Sermon Applications 2/24/08

Lord willing, these are the applications I will make on Sunday and I will post them on Friday. This week I have expanded my thoughts in a three part series.

Sunday's Text was:

1 John 4:13-15 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

Here are the applications:

A. Come before God in prayer boldly. You have eternal life, God has made you His child. He delights in hearing requests from His children. Pray. Praying does make a difference, not because there is power in what we do but because we come before a prayer hearing God.

James 5:16-18 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. 17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. 18 Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.

God used the prayers of one righteous man, one person redeemed by God. God used these prayers to fulfill His sovereign plan. He had promised in the book of Deut. that when Israel walked away, He would punish them with drought and then He would bring relief. But God carried out this promise and plan using the means of Elijah.

Consider where your prayers can be effective: (1) praying for the salvation of a loved one; (2) praying for spiritual growth in your children; (3) praying for the spiritual growth and health of our church; (4) praying for the spread of the gospel to all nations or even all corners of America.

In all these things, God has a sovereign plan He will fill without fail. And yet God appoints and desires that faithful saints like you and I, those who are righteous through faith in Christ should pray. Pray boldly. Strictly speaking: prayer does not make a difference but it is the God to whom we pray who makes the difference.

B. Acknowledge God’s will in your prayers.

1. In your prayers, be careful to ask for God’s will to be done.

2. Acknowledge that God may answer your prayer differently than you see fit.

3. Specifically make God’s glory the most important part of how he answers your request.

4. No matter how godly we might be, our will is not going to be answered: Consider Jesus.
Mark 14:36 36 And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will."

C. Do not use ‘God’s will’ as an excuse for approaching God in confidence.

1. Do not hide your lack of a desire to see God do what is best behind the phrase ‘God’s will’. Do not use it as a cop out. We rob this phrase of the emboldening power that it has: God does what is right all the time. God does not fail to carry out His will. He does what is best. What I am saying is that sometimes we use “if it is God’s will” to sound pious but we do not mean it. We just do not want to be disappointed. This is selfish. The idea of praying to God’s will is suppose to humble us and make us say “God is God and He really knows what is best.”

2. We should be praying that God will change our hearts… ‘please do this Lord, but help me to trust you to work out your perfect will.’ We are to see that God does what is right.

D. Delight yourself in prayer and bold requests. Delight in asking for those things which only God can do.

E. Realize that unanswered prayer is not really unanswered but answered different than we want. Change your desires. Do not see unanswered prayer as God’s failure. It really does take faith in the Son of God to say: “I know there is a God who hears my prayers even when I do not get the answer I want.” But this kind of faith in God is supposed to make us bolder, we go again to the throne saying, “Oh God do this, yet not what I will but what you will.” Consider how Jesus could ask this in all confidence to our prayer hearing God.

Is 'if it's God's will' a cop out? Part 3

It is tough to explain to a non-Christian: “well I know there is a God because He answers prayer; but when He doesn’t well that’s because it is not God’s will.” The non-Christian will say there is no proof that God answers prayer. They will balk: ‘when you get what you want it is an answer to prayer, when you don’t get it you don’t disbelieve in God you just say ‘this wasn’t his will’. Who is this God with a will? You have made him up to explain the random chance of life when things go your way “prayer, prayer” you exclaim; when they don’t “God’s will, God’s will”’.

Answered prayer is not "emprical proof" that can be evaluated from a neutral stand point. You either answer the question from the position of being a believer or from the position of being an unbeliever. NEITHER POSITION IS OBJECTIVE. No one simply looks at it and says 'God did not answer these six prayers the way I asked, here are three cases were he did perhaps answer, but I have more unanswered prayer than answered. Therefore God does not exist."

You either start with the gospel and are able to explain both answers and non-answers to prayer or you start with a rejection of God. If you start with a rejection of God, no amount of "evidence" will ever convince you. Indeed, you will supress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff). You will take every instance where you see clearly the power and might of God, either in answered prayer, unanswered prayer, creation and God's providence and you will explain it away: that was fate or luck (for the positive) or God was silent, He was not there, He didn't answer (for the negative).

The problem is you have decided to make yourself judge and jury of God. You have stepped up to the Almighty and said "Let me present my case". "Oh God, if you are real, which you probably aren't, you had better meet my demands, jump through my hoops... DO WHAT I TELL YOU AND THEN I WILL BELIEVE IN YOU."

What kind of god is that? God is never at our beck and call. Indeed, we would do well to read Job 38-42. Job is faulted for failing to justify God, for failing to say "God has done what is right." When the Christ says "if it is God's will", He is really justifying God. God is more powerful than any of us, you cannot fathom or compete with His wisdom. He did not consult you when He created, why should He consult with you and be made captive to your demands.

The non-Christian reasons about prayer from their non-Christian standard. Of course, they will think "If it is God's will" is a weak plea of the feeble minded. Such arrogance. You would not demand a lion to do what you tell it. You do not command the ocean to obey you. Who has ever stood before the moon and said, "Obey me."? Of course, not, these are not gods by any means, but the point is that we have no power over such things. How dare we stand and claim to have power over God: 'do this and I will believe."

The Christian starts by acknowledging the Lordship of Christ proclaimed by His resurrection. We acknowledge that God has set a day when He will judge all things (Acts 17:30-31). But he has been patient and merciful. Yet history will run its course, indeed up to this point it has moved forward as God saw fit. He appointed the nations and their boundaries, he ordained the rise and the fall of nations (Acts 17:24-26). He has declared the end from the beginning and moves history to the counself of His will and the purpose of His plan (Isa. 40-55).

The Christian is not weak in the sense of being 'out of their mind'. In fact, the Christian recognizes true power and bows before true greatness. If you were to stand before a six foot five man with arms the size of your waste, you would not say "I can take him," indeed you would make peace. You would submit. How much more should we respond to one whose being is above our own?

It is not a 'cop-out' to pray 'If it is God's will,' indeed it recognizing our proper place. It is being whom we are created to be. In the end, this attitude alone will align us into the proper order of things. This attitude alone, along with the whole Christian position, will explain the mysteries of the world... why some days things 'go my way' and other days they do not. It is this attitude alone that allows us to cope and stand under the realities of a chaotic world.

Indeed, the only thing keeping the atheist and agnostic from collapsing is the sheer power of the will. Sheer determinism. It may last for a time, it may callous one to the realities of pain and suffering, it may give one a sort of stoic quality about life and death... but there is one thing it cannot do: it cannot stop death. One will come to the end of your days, and no matter how bravely you face them you will find you are only deluding yourself, you cannot stop the course of time, you cannot ward off death. Death will not be a friend that goes on the journey and calls us home. Death is a painful reality from which there is no escape.

How much greater is it to know the one who works all things according to the counself of His will, and on day that will includes the defeat of deat and the swallowing of the grave. It is not a cop out to say "if it is God's will" in fact, it is a cop out not to acknowledge the will of God.

Is 'if it's God's will' a cop out? Part 2

So is "if it is God's will" just a cop out? Do we use it to rationalize the unanswered prayer? Does this keep us from believing that "we have the request". Some people will so abuse the passages that speak of faith and prayer that unanswered prayer always comes from a lack of faith. Try explaining that one to Jesus, I doubt he lacked faith:

Mark 14:36 36 And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will."

How should with think of "having a request" if it is only ever "God's will"? Can we really ask for an answer or is it just a pipe dream. 1 John may help us here.

1 John 5:14-15 14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

Specifically on verse 15 the "we know that we have the request," we must still read it in context. This verse is still under the condition that it is ‘according to His will’. But we should not fear the will of God. I know sometimes in my life I use the line “if its your will” as sort of a cop out—then if I don’t get it I have “an out”. Non-Christians accuse us of this all the time as I mentioned.

If it was not for God sending His Son to die and rise again from the dead and if it was not for our faith in the Son of God—the non-Christian would appear to be right. But you an I believe in a God who works all things according to His will. James tells us that we should make all our plans with the caveat ‘if the Lord wills’ (James 4:15). So also we should pray. But we should have a confidence in God: God does what is right. He works all things for the glory of His name. We should pray with such a boldness and confidence that God hears the prayers of His children, he looks upon us favorably and he will act in our best interest to bring the most glory to Himself.

We do not have to pray with a despondence ‘Que Sera Sera ‘whatever will be, will be’. We can pray with a passion and a fervency because we know we have eternal life and we are going into God’s very presence. God always works all things according to the counsel of His will.

Ephesians 1:11 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

I submit my will before God and bring the requests—that is boldness. It is not charging God: “do what I command,” instead it is like a child coming before parent. Nothing upset me more when Lily demands things of me, when she acts like a parent instead of child. Usually it happens at breakfast, “Daddy give me this, Daddy give me that.” Maybe I am just tired, but she demands rather than entreats. She has had to relearn “will you please…” all over at the breakfast table.

There is a boldness that comes, a confidence, know that we can go before God an ask: “Abba, Father, please hear me, consider this request I bring…” God delights in such prayers, just as a Father delight in a child asking for help.

Luke 11:9-13 9 "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 "For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11 "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 "Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

My delight as a child of God should be to entreat God. But I must always have the perspective that God answers prayer according to His will. True Godliness combines a zeal and boldness for prayer and in the same moment a readiness to submit to God's good pleasing and perfect will. True godliness does not pray "Que Sera, Sera", but approaches God with confidence. It is not despondant when God does not answer the way we want. "It is not God's will" is not a cop out but the heart of the worshipper: My God has done what is right, AMEN.

Is 'if it's God's will' a cop out? Part 1

I've been think about this since the sermon I prepared on Sunday: Do I use the phrase "If it is God's will" in my prayers as a cop out?

What do I mean? Well first, I am not denying that God has a will that extends to all things. Here, here and here.

Second, I am not denying that we are commanded to pray that way. In fact, we are only ever supposed to talk about the future with the provision: "if the Lord wills."

James 4:13-15 13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit." 14 Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. 15 Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that."

1 John 5:14-15 14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

Mark 14:36 And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Romans 1:10 always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.

1 Corinthians 4:19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power.

My question for myself has been, do I use the phrase, "If the Lord wills" or "Dear God, only if it is your will" because I really desire the Lord's will or because I want to have a reason for not feeling downhearted when I don't get what I want?

Sometimes, we can feel pretty self-confident. And so we think that the Lord is obligated to answer our requests. Read some of the following verses:

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

We know this is not our experience. We do not get "whatever" we ask for. In fact, we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture. So we know God grants it if it is according to his will, 1 John 5:14-15. We also know that God does not grant our request when we ask with bad motives.

James 4:2-3 2 You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

There is another category though that I wish to deal with: Do I keep from boldly asking God for something in prayer because I am afraid the answer will be "no" and so I use the cop out: "well it wasn't the Lord's will." Am I denying that basic fact that the prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective (James 5:16-18)?

Here is my conclusion on the matter. Yes, sometimes we do use "if it is God's will" as a cop out. It comes from a lack of faith. It is a gospel issue. It is in these moments that I really do not believe God's answer is the best answer. I do not believe that God's will is really better than my own will. It is possible to say the right words, "If it is God's will" but say them for the wrong reason: my own selfishnesss and desire not to be disappointed.

It is disappointing when you pray for healing and it doesn't come. It is disappointing when we pray for salvation of someone and they die before believing. It is horrendous. But am I will to submit my heart to God and say: "The Lord does what it right"?

Job 42:1-3 Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said, 2 "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 3 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."

We should be saying "if the Lord wills" or "it wasn't God's will". But we should say it not out of despondancy and disappointment, which is all to easy when we focus on our answer. We should be saying it with worship. We should be bold in prayer precisely because God works all things for according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). We should be fervent. We should ask for the salvation of lost souls, not generically but specifically. We should pray for specific requests but with a firm confidence. God does what is best. God does His own will. God acts in such a way to bring glory to His name. There is nothing greater than can be done in all creation, indeed nothing other will come to pass.

In this respect, it is good that I don't get what I want. I should not want to get what I want, unless I ultimately want the glory of God. My chief end is to worship God and enjoy Him for ever. When I come before the Father like a son who wants to see the Father exalted, then I have a basis for asking him my requests. I know what He has done for me in Christ. I know that in my redemption He has brought glory to His name. My prayer should be confident: "If it is your will" not sheepish "oh if it is your will."

It is a labor of submission and my heart doesn't like to submit, but thanks be to God, He has given me His Spirit and put a new heart in there. We still wrestle with the old man, but don't let "if it is your will" be a sheepish cop-out. The phrase "if it is God's will" is not a cop out. It is the Biblical attitude. My plea, and one my own heart must hear, is: do not use the Biblical phrase in an unbiblical manner. Do not use it to disguish your own guilt, fear and unbelief. It is no cover for impiety. If I truly believe the Bible "if it is God's will" emboldens and enlivens my prayer life. I should find no greater joy than seeking the glory of God: Do your will Oh God. It should cause be to bring requests before God with specificity and clarity.

Stephen Smalley says "Prayer is not a battle, but a response; its power consists in lifting our wills to God, not in trying to bring his will down to us." (1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary, p.295).

STAR TREK XI RELEASE DATE CHANGE

I just saw this post: the Star Trek date has been moved. I'm a couple days behind (see this post) but it wasn't J.J. Abrams' idea. Apparently the Star Trek XI release date is moved back to 2009. Here is the interview with J.J. Abrams.

Dailies J.J. Abrams

The date was supposed to be Christmas, I was looking forward to trying to get to a first showing maybe with my family since we get together at Christmas. Now we have to wait until May 8, 2009.

Here is another article along with a CNN Article.
Now I have to change my countdown clock. I think one of two things will happen: this will be a good move and it will make Star Trek a real blockbuster and compete with other summer movies. Hopefully it will draw in a lot of non-fans and make a lot of money so that other Star Treks get made.

