No Room for Synergism

There is no room for synergism in John chapter 6, or as I like to say, there's no "wiggle room." In fact, I would say there's no room for synergism with respect to salvation in all of Scripture. So what do I mean by that? In the realm of soteriology, there are two systems of thought with reference to "how" a person is saved. The Arminian or Semi-Pelagian view which is synergistic and the Reformed view, which is monergistic.

Let's define our terms before we proceed. Synergism is the idea that two or more agents are involved in something in which both parties are required to produce a desired result. Think of a symphony orchestra. You can't play Mozart's 40th Symphony with only one violin. You need the entire orchestra playing together. Monergism is the idea that there is only one agent required to produce the necessary effect or goal. So when it comes to salvation the crucial question becomes, is God the sole author of salvation or is the will of man required?

Man's Freedom or God's Freedom?

Some Christians are so committed to the idea of free will that they end up sacrificing God’s freedom in the process. They claim that God is sovereign over all things and has the authority to do whatever He pleases, yet if you examine their soteriology; you end up with God trying to save people, but being thwarted by human free will. Since God is in fact sovereign over all things, then He is sovereign over salvation as well. As the Bible says, salvation is of the Lord, Jonah 2:9, Psalm 3:8. Fallen sons and daughters of Adam may resist for a season, but when God decides to bring about their salvation, there is nothing that can thwart Him, Job 42:2.

Pastors and teachers don't often talk about how a person is saved, they mainly preach about the need for salvation or give a gospel invitation, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is exactly what they are commanded to do. But I want to focus on the "how" question because it is very important to our understanding of the nature of man, the purposes of God, and the glorious salvation that Jesus perfectly accomplished for us. If we look at the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, we see some amazing things in this regard.

John 6

We all know the story of the feeding of the five thousand, but on the next day in Capernaum Jesus’ followers come looking for Him and they get into a discussion about bread. But this time Jesus turns the conversation around and begins talking about spiritual bread; the living bread, which came down from heaven. In this context Jesus says:

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” John 6:35-40.

So what is all this talk about The Father giving people to the Son? I thought we come by our own free will? But you don't find free will in this passage do you? No, in verse 37 the text says all that the Father gives to the Son will come. They will come to the Son and the Son will certainly accept them. In verses 39 and 40, Jesus perfectly fulfills the will of His Father and will "lose nothing of all that he has given me," but raise them up (give them eternal life) on the last day.

We also see this in John 17:6, "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world." And again in verse 9, "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." On the night before He is about to die on the cross for our sins, Jesus specifically prays, not for the world, but only those whom the Farther has given to Him.

In John 6:41, the Jews begin to grumble because Jesus said He came down from heaven. Then Jesus responds to their complaint by saying, "Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day," John 6:43-44. There is a direct correlation between coming, and being raised up. Those whom the Father draws, come; and they are the same ones who are raised up on the last day. Jesus reiterates this again in verse 65. I think the context is clear, coming refers to believing, and being raised up refers to the resurrection unto eternal life. Jesus clearly says here that no one can come (believe) unless something happens first, namely the drawing of the Father. So this idea that the Father is drawing everyone in the same way doesn't work because according to this passage, everyone would inevitably come to Jesus. Remember in verse 37 Jesus says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me…" There is a special drawing that is being referred to here, which is also delineated by Paul in Romans 8:30:

"And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Everyone who is predestined is called, justified, and glorified. It's an unbreakable chain. You can't be called and not justified, and you can't be justified without being glorified. This is the glorious truth of God's purpose in the redemption of His people. His calling is effectual. It cannot fail. All who are brought to the Son find Him to be a perfect Savior. They will never be lost, John 10:28.

Let's get back to John 6. When Jesus' disciples heard His words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, (verse 53) it was too much for them. They said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus was not talking about physical things:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father,'" John 6:63-65.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Coming to Jesus must be granted by the Father. This answers the "how" question. And this comports with other passages of Scripture such as John 1:13, Acts 11:18, 13:48, 1 Cor. 1:30, Phil 1:29, 2 Timothy 2:25. It is God who draws, and those whom He draws will come. And those who come are the same ones who are raised up on the last day. There’s no wiggle room here. This idea that God draws everyone and then some by their own free will believe, and others don’t, is not found in John chapter 6. The same idea is communicated in John chapter 10. Look at the reason Jesus gives for why the Jews do not believe in Him.

"So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,'" John 10:24-27.

The reason Jesus gives for why they don't believe is because they are not His sheep. This is an amazing statement. Jesus could have perhaps given other reasons for their unbelief, but instead He said, "You are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice," implying that the reason they don't hear is because only His sheep hear Him. But didn't they have the free will to respond to the voice of the Good Shepherd? They were physically hearing His words, and yet they didn't have ears to hear. They didn't believe. Why? Obviously, because some have ears to hear and others do not, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have so frequently used the phrase, "for him who has ears, let him hear," Matt. 11:15, Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8, Rev 2:7, etc.

Why Do Some Believe?

