7:6-8), and not because she was a great nation. In God’s sovereignty he chose to bless the lineage of Israel and not the Edomites, but did so before they even existed (Mal. 1:2-3).

Rom. 9:14-24 explains how much authority God has as the Creator of all things. Election is not unjust because God has the right to show mercy on those whom he wills to show it to (Ro. 9:15, 16). Likewise God has the right as Creator to harden the hearts of whom he chooses as demonstrated through the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Exodus event. God did this to show his glory so that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Ro. 9:17-18). Paul further explains this idea through the analogy of the potter and the clay. Being that we are molded by God for whatever use and purpose he has for us, we have no right to question the potter’s work (Ro 9:20-21). God uses the vessels of wrath to demonstrate his glory to the vessels of mercy, just like he did with Pharaoh (Ro. 9:22-23).

I Cor. 1:18-31 affirms election by showing its effects upon man. Neither the Jews nor the Greeks understand the concept of Christ’s atonement for sins. To the Jews it is a stumbling block because they were expecting the Messiah to be a political savior who would physically reign as king over Israel, and to the Greeks it is foolishness to believe that a dead man has saved the world from their sins. However, God chose that which was foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). It is to the called only, that Christ is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Therefore, because God did not choose to work though wisdom, we could not believe this on our own because it is foolish. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians he told them that he knew God had called them because his message came in power to them (1 Thess. 1:4-5). Since the gospel is foolishness otherwise, only those who are called to respond in saving knowledge to the gospel would do so.

In Summary: The biblical evidence teaches God’s complete sovereignty over Creation, his mode in election as being based upon his will, and his drawing of sinners as resulting only in salvation.

Major Questions & Concerns

Question 1) What is the nature of election? This doctrinal dispute is on the basis of how God elects. Is it unconditional? Or is it conditioned upon man’s faith response to the gospel?

In response to this question, I affirm that election is an unconditional process by which only the will of God is a factor (2 Tim 1:9). Just as God chose Jacob without any earthly factors being evaluated, so God also chose the elect (Ro. 9:11). It is only because of his mercy that we are caused to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3). Since we are indeed saved in this unconditional fashion our salvation is accredited to God’s grace, and not our own doing (Eph. 2:8-9). This idea is further tied together when Paul says that we are God’s workmanship, which he prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10). These points are in contention with those who would say that God saves us based on a conditional basis, like by our works or even by our faith response. We truly cannot assert that any aspect of our salvation can be attributed to us. This includes our faith. We are told that Jesus is both the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2). So if faith is the means to salvation (Ro. 10:9-10), and our salvation is due to God’s will in election, then our faith is also accredited to God.

Question 2) What is the nature of man’s freedom? Does he have libertarian freedom in the sense that he has free agency to do and chose as he pleases? Or is he restricted in some way due to his fallen nature?

In response to this question, I affirm that man does not have the freedom to choose good over evil. Man is dead in his trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5), and is by nature an object of wrath (Eph. 2:3). We are characterized as being enslaved by sin (Titus 3:3, Ro. 6:17, 20). Our freedom is therefore, as John Wesley said, to do only what is evil (Schreiner, pg. 233). As descendants of Adam we inherit sin (Ro. 5:12). Therefore we cannot do other than what we were determined by our nature to do, which is sin. Even those good deeds that we may do keep us in our sinful state. Jesus said that even people who do good things for their children are evil (Luke 11:13), so how then can those acts be good, since the person is still evil? Paul said himself that no good thing dwells within him, and that he has no ability to do the right thing (Ro. 7:18). Some people believe however that we are free moral agents who can indeed choose between right and wrong. This is very contrary to scripture, which tells us time after time that we are all sinners. Paul tells us plainly that we were free from righteousness when we were servants to sin (Ro. 6:19, Ro. 7:14). Truly by man’s disobedience we were made slaves to sin, but through Christ’s obedience we have complete freedom (Ro. 5:19).

Question 3) What is the nature of God’s foreknowledge? Does he have foreknowledge of persons in election? Or foreknowledge of actions?