OR... Star Trek will tank because of other blockbusters being realized. I'm hoping for the former and I think given J.J. Abrams is at the helm along with the well known writers who worked of Transformers and such, it will do well. It might draw in a whole new group of Sci-Fi fans who have in the past snubbed Star Trek as not "Sci-Fi' enough. We shall see.

I wish it was coming sooner rather than later. But if it is quality it is worth the wait.

Here is what Kirk would say to the change:

A few others seemed bothered:

Judgment, Fear and the Christian

A lot of times Christians today will question on the benefit of speaking of the coming judgment. They caricature it as making God mean and nasty. It becomes a sort of Christian "hate speach" to say that God has a judgment. Working through 1 John, I've found these words by Martyn Lloyd-Jones to be both timely and helpful:

The first quote comes from his sermon on 1 John 4:16b-17.

1 John 4:16-17 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.

Lloyd-Jones says the following:

"What John would have us see is that if we want to think of that Day of Judgment without fear, if we want to be able to face it with boldness now, and if we want to stand with boldness and not be ashamed at that great morning, we must give added diligence to loving the brethren. For if I dwell in love, then I know before I face Him on His judgment throne that I may look at Him with boldness at the Day of Judgment, because 'as he is, so are we in this world.' If Iknow that I have His nature in me here and now, I shall be able to face Him with boldness when I stand before Him. You see how it works: every action in my life while here on earth is important. John has already been teaching this doctrine in the second chapter of this epistle. He reitererates exactly the same thing when he says, 'And now, little children abide in him; that when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.'" (Life in Christ, 535).

Keep in mind, in the context, he is speaking to believers who have "in a sense...already passed through judgment" and "Christians will be judged according to the gospel they claim to believe." (534).

Lloyd-Jones' next sermon is on 1 John 4:18.

1 John 4:18 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

He states,

"the natural man--all of us by nature--should fear the Day of Judgment. Or let me put it like this: I say that every one of us should have known at some time or another a fear of that day. I deduce this because 'there is no fear in love,' and 'perfect love casteth out fear'; but until perfect love comes, there is fear. Indeed, it should be there, and I say should because I am ready to accept the face that all do not fear. There are many people who say that they do not fear the Day of Judgment and that they never feared it. They regard it as just a relic of primitive superstitiion, an aspect of biblical teaching which we ought to have shed long ago, something that is utterly inconsistent with the idea of God as a God of love. Indeed, there is a good deal of ridicule and sarcasm with regard to this Day of Judgment. There are people who are not afraid of it because they deliberately and willfully reject it with their minds and refuse to pay attention to it." (Life in Christ, 539).

"Every intelligent man or woman knows something about this fear of the Day of Judgment. What I am speaking of, in other words, is the fear of death, what Shakespeare called our 'exit.' Shakespeare knew a great deal about this fear of God and of judgment, fear of eternity, fear of the uncertainty of it all.

I suggest that this is all quite right, and that there is nothing so superficial as the popular psychologist who tries to get rid of that, to make us like the boy whistling in the dark to persaude himself that he is afraid of nothing although he is really terrified. That is the foolish attempt of many psychologists to get rid of this fundamental thing that is so deep in the whole of human nature and which is based upon sheer intelligence. The fact is that the very thought of eternity itself out to give one pause for thought and to fill one with a sense of alarm and fear, and even of terror itself, because putting it at its very lowest, we can say that we really do not know what is coming, and men cannot prove or demonstrate scientifically that death is the end. What if it is not? Can I prove that it is? I say that is an alarming thought; there is something terrifying about the thought of that unknown 'bourn,' that unknown eternity; and I suggest that nay intelligent person must of necessity know something of this fear of the Day of Judgment."(Life in Christ, 540-1)

So the natural man should have fear of the Day of Judgment, and the Christian should be free from fear. How then, lastly, does the Christian become free? There are two main answers to this. The first is that Christians realise (sic) the love of God that comes to them in Jesus Christ, and the work of Christ for them. John has been elaborating on that from verse 9 in this particular chapter. To quote it once more: 'In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.'

Let me put this practically. As I contemplate myself standing before God on the Day of Judgment, I know perfectly well I am a sinner. I have offended God and have broken His law and have forgotten Him. I have not love Him with all my heart and mind and soul and strength. I have been guilty of sins against His people and against myself. I am a sinner. How can I stand there? There is only one way in which I can stand, and that is to know and believe that He sent forth His Son to bear my sins in His own body on the tree. Hiding in Chirst--nothing else can give me peace at that point...I have no other hope as I contemplate the holiness of God and the holiness of heaven. My only hope is that there is a cloak of righteousness woven by the Son of God Himself which will cover me, which will cover the darkness of my sins and my sinful life, so that I shall stand clothed and robed and perfected in my Lord and Saviour [sic]. That is the first thing to realise [sic]--the love of God and what He has done for me. Justification by faith only!

The second thing, that which John has been emphasizing right through this passage, is to realise [sic] that I am a partaker in the divine nature and that God Himself has come to dwell in me, and that therefore I am like God. This is the very argument which we had at the end of the previous verse: 'because as he is, so are we in this world.'...

If we are still fearful, we are not made perfect in love; we must always take those two things together. If I do not always take justification and sanctification together, I shall be misleading myself...Divide justification and sanctification at your peril; they are always together, Christ 'is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption' (1 Cor. 1:30). (Life in Christ, 544-46).

Post 7: Chapter 2-Acts 2:23 and Ephesians 1:11

Introduction

We are continuing through chapter two of Olson’s Getting the Gospel Right. For a complete list of the series see this post.

Acts 2:23

Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 2:23 tou/ton th/ w`risme,nh boulh/ kai. prognw,sei tou/ qeou/ e;kdoton dia. ceiro.j avno,mwn prosph,xantej avnei,late(

On this verse, Olson notes “Peter, while acknowledging the outworking of God’s pre-temporal foreknowledge, placed full responsibility for the crucifixion upon the evil men who did it.” It is certainly true that sinful men are always accountable and responsible for their actions. Men willingly rebel against God. Yet this rebellion is determined by God. If God had not given this to them they would not have crucified Christ.

Luke 22:22 ²² For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined [to. w`risme,non], but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!"

John 19:11 ¹¹ Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."

God determines that the Son of Man should be crucified. And the one who betrays Him is held accountable. God grants it to these people to crucify the Son but this is not God delegating and then relinquishing His sovereignty, indeed he is going as it has been determined. The way and manner by which He goes to the Cross has been set and determined by God, including the activity of those who crucify Him.

Acts 2:23 is clear that there is more than mere prescience of these events going on. It is God’s ‘determined will’ (w`risme,nh boulh/). The single article (th/ w`risme,nh boulh/ kai. prognw,sei tou/ qeou) with impersonal nouns means that the relationship between the two impersonal nouns can be: distinct, overlapping, first the subset of the second, second the subset of the first or identical (quite rare) (Wallace, 286). God’s determining will and his foreknowledge are not separate activities. Olson states, “Peter explicitly included God’s prescience in the implementation of his plan.” However, it is not that mere prescience is included but that these things, including the acts of the men to kill him, have come to pass through the determined will of God. Greek Grammarian Dan Wallace notes that the least attested meaning in a construction like this (article + impersonal noun + kai (and) + impersonal article) is the referential identity, i.e. that ‘predetermined plan’ is defined by foreknowledge (Wallace, 288). He states, “The relationship between the two terms here may be one of distinctness or subsumption of one under the other. In the context of Acts 2 and in light of Luke’s Christological argument “from prophecy and pattern,” the most likely option is that provgnwsiV is grounded in the w`risme,nh boulh, (thus “foreknowledge” is part of the “predetermined plan”), for one of the foci of the chapter is on the divine plan in relation to the Messiah’s death and resurrection. Thus, God’s decrees are not based on him simply foreknowing what human beings will do; rather, humanity’s actions are based on God’s foreknowledge and predetermined plan” (Wallace, 288). There would be no foreknowledge if there was not also a fixed plan in the mind of God.

Similarly we should compare the passage in Acts 4:28

Acts 4:27-28 ²⁷ "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸ to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Acts 4:27-28 ²⁷ sunh,cqhsan ga.r evpV avlhqei,aj evn th/ po,lei tau,th evpi. to.n a[gion pai/da, sou VIhsou/n o]n e;crisaj( ~Hrw,dhj te kai. Po,ntioj Pila/toj su.n e;qnesin kai. laoi/j VIsrah,l( ²⁸ poih/sai o[sa h` cei,r sou kai. h` boulh, ÎsouÐ prow,risen gene,sqaiÅ

Here we read that Herod and Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel do what God’s hand and His will appointed in advance. The verb “proori,zw” means to appoint, determine or fix in advance. The English equivalent is rightly to “predestine”. Furthermore, the Bible often uses the ‘hand’ of God as metaphor for His power and will accomplishes the intention of God. For example in Exodus, we see the hand of God against the Egyptians (3:20; 7:5; 9:3; 16:3; 32:11; et al). God’s hand brings deliverance (Ps. 20:6; 98:1; 109:27; 118:15,16). These men do what God’s hand and God’s purpose predestined to occur.

Olson states, “There is no hint of implication that God forced the will of the Jewish leaders…” No Calvinist says that God forces people’s will. They hold that God predestines and determines all the things that will occur and when man acts according to God’s plan and will, the human being is acting according to his own heart and desires. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith states,

“God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good or evil.” (9.1)

The Westminster Confession of Faith demonstrates a consistent compatibilist view of freedom rather than a libertarian view of freedom. The Calvinist position is the fatalism where man is not responsible. It is not determinism where the will is coerced and forced. Calvinist consistently articulate that God uses secondary causes and the actions of men freely rebelling against God to fulfill His plan so that the Son might die for our sins.

Ironically, Olson tries to claim: “It would be no problem for an omniscient God to orchestrate events by His intensive knowledge of each of the players and circumstances” (p.20). Olson does not explain what “intensive knowledge” is. But is seems that Olson conception is that God’s determining and purpose is based upon knowledge of what each player will do. But the Bible teaches not that God has merely orchestrated things but that He has appointed and determined what will happen—both for the player and the circumstances. As we will see, His will governs all things in creation not merely the accomplishment of redemption.

Ephesians 1:11

Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Ephesians 1:11 VEn w- kai. evklhrw,qhmen proorisqe,ntej kata. pro,qesin tou/ ta. pa,nta evnergou/ntoj kata. th.n boulh.n tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/

This whole section of verses 1-11 focus on the plan and work of the Trinity. God carries out the election of believers in Christ. Before the foundation of the world, he chose us in Christ. He predestined us in love to receive the adoption. But this choice and predestination has been based upon nothing foreseen in us or our potential activity. We are told that this is “according to the purpose of his will” [kata. th.n euvdoki,an tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/](v.5). “This gives the standard by which God’s actions were accomplished” (Hoehner, 198). His will is the determining factor so that it is “to the praise of His glorious grace” (eivj e;painon do,xhj th/j ca,ritoj auvtou/)—indicating the purpose or goal of God’s exercising of His will. Hoehner summarizes the section well:

“He accomplished this through (diav) his Son Jesus Christ to bring us to (eJiV) God himself. This was done according to (katav) to his pleasure freely operating from his own will. Because he has predestined us, he chose us out of all humanity. These actions are not only the basis of every spiritual blessing but also are the spiritual blessing themselves. It is any wonder that God is to be praised.” (Hoehner, 199)

We find out in vv. 7-9, that we have redemption in him (Christ) and the forgiveness of sins. He has lavished this grace on us making known this mystery of his will “according to His purpose”. Again the revealing of His will to us in redemption is according to His plan. Understanding this mystery of the gospel is part and parcel of our salvation. Then Paul states:

Ephesians 1:10 ¹⁰ eivj oivkonomi,an tou/ plhrw,matoj tw/n kairw/n( avnakefalaiw,sasqai ta. pa,nta evn tw/ Cristw/( ta. evpi. toi/j ouvranoi/j kai. ta. evpi. th/j gh/j evn auvtw/Å

Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth

“all things” here refers not just to believers but all things in heaven and on earth. To limit it to believer adds a thought to the text that is not explicitly there. This is further proven by Paul’s use of “all things” elsewhere:

Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him.

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

“All things” does not just refer to people but all things in creation. It has a cosmic scope. It is these “all things” that Christ is the head over:

Ephesians 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,

In fact, we find out that Christ “fills all in all” which echoes the language of 1:10 “to unite all things in him.” We will simple point out that this is not some Platonic notion of incorporation but rather has to do with the glory of God filling all things. “All things” has both a cosmic scope (both heaven and earth) and a temporal scope (for both the ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’). This temporal language in Jewish thought is coextensive with all of human history. So Paul is really talking about everything at any time—and Christ has authority over it.

The article “ta. pa,nta” in verse ten substantizes pantes. In the English we say all things, instead of the literal Greek ‘the all’. This “all” is defined as “things in heaven and on earth”. It could refer to the redeemed but this is unlikely. First, the use in Colosians and Ephesians 1:22 suggest Paul has in view the cosmic scope of God’s redemption.

So when we get to Ephesians 1:11 we read:

Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

Ephesians 1:11 VEn w- kai. evklhrw,qhmen proorisqe,ntej kata. pro,qesin tou/ ta. pa,nta evnergou/ntoj kata. th.n boulh.n tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/

It is possible, as Olson notes, that the article might have a demonstrative force, if it does however it is referring to the “all things” mentioned in verse 10. Olson states “This [the demonstrative] would make it clear that the “all things” of 1:11 has to do with ‘all these things’ of the redemptive plan of God just alluded to, not with all human events” (v.21). However, this is arbitrarily inserted based upon Olson’s presupposition and theology that “all things” can only refer to redemptive activity of God. No. The nearest reference that adds the least to Paul’s thought is the “all things” is the same “all things” in verse 10. It really does mean all things not just soteriological events. It is things in heaven and on earth. As we have noted Paul uses all things to have a cosmic scope: it includes everything in every age.