This brings us to another crucial question. Have you ever wondered why some people repent and believe the gospel and others don't? How you answer this question is vital. Let's say two men attend the same church one Sunday morning. They even sit next to each other in the same pew. They both hear the gospel clearly preached; one believes and is born again, and the other rejects it and leaves still in his sins. The question we must ask is, why? Why does one believe and the other doesn't? Is there something better about the one who believed? Is he wiser, smarter, or more spiritually in tune? Isn't repentance and faith pleasing to God? Yes, of course. So why did he believe? Where did his faith come from? Most people answer this question by saying they don't know. This is the error of the synergistic view of salvation. It simply cannot give a satisfactory answer to this question because the logical conclusion of synergism is that the ultimate deciding cause of salvation is the self determination (free will) of the agent. Unless the man cooperates with God, he cannot be saved. God can't overcome his will in the synergistic view. So if the ultimate deciding factor in the salvation of a sinner is the sinner himself, how does this not make man sovereign? God is giving 99 percent. He wants to save the man, but He just can't do it without his cooperation. The man must give that one percent; the decisive one percent, the one percent that makes all the difference in the world. This is a man-centered salvation in which God is subservient to His own creation. Perish the thought!

Reformed theology however, can answer this question because we believe that Jesus saves. He doesn't merely make salvation possible; He accomplished it on the cross, Isaiah 53:11-12, Hebrews 7:25. He died to secure it, Hebrews 9:12. He can overcome our hard hearts; our resistance, and take out our heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh, Ezekiel 11:19. It is God who makes the decisive decision, not man. And it is by His grace alone and for His glory alone, Ephesians 2:8. Salvation is monergistic; it is all of God. The power of the Holy Spirit regenerates dead sinners; He brings us to life. He gives us the grace and the faith to believe, and we do so most willingly because once we were blind, but now we see. We were deaf and now we hear. We were dead in our sins, but now we have been made alive. Free will is powerless to do these things; it cannot produce saving faith. It cannot pull itself up by the boot straps and believe because it isn't free; it is a slave of sin, John 8:34. Only God can break the chains of sin. Only God can raise the spiritually dead.

So how do people come to Christ? They must be drawn by the Father. All whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him. The sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd calling, and they follow Him, and He gives them eternal life.

Switchfoot and Christian Music

For those who haven't read it, here is the blog article I am interacting with in this post: http://ctkblog.com/2013/12/05/why-switchfoot-wont-sing-christian-songs/

First, I want to say that I love Switchfoot; always have, ever since The Legend of Chin. They are one of my favorite bands (although their last few albums have been a little underwhelming). And I agree with some of what Jon said, but much of it is very disappointing. I think there are some glaring errors in his reasoning and I want to examine them in light of biblical revelation.

In my opinion Switchfoot has a very counter-cultural message, which is great, and I have been impacted by many of their songs, however, I think as Christians, we fail to realize that we get a lot more out of their music than the average pagan. I’m not sure unbelievers are reading between the lines like we are. With respect to the gospel, their lyrics are ambiguous at best.

I know that Switchfoot is involved with charities and I commend them for that. I agree that how we live is very important. The person who works 9-5 at some obscure job has the same responsibility to live for Christ as the national music artist. Yet, whether we are in a famous band or we are a butcher, baker, or candlestick-maker, we all have the same duty to preach the gospel. This is what is missing from Jon’s response.

The question I have is: how is Switchfoot fulfilling the Great Commission? Jon seems to be forwarding the notion that we are to “preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words.” Nothing could be more unbiblical. Where do you find this in Scripture? If Jesus and the Apostles took this approach, no one would have ever heard gospel. The Great Commission is not a suggestion, it’s a command. What does Paul say in Romans 10:14, 17?

“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

To the objection, “Just because I’m a Christian song writer doesn’t mean all my songs should be about Jesus,” I would simply ask, why not? Why? If you are a believer, why wouldn’t you want to sing about Him? I don’t understand this thinking. Now I don’t mean you have to repeat the name Jesus ten times in every song, no, but why wouldn’t you want to communicate the life-changing power of the gospel? You have a huge platform. You can reach millions of people. Why would you want to be ambiguous? Again, I would argue that most unbelievers don’t know what Switchfoot is talking about in some of their songs. Their lyrics could mean different things to different people. Sometimes I’m not sure what they’re talking about myself. As Christians, shouldn’t we be clear?

When it comes to popular bands, I think they should be especially careful and clear because they are proclaiming a public message. They are in the public eye. Whether it’s a rapper talking about money and drugs, or a country artist singing about their ex-girlfriend, they are all preaching something. They are communicating a message. What does that message say?

All Christians, musicians included, are called to share the gospel and make disciples, but it seems like Jon Foreman is saying that’s not the calling of Switchfoot, at least not musically. So I guess they’re exempt from the Great Commission, or maybe it’s just their music that’s exempt, I don’t know.