In response to this question, I affirm that his foreknowledge is of persons, and not of the person’s faith. When scripture refers to God knowing someone it involves deep intimacy and a saving relationship (Grudem, 676). If we love God, we are known by God (1 Cor. 8:3). This means that God knows us in a saving way. The opposite is also the case for those who do not know God. What does Jesus tell the workers of iniquity who say to him that they prophesied in his name and cast out devils in his name? He tells them that they do not have a saving relationship with him by saying that he never knew them (Matt. 7:21-23). It is those whom God knew before creation that were predestined for salvation (Ro. 8:29). This means that God’s foreknowledge is of the person. Some would argue however, that the foreknowledge of God allows for people to have the free will to choose God. However, if we acknowledge that there is an elect that is saved by God’s foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2), and accept that the number of the elect is already known to God, being that their names were written in the lambs book of life before the creation (Rev 13:8), then our destinies are already determined.

Question 4) Is God’s grace and calling effectual? Or is it prevenient? This dispute deals with whether or not God’s grace can be resisted or is it always effectual, because God never fails?

In response to this question, I affirm that God's effectual calling cannot be resisted. By effectual I am referring to something that demands a response (Grudem, 692). Through the drawing of the Father (John 6:44), we are awakened to the beauty of the Gospel and become able to receive it. Since the calls of God are irrevocable (Ro. 11:29), his call towards the elect is also irrevocable. This idea is seen clearly through Jesus’ words when he said that not only would all whom the Father gives to him come (indicating effectual grace), but that those who come would also never be driven out (John 6:37). Therefore God’s effectual calling cannot be resisted. This is not because God over powers us, but because we are drawn by him (John 6:44), we are able to choose and will choose. When Paul went to Philippi and preached the Gospel there, Lydia was able to receive it because the Lord had opened her heart to believing in it (Acts 16:14). This idea is analogous with someone who decided he was going to ride his bike to work one morning. Unless the conditions were altered, he would actualize his desire to ride his bike to work. But if it were raining outside, he would choose not to ride his bike but instead he would choose to drive his car. This person was not forced to drive his car, but he chose to because of the added external factor. In this same way we are not forced into faith, but freely choose salvation because of the added factor of God’s drawing and the Spirit’s regeneration of our lives. Because God’s drawing results in salvation we know that not all are drawn by the Father, but some would disagree on this point. The passage that is usually brought up in dispute of this point says that when Jesus is lifted up, he will draw all men to himself (John 12:32). This statement came after a group of Greeks came and asked Phillip if they could see Jesus (John 12:20-21). Jesus’ following response that he would draw all men was not a reference to drawing all men without exception, but rather all men without distinction (Schreiner, 242). The point Jesus was making was that he would not just draw Jews to himself, but Greeks as well as other Gentile people groups. This is ultimately because the effectual calling of God is unconditional and brings men into the fellowship of Christ (1 Cor. 1:9).

Question 5) Is there any point to evangelism within the Calvinistic framework?

In response to this question, I affirm that there is. It is a common misconception amongst non-Calvinists to think that evangelism would be pointless within Calvinism because if people are elect they will be saved regardless of whether someone evangelizes or not. However, I think this notion is extremely faulty. The first reason why this is faulty comes from Christ’s own words in the call of the Great Commission to preach to all nations (Mt. 28:19-20). As followers of Christ we have all been called to evangelize. Paul did not allow his knowledge of the elect to hinder him from preaching of the risen Lord. Instead Paul went on three different missionary journeys and even spent many days in prison for what he was preaching. Paul said that he is willing to endure anything for the sake of the elect so that they can obtain salvation just like he did (2 Tim. 2:10). It was because Paul knew that there was an elect that he wanted all the more to evangelize. The fact of election meant people were going to come to Christ. After Paul left Athens during his second missionary journey he went to Corinth and reasoned with the Jews and the Greeks that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:4-5). After they opposed his sayings, God told Paul in a vision that he should stay in Corinth because he had many of his people there, so Paul stayed for a year and six months in order to preach the Gospel (Acts 18:10-11). Because there was an elect Paul wanted to preach, and even endure many hardships for those who would soon come to Christ. Lastly, we simply will never know who is the elect and who is not. Therefore we must be ready to give a response to all people for the hope that we have (1 Pet. 3:15), even if they never respond in saving faith. This is seen clearly in the life of Isaiah who was called to preach to people who would never listen to him (Is. 6:9-10), but this did not cause him to discontinue his message. Evangelism is of utmost importance as Paul noted that no one can come to Christ unless they’ve heard, and they will never hear unless the word is preached (Ro. 10: 14).