Commenting on the grammar and construction Harold Hoehner puts it this way:

“In the present context tou/ ta. pa,nta evnergou/ntoj is active and transitive with the accusative of the thing referring to God as he takes an active part in all things. The present tense refers to God’s continual activity toward the purpose that he resolved in eternity past. The “all things” (ta. pa,nta) refers to all of God’s providence and must not be restricted to God’s redemptive plan. This coincides with verse 10 where “all things” are described as “those things in heaven and those things on earth.”” (Hoehner, 229)

In short, while Olson appears to be inductive, in reality, his exegesis adds too much to the text. His previously held view that God cannot ordain and decree all things causes him to posit that “all things” in verse 10 must be limited to believers and that the so-called ‘demonstrative’ must refer to redemption. This gives the appearance of using the grammar and being inductive. However, Olson obscures the grammar and tries to hard to prove that “all things” cannot really mean ‘everything’—even though that is how Paul uses it in parallel contexts.

Boldly Olson asserts, “All uses of this verse as a proof-text for the exhaustive sovereignty of God is crass Scripture twisting” (p. 21). We believe this is flat wrong. We will let the reader judge which exegesis adds the least meaning to the text.

Misc.

The rest of Olson’s chapter falls into the trap of building a theology at word level. As we have argued, this is not how one does theology. This may appear inductive but it really avoids passages and their contexts that may contain the idea but not the word.

Olson claims that 2 Peter 3:9 is a problem for Calvinists but cites no sources. The Calvinist treatments of the text recognize that God has a preceptive will (see for example Piper; Frame, 534-537; Murray). They do not assume that this must be the notion of a ‘decree’ here (there are two different interpretations of this passage by Calvinists—this doesn’t make the verse “a problem”). Perhaps Olson sees this as a problem because he ties this passage to the legitimacy of the offer of the gospel: “This purpose of God, that all should come to repentance, makes the offer of the gospel a legitimate, bona fide offer” (p.22). To Olson, Calvinism cannot not legitimately offer the gospel to all without distinction (pp. 349-51; 357-59).

Olson also argues that “purpose” does not mean “comprehensive plan”. But again, the issue is that context and usage do not simply lexical meaning. Furthermore, his position really removes the purposing of God based on his will and good pleasure and makes God’s purpose conditional upon the foreseen response of the person. So for example:

2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Olson states, “Whether this is worked out conditionally or unconditionally is not stipulated.” What? What does it mean “not because of works” or ‘on account of works’ but ‘on account of his own purpose and grace’? Clearly the condition is not something that man does (e.g. a work) but the basis is His own purpose and grace. The contrast is not between ‘faith’ and ‘works’ as in Romans 3 and 4. Instead the contrast is between God’s own activity and our activity. He saved us not because of our response and activity but solely because of His purpose and grace. Grace that is conditional is not really grace. Either it is God’s set determined purpose or it is something conditioned in man. Paul chooses the former.

Olson tell us that “the solution to the serious polarization concerning who our God really is and how He relates to humans is found in the mediate view” (p. 23). However, while he has taken a clear stance against Calvinism, he has shown neither where the Arminian stands on these issues, nor how his position is mediate. In fact, his position is essentially a modified Arminianism. One should not pretend to be in the middle when one is truly on this side or that side of an issue. One should not appear moderate particularly when the issue at hand is of such importance, namely the glorious intricacy of God who in His exhaustive plan, He both foreknew and decreed salvation for mankind. For Olson, God works things out and orchestrates things forseeing what man will do and arranging all the pieces accordingly:

“It would be no problem for an omniscient God to orchestrate events by His intensive knowledge of each of the players and circumstances. Indeed, Peter explicitly included God’s prescience in the implementation of His plan (Acts 2:23)…So far there is no hint that this purpose, plan, or counsel of God exhaustively includes every event in the universe, including all the worst eruption of Satan’s and mankind’s evil over the centuries.” (p.20)

“Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for denying the clearly conditional force of both 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:28-30, conditioned on what God foreknew about His saints, especially their faith.” (p.272)

“By His omniscient foreknowledge of both eventualities and non-eventual possibilities God orchestrates and arranges those events He chooses without coercing the wills of the moral agents involved. God’s foreknowledge cannot be contingent upon His will.” (p.304)

The plan is not passed upon God’s determining and purpose along but God’s purpose bent and molded to what He sees man will do. On this issue, Olson demonstrates a thoroughgoing an Arminian position.

On the issue of open theism Olson misrepresents the issue. He states, “Both Calvinists and open theists err in making the certainty of the future contingent upon God’s determining it, but with differing outcomes—the Calvinist future being certain; the open theist’s future, partially open and certain. Both views are in error because God’s acts (decrees) [I thought there weren’t any decrees other than the resurrection? P.13,19] must flow from His attributes (omniscience), not the reverse.”

First, open theists also say that if God foreknows what will come to pass, then man does not truly have libertarian free will. In other words, if God foreknows what will happen, then man has to do it (or God wouldn’t have foreknown the event) and man really doesn’t have a choice because he is ‘locked in’ if God foreknows the event and it outcome. Open theists do not make the certainty of the future based upon God’s determining it, rather if the future is certain, then man is not truly free. This is far from Calvinism and Arminianism. It is unfairly misrepresentative and highly generalized to make Calvinism and open theism appear as two sides to the same coin.

Second, to Olson’s comment: “God’s acts (decrees) must flow from His attributes (omniscience), not the reverse.” One ought to ask “why?” How do we know? Where is this proved inductively? He argues that it is a philosophical error to say ‘that God cannot foreknow that which He has not determined’ (p. 23). He quotes Buswell’s “For men to declare that God could not know a free event in the future seems to me sheer dogmaticism” (p.24). But is it not sheer dogmatism to assert boldly “God’s acts (decrees) must flow from His attributes (omniscience), not the reverse.” In other words, why can’t God know something because He has decreed it? I would agree that God does not act contrary to His character but why is omniscience alone the attribute from which His decrees must flow? Why not His omnipotence? If God’s Word calls creation into being, why can it not call the free acts of men into being and determine such free acts according to His own plan? In fact, we should not single out one attribute over another attribute in the Godhead rather we should see that God’s acts flow from the composite whole of His attributes. The Biblical portrait of God is not one who limits certain attributes. He does not restrict His activity of Kingship and sovereignty as if to the limit of the exercise of His omnipotence. Indeed, it is presumptuous to claim to know how God must limit His sovereignty for man to have responsibility for his actions (to echo the quote from Buswell). The question is, Biblically does God do whatever He pleases? Does He take man into account?

Daniel 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

Job 23:13 But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.

Psalm 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Psalm 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

Third, the critique of open theism comes back upon Olson, is man really free at the point of acting if God knows the outcome. If God knows that outcome, then that is what has to happen. If God knows Bob will choose A, then is Bob really free to choose ‘not A’? This assume God’s foreknowledge is not bound by time and it is eternal. Even if Bob chooses ‘not A’, then God had to foreknow that is what he would do, so could he have really chosen ‘A’? If God’s purpose and determination is based on what man will do but God’s purposes it in advance of what man will do—then when the man comes to do it, he has to act according to the purpose foreseen by God.

The self-limitation that Olson argues for is exactly what the open theist argues for. God simply self-limits his omniscience and foreknowledge to protect man’s freedom, according to the open theist. Of course, the difference is the Olson believes in God’s foreknowledge and the open theist rejects that God foreknows all things. However, there is the same concept of God’s ‘self-limitation.’ The open theist just holds that God self-limits himself a little more than Olson argues.

God’s delegation of dominion to man (p.24) does not limit and restrict God’s dominion. Nowhere in the Bible is God described as restricting His rule over creation (Ps. 65:9-11; Ps. 104:10-30; 135:6-7; 147:8-9, 15-18).

Conclusion:

Nothing is outside the plan and purpose of God. This plan is from all eternity. Not even games of chance are outside of God’s control. His hand is guiding all things forward to His desired end.

Proverbs 16:33 ³³ The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

We have completed our review of chapter two.

Bibliography

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God, (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002).

Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002).

Murray, John “The Free Offer of the Gospel” Collected Works, Volume 4: Studies in Theology (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 1982) 113-132.

Piper, John “Are There Two Wills in God?” Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000)107-131.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996).

Post 6-The Counsel and Will of God.

Introduction

We continue to work through chapter two of Olson’s book Getting the Gospel Right. A complete list of posts can be found here.

God’s Counsel

Commenting on Isaiah 46:10 Olson remarks, “In Isaiah 46:10 the establishment of His counsel is linked with the accomplishment of His pleasure. However, there is not a hint that this involves any exhaustive efficacious decree in eternity past such as it held by Calvinists” (p.19).

Here is the text:

Isaiah 46:8-11 ⁸ "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, ⁹ remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, ¹⁰ declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' ¹¹ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

We are told that God “declares the end from the beginning” and “from ancient times not yet done.” God promises to cause His counsel to stand and He will accomplish His purpose. This is effective. God has spoken and it will pass. He has purposed it and so He will do it. Notice also that God accomplishes all His purpose and that this counsel will stand--no aspect of God's purpose and counsel will be thwarted or fail to come to pass. God declares things not yet done--this is a decree. It is his purpose and it will stand. The text is clear that this declare is not merely prescience and an advanced declaration to that end. God does what He has purposed. This end is established from the beginning. The word for beginning is the same word used in Genesis 1:1 ‘in the beginning’. The language ‘beginning’ and ‘from ancient times’ is similarly used in Proverbs 8:23

^NAU Proverbs 8:23 "From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.

#r<a'-ymed>Q;mi varome

Compare with Isaiah 46:10—“ ~d<Q,miW tyrIx]a; tyviarEme”

This language is clearly idiomatic to describe eternity past prior to creation. There is no good reason for not believing that these plans of God are made prior to the creation of the world. Olson himself acknowledges Christ is appointed to save the world before the creation of the world. Are there thought processes in God that are bound by time? It is true that in Isaiah, God reveals His plan in early times and this ground the surety of His Word in the future. But we should not lose sight of the fact that God has purposed these things. It is His intent. There is no hint that this is in response to man. His plans are from old and His Word stands forever. Three more points should cause us to believe these purpose are in eternity past: (1) God is eternal; (2) God’s plan of redemption is before His activity to create; (3) There is no progress in the Godhead that He should develop things in His mind.

This should be read in light of the context of Isaiah:

Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn: "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,

Isaiah 25:1 O LORD, you are my God; I will exalt you; I will praise your name, for you have done wonderful things, plans formed of old, faithful and sure.

Isaiah 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isaiah 48:3 "The former things I declared of old; they went out from my mouth and I announced them; then suddenly I did them and they came to pass.

See also Isaiah 37:26.

God’s Word stands forever, and He declares these things. We should not consider this forever only into the future since forever applies to past events as well.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

God’s Word accomplishes what He has purposed. This is of course the exercise of sovereignty.

Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Should we not apply this to the passages that describe God as “declaring the end from the beginning”? This is a decree declaring something and then effectively bringing it to pass.

These texts do not portray a God intervening in human affairs as if he simply responds to the activity of man. Rather, long ago, we are told, God had a plan and He carries it through. Why is it that He “implements His general rule over the nations and His plan of redemption”? Because He has a plan and in His sovereignty He brings it to pass. Furthermore, he does not merely implement a general rule over the nations, He establishes their borders, their rise and falling, He thwarts their plans and establishes His own seeing that His plans succeed.

Psalm 33:8-15 ⁸ Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! ⁹ For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. ¹⁰ The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. ¹¹ The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. ¹² Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! ¹³ The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; ¹⁴ from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, ¹⁵ he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds.

Notice that God brings the counsel of nations to nothing and he frustrates people’s plans. In contrast God’s counsel stand forever. This is, of course, eternity past and into eternity future. The notion that God plans things from long ago shows us that God’s plan is not a response to current events. God is not like a kayaker in rive paddle along as the river runs making sure certain rocks are avoided and responding the rapids of the river. Indeed, God has created the river itself and all the things that happen in its flow happened because of his purpose which is from old before the river began. We will discuss this notion of purpose and the relevant soteriological texts as Olson discusses them under election and predestination.

It is difficult to understand how Olson affirms “God has an eternal plan” but a paragraph later rejects “there is not a hint that any of this involves exhaustive efficacious decree in eternity past such as held by the Calvinists.” What is the difference between an eternal plan and an eternal decree? Calvinist Baptist, James P. Boyce defines the decree as: “that just, wise, and holy purpose or plan by which eternally, and within himself, he determines all things whatsoever that come to pass” (Boyce, 115).

So, if the plan is eternal, does God bring it to pass? Then it is efficacious. Does God not bring it to pass? Then this is in violation of Scripture where God clear says He accomplishes His plans.

Are there things that fall outside of the plan and purpose of God? Setting aside Ephesians 1:11 for a moment. We are told in Scripture that only if something is the plan of God it will stand, even man’s steps are ordered by God:

Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

For something to stand and come to pass it cannot just be in the mind of man. It has to be the purpose of the Lord.

Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

A man may have his plan but only God establishes the person’s steps. This means it has to be a part of God’s will for it to come to pass.

Proverbs 21:30 No wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the LORD.

No plan that is against the Lord will stand. This means that God has control over wisdom, understanding and counsel that is against Him.

Psalm 37:23 The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when he delights in his way;

Notice that God establishes man’s steps. This means that God’s control over the steps of man determines whether or not they will come to pass.

Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps

Man ultimately does not direct His steps. It is God who directs the steps of man. This causes Jeremiah to ask God to correct Him but not with wrath. And then he calls down wrath upon the nations. But this is the sovereign control over all the ways of man. Man does not ultimately direct his own steps apart from the direction of God.

What we begin to see is that all of man’s activities are under the plan, purpose and counsel of God. If God does not want them to come to pass they will not happen. If God wants them to happen, it will happen.

In fact, we are told we should make our plans but acknowledge that they will come to pass only if it is the Lord’s will. If these things are not outside of the Lord’s will (e.g. His purpose or plan), what is outside of the plan?

James 4:13-15 ¹³ Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"- ¹⁴ yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. ¹⁵ Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that."

In passages like Acts 18:21; Rom. 1:10; 15:32; 1 Cor. 4:19 and 16:7, we see Paul taking just this attitude. He acknowledges that His daily activity is subject to the will of God. This will of God did not merely arise at a certain point since God is an eternal person and the Bible tells us that His plans and purposes are from old. We have no biblical warrant to limit this eternal plan, purpose or will to redemption alone.

It is no argument against an eternal will and a divine counsel to say that God often holds out punishment or rewards based upon a human response. This is a natural part of God’s covenant dealings with His people. He can appear to act one way—promising judgment if the people fail to repent, and then not bring that judgment when the people repent. The book of Jonah is a good example of this as well as God’s dealing with Israel during their wilderness wandering. God does not have to reveal His eternal plan in these moments but rather is displaying His moral will. Distinguishing between the concepts of an eternal will where God’s plans cannot be frustrated (see verses we’ve cited) and a moral or perceptive will where man can act contrary to this will helps explain the scope of Biblical texts. For example: does God “will” that someone should commit murder? No. Does God permit events to take place whereby someone murders someone? Yes. And He works this for His glory. Remember passages like Gen. 45:50:20; Isaiah 10 and 14:25-27. Did God consider the behavior of Joseph’s brothers, or the Assyrian as ‘good’ ‘right’ and ‘just’? No in this sense He did not will them. Did God as part of His plan intend to use these things for His purpose at the same time the men intended these things for evil? That is what the text tells us. We find in other passages that God’s will is not merely a part of history but is eternal. John Frame notes:

“God’s plan is eternal (Isa. 37:26; 46:9-10; Matt. 25:34; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9). As we shall see, God’s plans can be historical and temporal in the sense that he wills for things to happen at one time rather than another. And sometimes he ordains something to happen temporarily. But the plan by which he ordains these temporary states of affairs is nevertheless eternal. Therefore, his plan is immutable, unchangeable. Although he wills for things to change in history, his plan for such change cannot be changed (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 14:24; 46:10; James 1:17). In our discussion of God’s eternity in chapter 24, we shall see how God does sometimes announce policies conditionally, as when he announces judgment and then withholds it upon repentance (ex. 32:14; Jer. 18:7-10; 26:13; 36:3; Jonah 3:8-10). But the whole course of this interaction is governed by God’s eternal decree. (Frame, 316).

This is not a mere philosophical abstract but is how we reconcile apart contradictions in the text of Scripture itself:

Luke 7:30 ³⁰ but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

Romans 9:19 ¹⁹ You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Job 9:12 Behold, he snatches away; who can turn him back? Who will say to him, 'What are you doing?' ¹³ "God will not turn back his anger; beneath him bowed the helpers of Rahab. ¹⁴ How then can I answer him, choosing my words with him? ¹⁵ Though I am in the right, I cannot answer him; I must appeal for mercy to my accuser.

Job 23:13 But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does. ¹⁴ For he will complete what he appoints for me, and many such things are in his mind.

Jeremiah 4:28 ²⁸ "For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark; for I have spoken; I have purposed; I have not relented, nor will I turn back."

We will discuss more fully the concepts of predestination, foreknowledge, God’s good pleasure, election and predestination as Olson brings them up in the book. However, for now we should point out that if we were going to mount a full scale defense of God’s decree we would have to incorporate these passages into our treatment. Calvinists go to these texts and they seek to handle them in exegetical detail. One may disagree with their interpretations but one call it a just criticism to suggest that their approach it deductive—the volumes written on these issues since the Reformation alone would be testimony otherwise.

Conclusion

Our contention is that it is inconsistent to hold that there is an eternal plan and then reject that any notion of “there is not a hint that any of this involves exhaustive efficacious decree in eternity past.” This is precisely how the Bible portrays an eternal plan.

It seems that Olson’s anti-Calvinist presuppositions have color his reasoning and handling of the text. He cannot reject the eternal plan of God, particularly as it relates to redemption. However, he is so willing to hold onto an unbiblical notion human autonomy that he rejects the people portrait of God’s sovereignty pervading all areas of human life.

Bibliography

James P. Boyce Abstract of Systematic Theology (Cape Coral, Florida: Founders, 2006).

John Frame, The Doctrine of God, (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002)

Post 5--God’s Kingship.

Introduction.

We are continuing our review of Olson's Getting the Gospel Right. For a list of the entire series see the Table of Contents Post. We are working our way through chapter two.

There is nothing wrong with inductively going through what Scripture says, indeed that is how all our doctrine should be formed. Our theology should be grounded upon Scripture. Our theology should seek to exegete and handle the text of Scripture. However, part of the problem with Olson's "inductive approach" is that Olson focuses two narrowly on word studies. Word studies are helpful but the meaning of words is significantly determined by their context and their usage. All words have a range of meaning and the context of the word narrows a specific meaning from within that range. Theology is not built on the meaning of Biblical words alone. For example: the word "justification" means declared righteous. The word does not mean "a righteousness from Christ imputed to us"—however by examine key texts we find that an imputed righteousness is the biblical concept of justification.

Defining God's kingship at the level of word meaning along is insufficient.

Here is what Olson says about God's Kingship pp.18-19:

"Although one modern translation renders YHWH-ELOHIM as "Sovereign LORD," there is no word for sovereignty in either the Old Testament or New Testaments." This is hardly persuasive since there is no word for Trinity in the Bible either. The English word sovereignty described reign and rulership. It can mean one who exercises authority within certain limits, or autonomy, supreme excellence, etc. (cf. Merriam-Webster). The question is what is the concept of God's sovereignty? What is the concept of His kingship? How does He exercise it? In what spheres does He exercise it? Are their sphere from which His sovereignty is limited (e.g. the human heart)? It will not be defined by word meaning alone.

"Since sovereignty relates to political relationships of governance, the terms most directly related to it in the Old Testament are king, kingdom, decrees, and counsel, and in the New, counsel (boulē), purpose (prothēsis), and will (thēlma). Understanding in what sense God's governance over mankind is spelled out in the Scriptures is critical in defining sovereignty." One could not agree more with this last statement—yet we will have to look at more passages than just those with the words 'king,' 'kingdom,' 'counsel,' etc. to see sovereignty described.

"Four Hebrew terms for kingdom come form the same root (melek). Usage concerning divine activity falls into three major categories: the Davidic Covenant promises, prophecies of the Messianic kingdom, and a few references to the general rulership of Yahweh over all the nations of the earth (Ps. 103:19; Ps. 145). There are many more instructive references in the Psalms and prophets in which Yahweh is addressed as King. Some are references to the Messiah as King (Ps. 2 & 24), but most stress God's mighty acts as ruler of Israel and the nations, as manifested in His works of creation, judgment, deliverance, protection, and cleansing of sin (Ps. 2:7; 5:2; 9:10; 10:16; 20:9; 24:7-10; 44:4; 47:2,6,7; 68:24; 74; 84:3; 89:18; 95:3; 98:6; 145:1; Isa. 6:5; 33:22; Jer. 8:19; 10:7,10). However, there is not a hint in any of these passages of any exhaustive sovereignty by which Yahweh decreed every event to transpire in the universe." (italic original)

"Indeed, the imagery of the king and kingdom could not possibly communicate such an idea to the ancient middle-eastern peoples, unless it were spelled out explicitly." –To be truly inductive this statement should be proven and not assumed. In fact, unlike modern kingdoms, the ancient king spoke and his word was established, it was effect because of his authority, indeed it could not be revoked (Ezra 4:19, 21; 5:3,9,13,17; 6:1,3,8,11,12,14; 7:13,21 [with contexts], also Daniel 6:6-9). So if a king declared something so far as he had power, the decree was effective. It was recognized that the king had every right and sovereign over all things under him. Of course, a king's will could be resisted, but we are told no one resists God's will or can call it into question (Job 9:12; 40:2; Isaiah 45:9-11; Dan. 4:35; Rom. 9:19). We can try but it is ineffective because of God's power. No one can reverse God's action (Isaiah 43:13). No plan or counsel can stand against God (Isa. 14:27; 46:10-11; Prov. 21:30).

"These terms were not only used for the rulers of great empires, but also for the heads of small cities, and thus do not support such an idea." This is a confusion of categories because the king of the small city still had control over those things under him in his city. Of course his sovereignty was not exhaustive if he had a more powerful regent over him. Olson cites Harris, Archer and Waltke's Theological Wordbook of the Old Testamant (TWOT), and while I only had access to the electronic version, the entry for melek said nothing about how 'kingship' does or does not apply to an infinite God. There is nothing in the word itself that supports the conclusion Olson draws. Just because finite humans have limited sovereignty and are called 'kings' does not mean an infinite God cannot have kingship over all things. In fact, God is described as the ruler over heaven and earth—this is the scope of his rulership. We must remember that the attributes of God are not only quantitatively superior but they are qualitatively superior—since God is infinite in His persons and works and our persons and works are both flawed and finite.

The TWOT states the following:

The essential theology of the OT with reference to melek (king) is not to be obtained merely by examining the over 2500 occurrences of the word. Rather we must examine the OT idea of magistracy, i.e., of civil authority….We must guard against assigning consistent technical meaning to melek, even when clearly literally intended. It can mean emperor (of an empire) as in the case of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon (Jer 46:2), or one of an emperor's vassals in the case of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (Jer 46:2 ) or the chieftain of a tiny city-state such as the Canaanite and Philistine towns (e.g., Gen 14:2-8; Gen 20:2; Gen 26:1, 8; many times in Josh). One of a joint-rulership or, possibly, triumvirate such as we now know Belshazzar to have been (Dan 5:11, Aram. equivalent to Heb. here) or a subordinate governor of a province as Darius ruler over Babylon under Cyrus emperor of Persia (Dan 5:30) might likewise be called melek. (Electronic version under the entry '%l,m,')

"Not even the greatest human kings' powers involved direct control of all events in their domain." This may be true, but it does not necessarily apply to God since God is infinite. Human beings cannot change a heart, but God can (see last post). There are things that are limited to man because of their being, these things may or may not be limited to God—only a carefully examination of how God exercises His reign can help us draw any conclusions in these matters. For example, human kings can have their plans thwarted—however God's tells us His plans cannot be reversed when He acts. A human king may not be able to accomplish what he pleases, but this is not true of God. None of these issues are singularly resolved by a study of the word melek. To assume they are is a methodological flaw that feigns inductivity.

Job 23:13 ¹³ But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.

Psalm 115:3 ³ Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Psalm 135:6 ⁶ Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

"Their decrees were carried out indirectly by their government functionalities. Therefore, there is no way that direct control of all events by a sovereign could be indicated by the cultural usage of the words 'king' and 'kingdom.' This is an exaggeration of the analogy of human kingly sovereignty: a notion which Calvinists imposed upon these words." This last statement is disingenuous and could not be further from the truth. Calvinists look at how Scripture describes God's kingship. First, to say that a decree is carried out by the agency of others does not detract from the sovereignty of the decree. This is true in both the human and divine realm. Second, in the cultural usage king's had far more sovereignty than the modern concept of government. TWOT states such:

Proverbs 8:15-16 supplies a locus of materials for our search for a theology of the king or supreme magistrate: "By me [wisdom] kings reign, And princes decree justice. By me rulers rule, And nobles, even all the judges of the earth." The least definite is king, the first. Let the four others amplify the idea of kingship. "Princes" (singular rœz¢n) occurs only six times, always in poetry. By reference to a cognate Arabic word it is understood to mean one who is "weighty grave, firm of judgment"- incapable of being shaken, of majestic repose, dignified in speech and action as befits one invested with great power. "Rulers" (´¹rîm), a common word means head man, one of recognized authority in whatever realm he operates ("powers that be," Rom 12:1). There is no metaphor when leading merchants are denominated princes (´¹rîm, Isa. 22:8). Certain angels are called ´¹rîm (Dan 10:13, 21). "Nobles" (sing. n¹dîb) is one inclined toward liberality, of noble character, hence also of position. "Judges" (sing. shœp¢t < sh¹pat q.v.) is perhaps the most comprehensive term for one who exercises civil authority, whether executive, judicial, or legislative. A sixth word, n¹gîd is a favorite name for Hebrew kings, twice occurring in Prov (Prov 8:6; Prov 28:16), means one who stands in front.

These are the main OT ideas about kings and other rulers. Though rulers were to be benign, the idea of democracy, that authority moves from people to rulers, is difficult to find in the Bible. Rulers were thought to be constituted by divine authority rather than human. To come before the judge was to come before God (Exo 22:8, 9 [H 7-8]). It is to be observed that in Exo 22:9 [H 8], °§lœhîm must be rendered magistrates (pl.) rather than God (sing.), for the verb yarshî±¥n is Hiphil third person masculine plural of r¹sha°± "to condemn."