Why it Matters: Implications & Daily-life Relevance of the Doctrine

Because of election I do not have to spend eternity in separation from God like I deserve to do. If God decided not to save according to election then all humans would, in fact, be damned to Hell. If God did not choose us then no one would come to a saving knowledge of Christ, because man cannot accept God apart from his drawing. Therefore we as believers are completely indebted to election because without it we could never have been justified nor guaranteed for glorification. This should have huge implications for our lives as believers. Being that we are saved by grace through faith by God’s ultimate providence of election, this ought to cause us to live whole-heartedly to him.
Because of election I can be certain of my salvation. If God’s grace can be resisted then we really have no security as believers. Even if we accept God’s free gift of salvation, we could potentially fall away from salvation because his grace is not effectual or irresistible to make us persevere in the faith and keep us from personal apostasy.
Because of election God receives the glory in all things, even in my faith response. If I can boast in anything about salvation, it is in the Lord, and not of myself.
Because of election I desire to better serve God. Because I have been called with a holy calling, I want to be conformed more and more to the image of his son (1 Peter 1:15-16, Ro. 8:28).

How it Fits: Connections of the Doctrine to other Doctrines

The Doctrine of Election is grounded in the total depravity of man. Because of Adam’s transgressions, all men have inherited a sinful nature (Ro. 5:12). The corruption of the fall left man deep in his sin and separated from God. All aspects of creation were affected by this (Ro. 8:22). Not only is our standing before God effected, but our mind is also affected and is hostile to God (Ro. 8:7). Because of this hostility of our minds we cannot submit to God. This is what constitutes our complete inability as depraved creatures. Because we do not honor God as God, we are given up to our own lusts, and passions (Ro. 1:24-28). Our inheritance therefore is death because our efforts and righteousness cannot compete with the holistic nature of God’s righteousness (Is. 64:6, Ro. 6:23). This includes all forms of unrighteousness, because the most unrighteous thing is not acknowledging the truth about God (Ro. 1:18). The wrath of God is indeed what we deserve, but because of the gracious act of election, we can be reconciled back to God. This demonstrates the loving aspect of God’s nature because while we remained as sinners and enemies to God, he chose us in eternity past, and chose to send his Son to die for us (Ro. 5:8-11).
Since we are elected by God for salvation one important aspect of this is the work of the Spirit in our lives. When God chose us for salvation, he also chose to give us the Spirit for spiritual growth. Given that we are completely incapable of choosing God, we are also incapable of understanding God at any level, but because of the Spirit we can know some revealed truths about God through his Word. The work of the Spirit is so vital in our lives because without his work we cannot even say that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). The Spirit’s work in our lives is also seen through the process of sanctification, which was also elected for us when we were elected to be saved (2 Thess. 2:13, Ro. 8:28-29). Therefore, because we have been elected, the Spirit is necessary to keep us preserved in the faith, due to our fallen nature.

Final Thoughts

In light of the Doctrine of Election I am completely humbled by the gracious act of God to desire to save any when none needed to be. It’s hard for me to fully grasp the concept of election, but in light of it I desire to give all the glory to God as Paul did in his doxology in Romans 11. I also genuinely wish to strive to be a better person. I want to set my mind on the things of the Spirit (Ro. 8:5), and treasure his commandments (Proverbs 2:1-5). I want to strive for all of this because apart from election I’d be damned to hell. It is my reasonable service in view of the mercy that God has give to me to respond in a way that is holy and pleasing to him (Ro. 12:1). It is also my prayer to strive to be holy, because he called me with a holy calling (1 Pet. 1:16). I am completely indebted to Christ and I am so much more thankful for salvation and newness of life in view of the doctrine of election then I was before. It is truly both a humbling and frustrating thing to realize the truth of election. However, I have realized that my frustrations in the past on the doctrine of election have only been based on my emotions. Election is really best understood when I realize that I am much more sinful and evil apart from Christ then I realize, and that God is infinitely more holy then I can comprehend. All I can do in light of this incredible mystery of God is praise him and thank him for doing everything for my salvation.

Sources Used:
Elwell, Walter A. "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Ed." Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Pub. 2001.

Grudem, Wayne. "Systematic Theology." Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994

Schreiner, Thomas R., Bruce Ware. "Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, & Grace." Grand Rapids: Baker

For Further Reading:
"Why I'm Not An Arminian" by Robert Peterson & Michael Williams
"Debating Calvinism" by David Hunt & James White
"The Sovereignity of God" by A. W. Pink