The term melek appears in modified from in almost every Semitic language with approximately the same meaning (BDB in loc.). The Hebrew idea was shared everywhere in oriental antiquity

Third, Olson does not effectively work through the admitted analogy. If it is an analogy, then what changes when you begin to deal with an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being? In fact, it is human kingship in the garden of Eden (and through Scripture) that is the analogy. God's kingship is not an analogy of human kingship. The microcosm is man's exercising kingship, if God's person and work are superior should we not expect his kingship to be more exhaustive? Only turning to passages will help us understand this kingship. However, we need to be clear just because the word 'king' used of humans, people who because of their natural limitation have restrictions on their reign, this does not automatically mean God must have those same restricts just because He is also called a king. Olson's logic (and it is just that for it not a clear textual argument) based upon word usage is twisted, incomplete and misleading.

God's Kingship.

Daniel 4:34-35 ³⁴ At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; ³⁵ all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

Look at how the dominion of God is described. It is His rulership. Both on in heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth He does according to His will. No one can call this will into question.

His kingship is described as having a counsel that stand forever while he frustrates the counsel of the nations. He even fashions the hearts of men, this is hardly a reference to His creating in Genesis 1. God's counsel stands forever, his plans are for all generations. God's kingly sovereignty thwarts the counsel of others and guarantees the accomplishment of his own.

Psalm 33:9-15 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. ¹⁰ The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. ¹¹ The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. ¹² Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! ¹³ The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; ¹⁴ from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, ¹⁵ he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds.

Consider here how God exercises His kingship:

1 Samuel 2:3-10 ³ Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. ⁴ The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble bind on strength. ⁵ Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. ⁶ The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. ⁷ The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. ⁸ He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and on them he has set the world. ⁹ "He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness, for not by might shall a man prevail. ¹⁰ The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the power of his anointed."

Here the kingship of the LORD destroys bows. He takes care of the weak and lowly. He exalts and tears down. He makes people poor and makes others rich. He guards His faithful ones and the wicked are cut off. Keep in mind these are people who are responsible for their actions and the LORD does this things exercising His kingship.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; ²³ who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness. ²⁴ Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth, when he blows on them, and they wither, and the tempest carries them off like stubble.

The Lord rules over the earth. He brings princes and rulers down. He actively blows on the people and they wither. This kind of kingship is established over all creation.

Isaiah 41:2-4 ² Who stirred up one from the east whom victory meets at every step? He gives up nations before him, so that he tramples kings underfoot; he makes them like dust with his sword, like driven stubble with his bow. ³ He pursues them and passes on safely, by paths his feet have not trod. ⁴ Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Again we see how the Lord acts and does these things. He even 'calls the generations from the beginning'. This is prior to creation.

Psalm 47:2-8 ² For the LORD, the Most High, is to be feared, a great king over all the earth. ³ He subdued peoples under us, and nations under our feet. ⁴ He chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves. Selah ⁵ God has gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet. ⁶ Sing praises to God, sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises! ⁷ For God is the King of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm! ⁸ God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.

Again, the Lord subdues people and nations under the feet of Israel. This is according to His purpose. He is the king over all the earth and rules the nations. As we have seen this ruling is establishing the nations, raising up and destroying their rulers. He enables the king's plans to come to fruition or causes them to fail (see post 4 for Scripture proof).

God in his kingship establishes the rise and fall of nations:

Acts 17:26 ²⁶ And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

See also Deut. 32:7-8;

God exercises His kingship over creation and over the nations by doing what He pleases.

Psalm 135:5-10 ⁵ For I know that the LORD is great And that our Lord is above all gods. ⁶ Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps. ⁷ He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; Who makes lightnings for the rain, Who brings forth the wind from His treasuries. ⁸ He smote the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. ⁹ He sent signs and wonders into your midst, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. ¹⁰ He smote many nations And slew mighty kings,

Psalm 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Amos 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth- the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!

God exercises kingship over Satan.

Here the classic example is Job 1 and 2, where God permits Satan to attack Job. And yet, even this actions allowed by God are not outside God's sovereignty. This fact Job acknowledges before His wife when He says:

Job 2:10 ¹⁰ But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

It was clearly know sin for Job to acknowledge that that God was bringing this upon him. The reader understands that God's sovereignty permitted Satan to commit this atrocities. However, this permission was not a limiting or restriction of God's kingship and sovereignty.

This fact is further emphasized later in the book, where Job falls to justify God and declare that God has done right in these matters Job failed to justify God (Job 32:2; 34:5; 35:2; 40:8). Job then has an encounter with the sovereign God. God question Job regarding His wisdom, power and control over creation. It is a display of God's kingship over all creation. Job then concludes:

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

What sort of events do we find as not under God's kingship? We seem him exercising kingship in the rise and fall of nations and their rulers. He exercises kingship in exalting and bringing low people. He accomplishes His plans and does what He pleases. He does not consult or take into account people. Even the evil atrocity's Assyria did to Israel and then Babylon did to Assyria were part of God's plan and purpose. Furthermore, God raised up Cyrus to accomplish His purpose and accomplish His plans.

Ecclesiastes 3:14 I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him.

It may be true that "[n]ot even the greatest human kings' powers involved direct control of all events in their domain." Yet this is the very thing that we see of God's kingship. In fact, we find the full range of creation, nations, the rise and fall of individuals, all of it is under God's plan. We will continue to see that with regards to God's will and plan it incorporates all aspects of events that take place in the world.

God in His kingship numbers a person's days before the exist:

Psalm 31:15 My times are in your hand; rescue me from the hand of my enemies and from my persecutors!

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.

Job 14:5 ⁵ Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you, and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass,

God's kingship involves a decree:

After Daniel explains the future to the king, we read that this things will come about by a decree from God's Word:

Daniel 4:17 The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.'

Daniel 4:24 ²⁴ this is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king,

God's decree involves the wicked being punished:

Job 20:29 This is the wicked man's portion from God, the heritage decreed for him by God."

God's Word in bring creation into being is described as a decree:

Psalm 148:6 ⁶ And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.

This is the same idea used to describe how God's word brings other things to pass. Why can we not also call this a decree? The notion of a decree is a concept and not reduced to the bear word level.

It is no argument against divine sovereignty to show that God uses means. This is just as true when we think of creation. It is no argument against creation ex nihilo to say that God used the means of the dust to form the man. In the same way, God's sovereign plans incorporate means. God's plan was to judge Israel and he used Assyria as the rod of his anger. God's plan was to punish Assyria for her arrogance and He used Babylon. God's plan allowed the fall so that He could save us in Jesus Christ but that does not mean that he caused it. Calvinists have consistently and rigorously defended that notion that God's sovereignty and the decree of God uses means.

Conclusion.

The Biblical notion of God's kingship cannot be described simply through word study. As we consider God's kingship we find that it extends over all the earth and permeates aspects of this world that no human could exercise reign over. But God's majesty far exceeds that of those made in His image.

Why doesn't Olson comment on these passages when He talks about God's kingship? These are precisely the passages that Calvinists have long gone to in support of their views. A theology of God's kingship and sovereignty cannot stop at the word level as Olson does.

Post 4: Chapter 2--Does the Bible teach that God has self-limited His sovereignty?

Introduction

We are continuing our series review C. Gordon Olson’s Getting the Gospel Right (GTGR). In this section we will begin to work through chapter two and take issue with several statements that Olson makes. For the entire series, please see the Table of Contents post.

The purpose of chapter two is to discuss man’s bearing of God’s image. However, Olson will begin to discuss and reject the notion of God’s decree. We wholehearted concur with Olson’s statement “Any attempt to develop an inductive theology of salvation must start with the character and attributes of the God who saves sinners” (GTGR, 11). Although Olson rejects that Calvinism is built upon careful study of the text, this inductive approach and foundational aspects of God’s character is precisely where Calvinism starts (logically anyways).

God’s Plan Before Time

Olson beings by stating a key question: “what is mean by the sovereignty of God and the depravity of man?” (GTGR, 11). After quoting Que Sera, Sera, he asks: Is this true? Followed by a series of questions:

“Is God the author of sin? Does God actually change His mind? Is God responsible for atrocities, such as the holocaust or nature’s calamities? Has God really decreed before the creation all that transpires on earth? Is life really a stacked deck?” Etc. etc.

There is perhaps a subtle impression that if you answer no to the first three questions one must answer no to “Has God really decreed…”. Or if one answers yes to the latter question the first three must be answered “yes”. Hopefully that is not what Olson intends to imply for Calvinists distinguish quietly meticulously between a passive decree (what God permits) and an active decree (what God actively establishes). Even Olson’s own notion of ‘God limiting his sovereignty’ is a species of permissive decree although he does not use such language. Nevertheless, we concur with Olson that sovereignty and depravity must be defined directly from Scripture, however, we will demur that Olson has failed to really do this.

Olson goes on to brief mention the eternal Trinity (p.12). Then we find out “Before creation God made a plan for the salvation of the world to be made known through Israel and the church” (p.13). Olson clearly holds that God planned redemption before the foundation of the world but he does not tell us at this point the basis for God’s electing us. Later, he will of course place the emphasis on God’s foreknowledge. Nevertheless, Olson does not reject a plan of God in eternity past as it relates to Jesus Christ’s death. If Christ really is the center of history, do we want to say there are elements of history outside of God’s plan. Ironically, Olson does not see how vital this relates to the decree. If God planned salvation before the foundation of the world He had to either plan to allow man to disobey him or at the very least plan to create man knowing full well that man would sin and fall into evil. If God determined to create man and he determined to send Christ, it would not be possible for man to not sin since once God foreknows something it has to come to pass. If he planned redemption before the foundation of the world there are a host of other things that need to fall into the plan of God including: creation, the fall, the actions of individuals and their consequences throughout history to bring the about Jesus {this would include marriage, acts of procreation, union of specific sperms & eggs, combinations of DNA, the actions of Judah with respect to Tamar, sins Noami’s sons, the actions of Ruth, the actions of Boaz, etc. etc.} Suddenly, we find a whole number of things that must be within the plan of God. Even if some of these acts are things God permits, they do not fall outside of His plan since His plan was to bring Jesus Christ as our salvation.

Olson continues “Unfortunately, theologians of the past centuries developed elaborate notions of a comprehensive decree or decrees of God in the past eternity, by which He determined all that was to take place in the whole world through time” (p.13). Olson is hardly objective in his critique, “In letting their imaginations run, they got involved in sometimes bitter debate about the order of these supposed decrees of God” (p.13).

He tells us the New Testament is silent on the issue of decrees and the only place we read about them in the Old Testament is in the following six passages: Psalm 2:7; Job 28:26; 38:10; Psalm 148:6; Prov. 8:29; Jer. 5:22.

God’s Awesome Creation

In this section, there is very little that a Calvinist or an Arminian would be at odds with. Both happily affirm creation ex nihilo. Both affirm God’s sovereignty in establishing his creation fiat, just as Olson does. With praise and worship, we can all unite in affirming “the majesty of this time-space universe is a growing testimony to the majesty of the infinite God Who created it all” (GTGR, 14).

Almost all theologies today acknowledge the created nobility of humanity. In fact, Calvinsim would affirm it also. With Olson, Calvinism affirms that man is created in God’s image. However, Olson assumes that since Adam bear’s viceregency, God must limit his regency: “In the very act of creating human beings in His own image, God voluntarily limited the exercise of His own sovereignty” (p.16).

He argues that “What man does (relate to God and other people) and is able to do (exercise rule over nature) is dependent upon who he is (the substantive reality)” (p. 16). This substantive reality is the eternality of man. He further defines the image of God as “man’s intelligence to his knowledge of God’s revealed truth, which needs to be restored in fallen man through the new birth and the ongoing renewal process of the mind of the mind of the believer” (p.16). “Man was created as a moral being with moral choices, which animals are incapable of making” (p.16).

Olson takes a trichotomist position—that man is soul, spirit and body. Most theologians today would probably take a dichotomist position—that man is made up of a body and spirit that exists in pschysomatic union. This is no major area of contention. Although, Olson is unclear what he means when he says “Although the human spirit died in the fall, when we trust Christ our spirit is actually made alive and functional again, so that we can relate to God personally” (p.17).

Again, we find that God’s delegating Adam with authority is “in itself a further self-limitation of the exercise of God’s sovereignty.” Certainly, Adam was created to rule over creation but delegating authority is not abdication of authority in that area. But for Olson, “In these delegated areas God was no longer exercising His sovereignty” (p.18).

The two examples Olson gives is Adam’s naming the animals and Adam’s choice to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But did God’s establishing of Adam’s vice-regency necessarily entail a restrictions of His own regency? There is no explicit or obvious statements that this must entail God’s limiting of His sovereignty. Why can’t vice-regency function within and under the regency of God? It is hardly the case that man is autonomous, quite the opposite, He is under God’s covenant Lordship and is given at least one instruction for operating in the garden. If he truly bore the image of God, he was further responsibility to conduct himself as that image, exercising vice-regency after the pattern of God’s regency. We should remind Olson of the quote he uses from John Frame:

“Use of it [the concept of “sovereignty”] requires some careful thinking rather than jumping to conclusions that seem intuitive. What seems intuitive for one theologian will be counter-intuitive for another.” (qtd. p. 11 & 18).

Olson seems to argue that it is natural or “intuitive” to assume that since sovereignty is delegated this must entail a self-restriction of the one who delegates it. But is this how God portrays his sovereignty? When a human wills something to be has God restrained His will in that area? Does the human will function outside the plan and purpose of God. Let us consider some Biblical examples.

Does God willing restrict His Sovereignty in Human affairs?

Let us first consider another example, particularly as it pertains to regency:

I don’t think we need to establish that God raises up kings and delegates authority to them. For example:

Daniel 4:32 ³² and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. And you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will."

So God has ultimately given the kingdom of Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar. Does this entail God limiting His sovereignty?

This delegating of authority does not mean that God abdicates authority, or as Olson puts it “self-limitation of exercising authority” and “no longer exercising His sovereignty”. In fact, we read just the opposite:

Daniel 4:34-35 ³⁴ At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; ³⁵ all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

Not even a human king, delegated sovereignty by God, limits the hand of God who does what is according to His will. This includes establishing and tearing down kingdoms according to His divine plan:

Acts 17:26-27 ²⁶ And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, ²⁷ that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

Here, God determines [o`ri,saj-set, fix, determine, declare… i.e. a decree] how long nations should stand, when they should fall, and what there boundaries are. God has not limited authority over the nation just because He establishes a king to rule over it. One could hypothetically say, “well determining the allotted period is just determine the beginning and end points of handing over that sovereignty.” This would be quite a stretch but we will handle this potential objection. God still acts sovereignly within the Kingdom.

^ESV Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Notice the imagery: just as one can turn the course of the stream, the Lord turns the heart of the king. God does not abdicate his sovereignty or self-limit it. In fact, God fashions all our hearts (Ps. 33:15). In fact, God determines all our steps:

Proverbs 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Proverbs 16:9 ⁹ The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way?

This verb establishes in 16:9 is the same verb used to describe how God establishes the earth.

Jeremiah 10:12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.

Man can have many plans but only those of the Lord’s succeed:

Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

So for example, God changes the heart of the king of Assyria:

Ezra 6:22 And they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

God promises to harden Pharoah’s heart even before Pharoah made any decision. Pharoah’s response in hardening His heart is the result of God’s activity.

Exodus 4:21 ²¹ And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3 ³ But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,

Exodus 14:4 ⁴ And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." And they did so.

Exodus 14:17 ¹⁷ And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen.

Exodus 7:13-14 ¹³ Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said. ¹⁴ Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go.

Exodus 7:22 ²² But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:15 ¹⁵ But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:19 ¹⁹ Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32 ³² But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:7 ⁷ And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not one of the livestock of Israel was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:12 ¹² But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

Exodus 9:34 ³⁴ But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

Exodus 9:35 ³⁵ So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go, just as the LORD had spoken through Moses.

^ESV Exodus 10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,

Exodus 10:20 ²⁰ But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go.

Exodus 10:27 ²⁷ But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

Exodus 11:10 ¹⁰ Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:8 ⁸ And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued the people of Israel while the people of Israel were going out defiantly.

Certainly, Pharaoh hardened his heart but before Pharaoh’s own actions God says “I will harden his heart.” We are told time and time again that Pharaoh hardened his heart as the Lord said. Notice however, God does not merely predict that Pharaoh will harden his heart, but God is the active agent, the subject of the verb: “I will harden his heart.” [ABli-ta, qZEx;a] ynIa]w:]. There is no possible way to say that God had limited his sovereignty in these matters.

Furthermore, God is the one who has brought Pharaoh into this position. God has actually raised up Pharaoh to be king so that God could show His own power and might.

Exodus 9:16 But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.

Olson’s comment on this comes much later, which we will deal with in due course. However, it is relevant to note here: “There are seven clear references to Pharoah’s heart being characteristically hard (Ex. 7:13-14, 22; 8:19; 9:7) and even to Pharaoh hardening his own heart (8:15, 32), and before God then hardened his heart even further judgmentally (Ex. 9:12; 10:1; 11:10 and 14:8)” (p. 300-1, italic original). However, the very first thing before any of the action is God promising: “I will harden his heart.” However in 7:13-14, 7:22; 8:19 we are told that Pharaoh hardening his heart was “as the LORD said.” Not to put to fine a point on it but what did the LORD say? Pharaoh will harden his heart? I will allow Pharaoh to harden his heart? Or I will harden Pharaoh’s heart? This does not deny Pharaoh’s activity and guilt in the matter but the initiating agents is God’s action “I will harden His heart.”

One more example from Isaiah 10:

First, we find God promising to send Assyria to destroy the nation of Israel. God determines and commands that Assyria should attack Israel:

Isaiah 10:5-6 ⁵ Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! ⁶ Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

Second, the king of Assyria fulfills this plan but not with acknowledge of God’s hand but in prideful arrogance assuming his own glory:

Isaiah 10:7 ⁷ But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few;

Isaiah 10:12-13 ¹² When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. ¹³ For he says: "By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I remove the boundaries of peoples, and plunder their treasures; like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones.

Third, Israel is not to worry because of God’s hand upon all of these events that are carried out by the rebellious will of the Assyrian king:

Isaiah 10:24-27 ²⁴ Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: "O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. ²⁵ For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction. ²⁶ And the LORD of hosts will wield against them a whip, as when he struck Midian at the rock of Oreb. And his staff will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. ²⁷ And in that day his burden will depart from your shoulder, and his yoke from your neck; and the yoke will be broken because of the fat."

What we find then is that these things are part of God’s purpose and plan. Once God has planned it, it will not be thwarted, stopped or turned back. God does not limit His sovereignty in these matters but His sovereignty carries forward His intent to the desired end:

Isaiah 14:24-27 ²⁴ The LORD of hosts has sworn: "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, ²⁵ that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him underfoot; and his yoke shall depart from them, and his burden from their shoulder." ²⁶ This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. ²⁷ For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?

What we have is not God limiting his sovereignty but rather his sovereignty and human responsibility going hand in hand. Even as man makes decisions according to his intention, God at the has determined all that will occur. So for example, who sold Joseph into slavery?

Was is God’s plan or the actions of Joseph’s brothers?

Genesis 45:5 And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. ⁶ For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. ⁷ And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. ⁸ So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.

It was God’s actions in sending Joseph so that he would preserve their lives. Yet it was the actions of the brothers that sold Joseph into slavery. So that while the brother meant that these things should be done to harm Joseph, God’s intention was that it should turn out for good. The sovereignty of God—in His free and divine intention—is worked out even in the rebellious heart of humanity as they mean these things for evil.

Genesis 50:20 ²⁰ As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

These passages do not portray God merely working things out after the fact but rather while the humans intend something for one reason, God precisely intends this same action for another reason. God’s sovereignty is not restricted in these matters but rather worked out even through the evil intention of the human heart. We do not find God self-limiting his intentions so that man’s can make free decision rather we find in the human activity with human intention the sovereign intent of God is being carried through to its end.

God can turn the human heart:

Psalm 105:24-25 ²⁴ And the LORD made his people very fruitful and made them stronger than their foes. ²⁵ He turned their hearts to hate his people, to deal craftily with his servants.

Deuteronomy 2:30 ³⁰ But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

^ESV Joshua 11:19 There was not a city that made peace with the people of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle. ²⁰ For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.

Isaiah 63:17 ¹⁷ O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage.

God’s Control over Everything:

The scope of God’s control in this things is universal:

Lamentations 3:37-39 ³⁷ Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? ³⁸ Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? ³⁹ Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins?

The context of the passage is important. God’s people are waiting quietly for the salvation of the Lord (v.26). When God’s people are in grief and strife they cannot escape from God’s steadfast love (vv. 27-32). In fact, the injustice God’s people are suffering is not morally acceptable to God (vv.33-36). Yet, no one can say or do anything unless the Lord commands it. This means the suffering that God’s people are going through at the hands of wicked men is not outside of the plan and control of God, it would not have happened unless He commanded it. In fact, there is a rhetorical question: is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? In fact, man has no right to complain when God uses the evils of others to punish us for or sins. The human being may plan to commit evil but God’s intention was that the events should be for punishment for sin. He intended the events. It would not have happened had he not commanded it. The emphasis here is that no one can speak and have their actions come to pass unless God commanded it.

Conclusion:

There is no biblical warrant for assuming that because man is responsible for His actions that God must have restricted His sovereignty over those events. In fact, God’s sovereignty is completely compatible with man’s responsibility in the Biblical model. Man certainly does desire to do evil and carries out heinous deeds (e.g. Pharaoh, Assyrian king, etc.). However, God has not restrained His authority so that “Que Sera, Sera”. Rather, God’s hand and control permits and allows these things. There is divine intentionality behind all things.

Daniel 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"

Recommended Reading:

John Frame, The Doctrine of God, (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002) especially chapters 4,5,8,9,16, and 23. If anyone doubts that Reformed believers deal with these concepts “inductively” by turning to Scripture, one should read this work which site voluminous Scripture, more than we have briefly cited.

Revelation: 4 Schools of Interpretation

There are four basic schools of interpretation on the book of Revelation. Each one of the views looks at the book of Revelation and understands the book different. Depending upon which school you interpret the book from, you are arrive at different conclusion particularly when it comes to the nature of the visions and the judgments (the seal, bowls and trumpets). Each view tries to justify its position from the text itself but some of these views come closer to the understanding the structure and the text better than others. It would naïve to say ‘I have no school but I just read the book as it is’. Every attempt to read the book as the original audience would have understood it will cause the interpreter to make decisions on the meaning of passages that will land generally in one of the four schools. Awareness of the four schools heightens our ability to reflect: “Am I being faithful to the text?” as we read through and interpret the book.

The four views are as follows: Preterist, Historic, Futurist, and Idealist.

The Preterist View.

There are two subsets within this interpretive view. The first view sees the book as dealing almost entirely with issues before the fall of Jerusalem AD 70. This view requires the book be dated early but most scholars believe that the book was written in the 90s (AD). According to this view “Babylon the Great” is the nation of Israel, or Jerusalem, that has walked away from God and rejected the gospel. The judgments in the book correlate then to the historic activity going on with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The interpretations of the final judgments are only specific to Israel and God’s dealing with her. The book of Revelation is written, according to this view to explain to Christian what is going on and help them stand firm during this time particularly against Jewish persecutors.

This view is quite a large stretch, particularly when one looks at the universal scope of judgment in Revelation (e.g. 6:15-17; 8:13; 11:6,18; et al). As G.K. Beale says “one of the most difficult problems facing consistent proponents of this alternative is that what appear to be prophecies of final judgment throughout the book are seen as figuratively fulfilled in 70 A.D.” (Revelation, 45).

A second form of this preterist view is that prophecies concern the fall of the Roman Empire. The judgments describe the destruction of the Roman Empire. While this view is more credible in that John probably is drawing connections between Roman and “Babylon”, this still limits the scope of God’s judgment from all the earth to the Roman Empire specifically. This is not insurmountable since the Roman Empire did constitute essentially the whole known world in John’s day. However, this too limits the scope of judgment and redemption from the whole earth and as pertaining to every ‘tribe, people, tongue and nation.’ It is extremely difficult to see all the prophecies as limited to only the fifth century fall of the Roman Empire.

The Historic View

In this view the book of Revelation gives us a chart of all of church history. Different groups and stages of history are represented through the whole book showing the progress of human history from John’s time until the return of Jesus. Some interpreters who follow this view believe that the seven churches are not necessarily restricted to seven local churches in John’s day but are paradigmatic of churches throughout the ages until the return of Jesus. Interpretations in this view would often include key events, like the spread of Islam, the invasion of the Goths into Rome. The beast or perhaps the harlot are identified with the Roman Catholic papacy.

There are two essential problems with this view. First, the symbols cannot actually be interpreted until after the event occurs. So you cannot say the harlot is the pope until after the pope arrives on the scene. These interpretations can be quite arbitrary based upon the actually current events. Interpretations tend to explain all the details as events up to the point of the interpreter. This is a difficulty because one does not know when the events of Rev. 19 will take place. If Revelation gives us the scope of all of history there is no way to know what precisely what point we are at. This makes the association of symbols to historical events extremely arbitrary. Second, related to the first point, there would be very little relevance to the first century readers. They would not be able to understand the coming history beyond what had already happened. In short, the historic view, while quite popular at certain times in church history, has little to commend to it and is not widely held in our day.

The Futurist View

G.K. Beale identifies two subsets of this scheme. The first basically says that the events from 4:1-22:5 are future and will happen during a seven year period of tribulation. In other words, there is a specific point in the future that the events of 4:1ff will begin. All the events fall within a period of time after the beginning. This view does have something to commend to it when we consider how the section begins:

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."

This view is quite popular with dispensationalist views. The Dispensationalist believe there are 7 segments to God’s historical dealings with the world. These are divisions to God’s history and plans. In the Old Testament we have five segments: . We are currently in the fifth segment: the church age. God will remove his church in the rapture and for 7 years deal again with Israel as a nation. During this time the tribulation will take place which are the events described in Rev. 4:1-18:24. Then the Lord will return (ch. 19) and set up the millennial age (Rev. 20) a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ. Not all futurists believe that the church will be removed in Revelation 4:1 for the tribulation. They would hold that the church is not absent from Rev. 4:1-18:24.

Other futurists vary in that they believe we do not have history of the tribulation beginning until 8:2 and that Rev. 4:1-8:1 is an overview of everything from Christ’s resurrection to his return. But what these views typically have in common is seeing the sets of judgments (seals, trumpets, and bowls) as chronologically successive. This means that the first set of 7 seal judgments is followed in time by the 7 trumpet judgments and then the 7 bowl judgments follow the trumpets. Rev. 4:1-18:24 is essential a timeline of the seven year tribulation which climaxes in Christ’s return (Rev. 19) and the establishment of the millennium (Rev. 20). Most futurists hold to a successive view of the judgments:

There are a few futurists who believe that the judgments of seals, trumpets and bowls recapitulate. This would mean the judgments of the seven trumpet judgments do not follow the seal judgments rather John is re-expressing the same judgment with differing description. The bowl judgments express in new imagery the same judgments described in the seal and trumpet view.

The difficulty of the futurist view is that the book of Revelation has little or no value other than to tell us what will happen in the future. For some extreme views, major portions of Revelation has little or no contemporary application other than to prepare us so we will not be “left behind.” The book gives insider information to a future we will not experience. This seems difficult when we consider that John’s purpose is to write to Christians to encourage us to stand firm and endure to the end.

The Idealist View

G.K. Beale summarizes this view as affirming “that Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and of Satan. The most radical form of this view holds that the book is a timeless depiction of this struggle” (Revelation, 48). Some who hold this view go to far and believe that Revelation has nothing to say about the consummation of history. This extreme idealist interpretation goes to far holding a position that clearly cannot be sustained in light of Revelation 19-22. “The idealist notion encounters the opposite problem facing thepreterist and historicist views, since it identifies none of the book’s symbols with particular historical events” (Beale, Revelation, 48). The danger of this view, if crassly applied, can be to separate the book itself from any and all historical fulfillment. It can, if inappropriately utilized, minimize the prophet aspect of Revelation. In other words, the book could become only symbolic and have no grounding whatsoever in God’s sovereign dealings with humanity in history. This misuse of idealism, however, is the exception not the rule.

It seems best then to follow what Beale describes as a “Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism”.

Reasons for accepting Modified Idealism:

(1) It takes the symbolism of Revelation as serious symbolism and avoids an overly crass literalism. Certain views of Revelation misapply the notion of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation should mean that we interpret the book as the original author intends it to be understood. However some interpreters assume that literal means that everything must refer to historical events (past or future). This is not necessarily the case if the author intends for the imagery to be symbolic. Symbolism does not negate history for the symbol can be a picture of God’s activity in redemptive history.

(2) It is faithful to the redemptive-historical structure of Revelation and the whole New Testament. This seeks to best incorporate the “already” and “not yet” aspects of the kingdom of God. Certain preterist views place everything in the “already” as the seek only a first century fulfillment. Certain extreme futurist views place all the emphasis on the “not yet” so that everything (at least after Rev. 3) relates to future events.

(3) It allows us to see more application to the present day than the preterist view and the futurist view often allow. The book of Revelation is viewed as a book that is relevant for Christians in any day and age. One of the dangers of the preterist view is that the events described are only scenarios related to the first century and for the futurist view all the events only relate to the future. This makes it difficult, but not impossible, to draw application to the contemporary believer beyond imparting information regarding the end times.

(4) It is most faithful to the style, nature and purpose of apocalyptic literature without dismissing the prophecy in the book. Apocalyptic literature is designed to help the community of faith under the peril of suffering by understanding the divine scope of battle in which believers are struggling. The symbolic view gives us a heavenly perspective on earthly events.

(5) It allows us to avoid interpretations that are highly subjective. Certain futurist views can be overly subjective in their interpretations of what must happen. Often times, contemporary events (particularly in the Middle East, or Eastern Europe) have overly influenced interpretations. These things would not have been understood in the first century (helicopters, nuclear war, etc.).

(6) In short, modified idealism retains the strengths of the other views while avoiding their pitfalls.

(7) It seems to be most faithful for how Revelation understands itself and the clues that it gives us for understanding the itself.

Conclusion

Any interpretive scheme for the book of Revelation must be sustained by the text and through careful exegesis. It most get “dirty” with the text itself and show that it gives the best readings of individual texts and the comprehensive whole. We anticipate that as we continue in our study of Revelation we will vindicate the “Modified Idealism” through the words of the text itself.

G.K. Beale notes:

“The Apocalypse symbolically portrays events throughout history, which is understood to be under the sovereignty of the Lamb as a result of his death and resurrection. He will guide the events depicted until they finally issue in the last judgment and the definitive establishment of the kingdom. This means that the specific events throughout the age extending from Christ’s first coming to his second may be indentified with one narrative or symbol. We may call this age inaugurated by Christ’s first coming and concluded by his final appearance “the church age,” “the interadventual age,” or “latter days.” The majority of the symbols in the book are transtemporal in the sense that they are applicable to events throughout the “church age”… (Beale, 48).

There are elements of the preterist view that are accurate as its seeks to place the book with the first century world of the Roman Empire. Prophecy will often use events current to the readers to point typologically to the future (current events become a symbol of an even greater scenario that will unfold at the end times; there is a sort of analogical hightening). The danger of some preterist view is that there is nothing future.

Conversely, the danger for the futurist position is that everything is only future. It allows for little or no historical referent or symbolism of the cosmic struggle of the kingdom of God until the culmination of the kingdom in Rev. 19. If we take a modified idealism, we must be careful not to eliminate the clear futuristic intent of Revelation, particularly where the text clearly indicates it.

Ladd summarizes a conclusion somewhat similar to our own although without mentioning the value of the idealist view:

“Therefore, we conclude that the correct method of interpreting the Revelation is a blending of the preterist and the futurist methods. The beast is both Rome and the eschatological Antichrist—and, we might add, any demonic power which the church must face in her entire history. The great tribulation is primarily an eschatological event, but it includes all tribulation which the church may experience at the hands of the world, whether the first-century Rome, or by later evil powers.” (Ladd, 14; italics added)

For now, it is important to be aware of the four schools of interpretation. We must be careful that our school does not unwarrantedly bias our interpretation. In other words, we must be careful that our understand the Revelation is deduced from Revelation itself rather than becoming a grid imposed on the text. Naturally, once we have defended a view from Scripture itself this interpretative scheme will influence our interpretation of difficult passages. This is rightfully so if the grid arises from the clear passages. However, in Bible reading we must always be self-consciously critical of those presuppositions that shape our understanding.

Bibliography:

G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999) esp. pp. 44-49.

George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1972) esp. pp. 10-14.

Revelation: The Genre

Genre refers to the style of literature of a particular book or story. For example, when one picks up a newspaper one immediately recognizes its genre. It’s purpose is to report facts or, as in an editorial, persuade the reader concerning a particular issue by offering commentary and evaluation. We recognize poems as poems, haikus as haikus, fairytales as fairytales, science fiction as science fiction precisely because we intuitively recognize their genre. We would not read science fiction as historical fact nor would we understand a poem to be a dispassionate account of events. Why? Because particular genres are important for how we understand the work.

For understanding the book of Revelation we must remember that it is a particular genre. This is why is differs so much from books like Acts or Romans. To correctly interpret the book of Revelation this crucial question must be answered first: What genre is it?

The Book of Revelation is recognized as having a combined genre that is comprised with elements representative of an epistles, a prophecy and apocalyptic.

As an Epistle
An epistle is a letter. Books in the Bible like Romans, 1,2 Corinthians and Galatians are all examples of epistles. They are letters written from one person, like Paul, to a local church to instruct them, guide them and correct them. They often begin and end according to the styles of ancient letters.

Revelation contains elements that make it an epistle. Nowhere is this more evident then in the first three chapters where John is given instructions from Jesus to seven local churches.

Chapter one contains the introduction similar to that of ancient letters. It is like beginning “Dear…” as we begin our modern day letters.

Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,

This beginning is clearly in the style of a letter. Similarly the book ends like a letter:

Revelation 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

This is exactly like some other clear epistles end in the New Testament.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Ephesians 6:23 Peace be to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.
2 Thessalonians 3:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

Revelation clearly is an epistle.

As a Prophecy
Prophecy is a genre of literature that tells the future. It is quite common in the Old Testament. The prophet receives a vision or some specific word from God and he passes it on to the people. Prophets do not merely predict the future, they often give warnings or hope of deliverance. They would take the Old Testament that was written up to that point and use it to give a relevant message to the people. Usually these messages revolved around God’s people breaking his Law-covenant or regarding God’s promised deliverance or some combination. Prophets did not merely predict the future like a divine fortune teller, rather they acted in many respects like modern day preachers with one substantial difference: they were hearing unmistakable revelations from God by which one could say “Thus says the Lord”.

The book of Revelation is a prophecy. It gives relevant information about the future but also charges God’s people to live a certain way in light of what God is doing and will do in redemptive history. The book of Revelation clearly understands itself as writing prophecy.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
Revelation 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Revelation 22:7 "And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."
Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

A failure to understand the prophetic role of Revelation will often lead the interpreter to view the book as nothing more than reflection on current events in the early church and her struggle with the Roman Empire and Jerusalem. While prophecy does relate to current events it also looks ahead to the in-breaking of God’s redemption and judgment.

As Apocalyptic
Probably the most difficult form of literature for us to understand in the 21st century is the genre of apocalyptic. Beginning in the Old Testament with sections of the book of Daniel and Zechariah (9-14) [perhaps Isaiah 24-27 and a few others as well], we begin to see a style of literature emerge, which we call apocalyptic. It is difficult to determine at these early points where apocalyptic truly emerges because it often overlaps in style and form with prophetic oracles of judgment and redemption. However as we move into the 2nd century BC and through the 1st century, apocalyptic literature begins to take on a style of its own. It was a recognized form of literature in early Judaism, a form that is quite alien to us.

Revelation falls into this mold of apocalyptic.

Revelation 1:1 The revelation [lit. the apocalypsis] of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Mounce notes that a major role of apocalypses “was to explain why the righteous suffered and why the kingdom of God delayed…Apocalyptic focused on a period of time yet future when God would intervene to judge the world and establish righteousness” (Revelation,3). This is essentially what we see in the Revelation of St. John. He writes to suffering Christians to encourage them through their tribulation and even rebuke some who had turned away from Jesus. However, John writes within the structure of the kingdom of God having already begun to some degree in Jesus’ death, resurrection and the establishment of the church at Pentecost and the ‘not yet’ of the final in-breaking of this kingdom. This “already” and “not yet” of the kingdom of God is what theologians calls an “inaugurated eschatology”. The ‘last days’ the Old Testament look for had begun (cf. Hebrews 1:1; Gal. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:1). Yet, there remains significant events to be finished.

Scholars debate the precise nature of apocalyptic literature. For example, many times apocalypses would write about past historical events as if they had been prophesied. It was sort of like ‘back dating’ the book. Or the writer would pretend to be someone famous who was dead, often a Biblical figure. The book of Revelation does not share these characteristics. However, it does share similar features when it describes the visions John sees. There is often an emphasis on a heavenly perspective of things. Events have angels or demons behind them and tribulation and strife on earth represent a cosmic battle in heaven. This encourages and strengthens the reader, motivating him for deeper perseverance and obedience because he realizes he is part of a larger battle in which God Himself will triumph.

G.K. Beale summarizes the apocalyptic character of revelation this way:

“The apocalyptic prophetic nature of Revelation can be defined as God’s revelatory interpretation (through visions and auditions) of his mysterious counsel about past, present and future redemptive-eschatological history [eschatology=end times], and how the nature and operation of heaven relates to this. This revelation irrupts from the hidden, outer heavenly dimension into the earthly and is given to a prophet (John), who is to write it down so that it will be communicated to the churches. The heavenly revelation usually runs counter to the assessment of history and values from the human earthly perspective and therefore demands that people change and realign their views with the heavenly view; in this respect people in the churches are exhorted to submit to the demands of the book’s message or else face judgment. In particular, John writes because he perceives that there is a real danger that the churches will conform to the values of the world system and not to God’s transcendent truth…”

Apocalyptic literature in this respect is extremely practical. It is also highly symbolic. One has to be careful that one understands symbols to be just what they are: symbolic of something. More than a fair share of interpreters have run aground because they have not heeded the rocky shores of symbolism. In other words, there are a lot of crazy and bizarre interpretations of revelation that do not respect the nature of the genre apocalyptic. Interpreters read symbols too literally and find everything from helicopters to nuclear warfare. They write out a large scheme of history or the seven year tribulation based upon symbols. They become convinced that Babylon is Iraq and the beast must be Saddam Hussein because the disregard symbolism and read current events into the book. Unfortunately, this is a common pitfall for some dispensational hermeneutics.

We must learn to respect the book of Revelation and interpret it in light of its genre. Here are some helpful pointers:

(1) Vivid imagery that is often figurative and symbolic rather than strictly ‘literalistic’.

(2) Catastrophic end-of-the-world scenarios.

(3) Dualism of good vs. evil

(4) God’s sovereign control over history

(5) Symbolic representation of history.

(6) Expectation of God’s intervention

(7) Ethical teaching for those living prior to the end.

(8) Heavenly scenes and interaction with heavenly figures. Presentation of visions and dreams.

(9) Often times a stylized or symbolic use of numbers.

See for example Sandy and Abegg “Apocalyptic” esp. pp.178-180.

See also Kreitzer “Apocalyptic, Apocalyptism” DLNT pp.55-68 and Collins, “Apocalyptic Literature” DNTB, pp. 40-45.

Guidelines for Interpreting Apocalyptic:

Sandy and Abegg “Apocalyptic” pp.188-89

(1) “Study biblical apocalyptic in the light of apocalyptic ways of thinking in the ancient world.”

(2) “Read apocalyptic in view of a context of crisis.”

(3) “Do not look for something in apocalyptic that it does not intend to disclose.”

(4) “Expect apocalyptic to be full of metaphorical language.”

(5) “Do not attempt to identify the significance of every detail of apocalyptic.”

(6) “Keep all options open for how apocalyptic predictions will be fulfilled.”

(7) “Seek to understand the main point of an apocalyptic text.”

(8) “Appreciate the full and rich symbolism of apocalyptic.”

(9) One more point by me: try to understand the big picture before you seek to understand the point of each vision.

Conclusion

Revelation is “a prophecy cast in an apocalyptic mold and written down in a letter” (Carson, Moo & Morris, 479). An interpretation that takes into account this three pronged nature of the genre of the book sets off on a fruitful path for interpretation. Many dangers and overly zealous interpretations can be avoided by respecting the book of Revelation as an epistle, a prophecy and an apocalyptic work.

Bibliography

G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999) esp. pp. 44-49.

D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992).

J.J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Literature,” Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2000) pp.40-45

Kreitzer, L.J. “Apocalyptic, Apocalyptism” Dictionary of Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1997) 55-68

George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1972 esp. pp. 19-25.

Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation. Revised. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. esp. pp. 1-8.

Sandy, D. Brent and Martin G. Abegg Jr. “Apocalyptic” in Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1995) 177-196

James White on the Gospel.

Here is a great video explaining to Christians why we have peace with God. There are some great thoughts in here that deserve reflection and meditation.

Covenant Theology in Baptist Life

Here is a PDF copy of a paper I recently finished for the Baptist Identity course through Founders Online Study Center.

The Paper is entitled "Covenant Theology in Baptist Life."

I briefly explain what Covenant theology is. I look at three Baptist Confessions: The First London Baptist Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession and the Orthodox Creed. The first two were particular Baptist creeds, the third was a general baptist creed.

Then I look at some baptist figures on the Covenant, including Keach, Cox, Gill, Dagg, Boyce, and Howell.

Anyone who thinks you cannot be a Reformed Covenant Theologian and a Baptist should look again. Granted, some Presbyterian brothers would argue that this is inconsistent covenant theology and does not carry the view of the covenants far enough but early Baptists were theologians of the Covenant.

Just a reminder, it was Spurgeon who said in his sermon on the covenant:

“The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct, and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital subject.”

Sermon Applications 2/3/08

Right now, at PMBFC we are working through 1 John. This is exerted from last Sunday's message.

Here was the text:

1 John 5:5-10 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. 10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

Here were the applications, after the exposition:

A. We must believe God’s witness in these matters. God is the one who has given us the three witnesses of water, blood and Spirit. Who is the one who speaks at the Baptism? Who is the one who glorifies the Son? Who is the one who with the Son, sends the Spirit? All of these are God’s witness to us testifying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

B. Men despise the witness of God. Throughout church history and even in our day, men despise God and they despise the witness He has given. The eyewitnesses to this testimony were the apostles, the apostle wrote these things down in the Word of God. Yet, in our sin, we despise the idea that God has spoken. Countless men through history have attacked the Word of God. They have attacked its declaration “Jesus is the Son of God”. They often argue their cases, almost like a cunningly or deceitful defense lawyer: “Has God really said?” You can go into any bookstore today and scan there religious section and find at least one, if not multiple books attacking Jesus Christ and the Word of God. There are credible witnesses that the Bible is the Word of God and the apostles told the truth. The gospel are early (first century) not late (second century and beyond). But the pursuit of truth is not what matter, rather these ‘lawyers’ against the Son of God twist the truth, pervert the textual and manuscript evidence, rework what the Bible means and use all kinds of twisted means. The question is: what are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the witness that God has given—and even more that the apostle’s testify to? Or are you going to believe the wisdom and cunning of man?

1 Corinthians 1:20-21 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

This does not mean we ‘check our brains at the door’. But rather, Christianity is a pursuit of truth. We do not suppress the truth—rather we humble our hearts and believe the witness of God rather than exalting our heart and mind over the witness of God.

C. To fail to believe that Jesus is the Son of God is to call God a liar. Countless scholars who twist the evidence and deny the events of the gospel are not just “handling the sources”—they do not come to the evidence “unbiased”. They come at it with a hatred toward God. They are intent in their hearts in calling God and liar and doing what they can to prove He has not spoken. NO ONE COMES AT THINGS UNBIASED. The Christian seeks truth because we believe God is truth—so we do not have to sweep evidence under the rug. Example: we can be honest that 1 John 5:7 does not have the Johannine Comma. So also the non-Christian, while they make a good show of trying to seek truth, their heart is in rebellion to God and they are intent to call God a liar.

D. A person who rejects that Jesus is the Son of God is making a stand and saying: “God has lied.” This is no neutral position but is an attack upon God. No one is truly agnostic (i.e. ‘don’t know). No one is truly atheist. Atheists and agnostics are really anti-God. Other religions that deny Jesus is the eternal Son of God and reject the Trinity—they are rebellious. Mormans beliefs, Islamic beliefs, Jewish believes: there is not really some basic common denominator just because we all us the word ‘god’. All of them teach a different God than the God of the Bible, the Christian God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ALL OF THEM MAKE GOD OUT TO BE A LIAR. While we should love the people in these religions, while we should show all kindness and compassion to the persons, we should despise the doctrines. Let me be clear: we should despise the doctrines as a lie against God. We should love and prayer for the people in these religions because there was a time where you and I also thought God was a liar. We should ask for God’s grace to open their eyes just like He opened ours.

E. Communion today, is an act of testimony. While in this passage ‘water’ does not refer to our Christian baptism and ‘blood’ does not refer to taking communion, I think we need to realize that taking communion is testimony. It is “proclaiming the Lord’s death” until He returns.

1. Only take communion if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
2. Ask the Lord to strengthen your faith this morning as you take communion. Communion should be an act of faith and trust: we are stating in a visible testimonial way “I believe Jesus died for my sins and I believe that I can only be saved through His shed blood.”
3. Only take communion if you believe this, otherwise you are lying. You are giving outward testimony one way, while you believe another way in your heart.
4. Trust the testimony of the Lord God: Jesus is the Son of God—His death has taken away your sins. IF you have faith and trust in Him and have received the forgiveness of sins by trusting Christ, you have a firm and solid testimony that your sins our forgiven.
5. Communion is the sign and symbol of the spiritual reality: Christ blood received through faith perfectly covers our past, present and future sins.

John Flavel & our Fountain of Life

This month's Puritan reading challenge is John Flavel The Mystery of Providence. You can also find it in vol 4 of his collected works. Want to get to know Flavel a little more? Check out this post by Timmy Brister. Here are some more sermon exerts from Flavel's "Christ the Fountain of Life Series" (volume 1).

Sermon 11, (p143)

"Salvation (as to the actual dispensation of it) is revealed by Christ as a Prophet, procured by him as a Priest, applied by him as a King. In vain it is revealed, if not purchased; in vain revealed and purchased, is not applied."

For Flavel, the Puritans and Reformed Theology, the threefold office of Christ is important (going back to book 2 of Calvin's Institutes). It is a concept deeply wedded to the Covenant of Grace and the hypostatic union, both of which Flavel has previosly preached on in the series. I wonder in our day, how many preachers see theology flowing together like this? Do the offices of Christ really matter to us or are we content to deal with less weighty matters--i.e. fluff and not gospel meat?

Sermon 12, on Hebrews 10:14. Doctrine: That the oblation made unto God by Jesus Christ, is of unspeakable value, and everlasting efficacy, to perfect all them that are, or shall be sanctified, to the end of the world.

"It [Christ's death] brings in a most intire, complete and perfect righteousness: all that remains to make us perfectly happy, is but the full application of the benefits procurred by this oblation for us. Moreover, it is here commendedfrom the extensiveness of it; not being restrained to a few, but applicable to all the saints, in all the ages and places of the world: for this indefinite, them that that [sic] sanctified, is equivalent to an universal, and is as much as if he had said, To all and every saint, from the beginning to the end of the world."(p154)

"Out of this fountain flow all the excellent blessings that believers either have, or hope for. Had it not been for this, there had been no such things in rerum natura, as justification, adoption, salvation, &c. peace with God and hopes of glory, pardon of sin, and divine acceptation: these and all other our best mercies, had been by so many entia, rationis, mere conceits." (p.155).

"The design and end of this oblation was to atone, pacify, and reconcile God, by giving him a full adequate comensation or satisfaction for the sins of these his elect...[qts Col. 1:20; 2 Cor. 5:19]...Reconciliation is the making up of that breach caused by sin, between us and God, and restoring us again to his favour and friendship...But here I would not be mistaken, as though the reconciliation were made only between us and God the Father, by the blood of the cross; for we were reconciled by it to the whole Trinity. Every sin being made against the divine Majesty, it must needs follow that the three Persons, having the same divine essence, must be all offended by the commission, and so all reconciled by the expiation and remission of the same. But reconciliation is said to be with the Father, because, though the works of the Trinity, ad extra, be undivideed, and what one doth, all do; and what is done to one, is done to all; yet by this manner of expression...the scriptures point out the proper office of each person. The Father receives us into favour; the Son mediates, and gives the ransom which procures it; the Spirit applies and seals this to the personsons and hearts of believers." (p.160)

What is so beautiful here is the Trinitarian structure of redemption. Flavel avoids dividing the Trinity, he also avoid the artificial disjunction of "legal" and "relational". These is a common, usually misguided, critique of penal substitution. Flavel neither divides the Trinity, nor the 'legal' and 'relational'. [The latter are of course distinct but inseperable].

His third inference is beautiful:

"Hath Christ offered up himself a sacrifice to God for us? Then let us improve, inevery condition, this sacrifice, and labour to get hearts duly affected with such a sight as faith can guve us of it. Whatever the condition or complaint of any Christian is, the beholding of the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world may give him strong support and sweet relief."

Here the "indicative" of the cross--God has done--leads to the imperitive upon the Christian--"believe". This avoids legalism and a sort of 'self-help' view of grace, whereby faith picks itself up by its boot straps.

"Or is your heart prest down even to despondancy, under the guilt of sin, so that you cry, how can such a sinner as I be pardoned? My sin is greater than can be forgiven? "Behold the Lame of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Remember that no sin can stand before the efficacy of his blood. 1 John i.7 "The blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sin." This sacrifice makes unto God full satisfaction.

Are you at any time staggering through unbelief? filled with unbelieving suspicions of the promises? Look hiteher, and you shall see them all ratified and established in the blood of the cross, so that hills and mountains shall sooner start from their own basis and centers, than one tittle of the promise fail: Heb. ix. 17, 18,19.

Do you at any time find your hearts fretting, disquieted, and impatient under every petty cross and trial? See how quietly Christ your sacrifice came to the altar, how meekly and patiently he stood under all the wrath of God and men together. This will silence, convince and shame you.In a word, here you will see so much of the grace of God, and love of Christ, in providing and becoming a sacrifice for you: you will see God taking vengence against sin, but sparing the sinner: you will see Christ standing as the body of sin alone; for, "he was made sin for us, that we might be make the righteousness of God in him:" that whatever corruption burdens, this, in the believing application, will support; whatever grace is defective, this will revive it." (pp.164-165).

What imagery. What marvelous application of the work of Christ to sinner through faith. How can one not read this and again turn to Christ in faith with a sure confidence that Christ's death is sufficient for my sins?

This brings up some questions: How does one apply the sermon? Does one use the gosple when you preach the gospel? Are my applications about the gospel or are they legalism? [Not minimizing the Christian use of the Law but a lot of Christians and preachers use the law in a manner that is thoroughly unChristian--as if were are under a covenant of works not a covenant of grace].

Do we turn to the cross when we wrestle we sin? Do we turn to the cross in an act of faith? Do we make real imperitive based upon the gospel?

Some would contend today that phrases like "We believe that only in responding in faith and repentance can Jesus' removal of sin and the imparting of life begin" actually "amounts to "insidious 'works righteousness' that is alien to the sovereign love and grace of God in the Christ at work through the Holy Spirit." (qtd. from Christianity Today Article; my thoughts here). Yet Flavel and countless other did not see a commentation between the work of Christ on the cross and the imperitive to the unregenerate to "believe". Even more, for the Christain there was the continual duty of repentance and response through faith precisely because of the Cross and the Spirit's work in apply it.

Would that I learn to apply God's grace to the heart of the hearer through such faithful proclamation.

Even more Baptists on the Covenant

It is amazing how many early Baptists held to covenant theology, with an eternal covenant of redemption, a covenant of works in the garden and a subsequent covenant of grace between God and man. Here is another example

R.B.C. Howell was the second president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1851-1859. His entire work can be found here.

SALVATION through Jesus Christ, is according to "the determinate counsel, and foreknowledge of God’1 He was pleased to make known to the fathers, his purposes in this behalf, in the form of covenants, which were of different characters, and revealed at various times. These covenants enter into the very nature, and pervade with their peculiar qualities, the whole system of divine grace. A perfect knowledge of the Gospel therefore, involves necessarily, a correct comprehension of the covenants. But by whom among us, are these covenants clearly understood? To most men, you need only to speak on this subject, and you at once perceive that "Even unto this day, the vail is upon their heart."2 They fail to perceive what the covenants are in themselves, in their relations to each other, and consequently in their bearings upon the designs of God in the Redeemer! This darkness is lamentable in all its aspects, since falling short of the knowledge of these, — "the rudiments of the doctrine of Christ," — obscurity must necessarily rest upon the whole Gospel system. How can he who does not perceive "the first principles" of any specified science, ever become a master of that science? (chapter 1)

To the actual existence of the covenant of redemption, called by most writers the covenant of grace, the word of God bears, in every part, the amplest testimony.
The character of a "Surety," for example, given to the Saviour in the divine oracles, necessarily involves the covenant, since the least that can be said of that relation, is that he who bears it, is constituted the representative of others, and thereby comes under an engagement to fulfill certain obligations in their name, and for their benefit...

That this covenant came into being before the fall of man, is a truth sustained in the divine word by the clearest evidence.
It is fully supported by Peter, when he says, addressing Christians in all lands:- "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation [manner of life] received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot; who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith, and hope, might be in God."...The covenant of redemption was, therefore, brought into being before the creation of the world.

The purpose of the covenant is expressed by its name; it looked to the redemption and salvation of men. The plan, however, by which these results were to be gained, must necessarily be such as would, at the same time, glorify the purity and justice and honor alike, of all the persons of the adorable Trinity. Any arrangement which would fail of these ends, it is impossible he could have devised or approved. Had man been restored to happiness without meeting these demands, God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, would have been dishonored. It was the design of the covenant, therefore, to bring into perfect harmony the salvation of men, and the glory of God. (chapter 4)