Further, I think the connection made between Bach and Switchfoot is naïve. The difference between Bach and Switchfoot is the difference between lyrical music and instrumental music. Most of Bach’s compositions were instrumental, which is hard to classify as “Christian.” But when there is lyrical content, that content can most certainly be classified as Christian or non-Christian. What is the song about? What is the central message? Does it comport with the teachings of Scripture? Does it communicate a biblical worldview or biblical principles? What about Handel’s Messiah? Is that Christian music or not? What about A Mighty Fortress is Our God, or other great hymns of the faith? Don’t tell me there is no such thing as Christian music! What about the song of Miriam in Exodus 15:21? What about Mary’ song: The Magnificat, in Luke 1:46-55, or what about the Psalms of David? How would you classify these? Look at what Paul said in Ephesians 5:19:

“speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord.” Make music from your heart to whom?

It’s ironic that he mentions Keith Green. Keith was radical. All his songs were about Jesus. He was totally sold-out. You would never hear Keith Green saying these things; trying to distance himself from “Christian” music.

Most importantly, the question that needs to be asked is: does the music you are singing glorify God? This idea is also lacking from Jon Foreman's comments. Aren’t we supposed to do everything to the glory of God? Does Switchfoot’s music glorify Him, or is it just whatever Jon feels like writing about? This is the mistake that musicians and artists tend to make. They think they are somehow exempt from the biblical mandate. Sure they are free to “express” themselves however they want, but wouldn't it be better to focus your songwriting on the Lord Jesus? This is a systemic problem in the lives of modern-day Christians. The glory of God is not paramount in their thinking.

C. S. Lewis is also a poor example, which does not help Jon's case. No, Lewis’ fiction books do not overtly proclaim the gospel, but I would argue that there are definite and deliberate parallels, but this is beside the point, because his many non-fiction writings are clearly and profoundly Christian in nature. Lewis has been hailed as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the 20^th century. He didn’t hide behind the, “my writings aren’t born again” argument; whatever that means. No, everyone knew where Lewis stood. I’ve listened to Switchfoot since the beginning. I’ve seen their music videos, and watched their concerts. Do their non-Christian fans know where they stand?

Now I’m not trying to beat up on Switchfoot. I’m not going to boycott their albums or anything stupid like that, I just think some of Jon’s reasoning is flawed because I don’t see how it is biblically justifiable. Here are some quotes I want to interact with.

"But judging from scripture I can only conclude that our God is much more interested in how I treat the poor and the broken and the hungry than the personal pronouns I use when I sing."

Actually God is interested in both. He’s interested in both our actions and our words.

“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer,” Psalm 19:14.

“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned,” Matt. 12:36-37.

These are sobering reminders that the personal pronouns we use are in fact, very significant.

"I am a believer. Many of these songs talk about this belief. An obligation to say this or do that does not sound like the glorious freedom that Christ died to afford me."

Really? This isn't why Jesus died my friend. He died to free us from our sins. We were slaves of sin, (John 8:34) and deserving of hell, (Eph. 2:3). By His grace we are saved through faith, and now we are slaves of Christ. We no longer live to do our own will but the will of the Master who redeemed us. This doesn’t sound like the words of the Apostle Paul who called himself a bondservant of Christ, Rom. 1:1, Gal. 1:10. It has nothing to do with confining your lyrics to a box; freedom in Christ has to be contextualized. The Bible speaks about freedom in Christ in different ways; freedom from sin (John 8:31-38) and freedom from the works of the Law (Gal. 5:13). Read the context of Galatians and you will see it has nothing to do with what Jon is talking about. Yes, Jon, you are obligated. You are obligated to proclaim the gospel. And if you have been given a public platform, you dare not shirk that responsibility.

The fact is, the vast majority of people are going to remember Switchfoot for their songs. Their songs are on the radio. They’re on TV. People are singing them in the shower; listening to them in the car; playing them in garage bands. Of course lyrics (including personal pronouns) matter! To say what you do is more important than what you sing is a cop out. It's both and, not either or. Again, my question is: why does Jon Foreman want to avoid being put into a "Christian" box? What is he afraid of? If you're not ashamed of the gospel, good, then why aren't you shouting it from the rooftops? I don’t understand this thinking. So when you were lost, blind, poor, and wretched; wallowing in your own sin, Christ found you. He rescued you, and with His own blood, redeemed you. In agony and humiliation on the cross, He endured the pains of hell and the wrath of God that you deserve, and gave you His righteousness instead, but you don’t want to sing about that? Jesus is worth singing about. He is worthy of our songwriting; of our all. More worthy than we could know. There is every reason in the world to sing about Him! So I want to turn it around. Give me one good, biblical reason not to sing about Jesus.

Revival or Reformation?

Before we see revival in the culture there must be reformation in the church. Revival cannot break forth in the world if the church is comfortably asleep in the darkness. The world is going to live like the world. There will be evil, selfishness, injustice, and an all-consuming desire for money and possessions. It ought not to be so with us. Too often we look to the world and bemoan its vices, or the government and its hypocrisy, as if the government is the solution to the problems of our society. Government is not the answer, the gospel is. Of course the world is corrupt, what else would we expect? And those who do not repent and believe the gospel will be judged, but we must remember that, “judgment begins with the household of God,” 1 Pet. 4:17.

Too many who claim to be Christians live lives that are indistinguishable from the world. If someone looks at your life and doesn’t see a difference between you and your unbelieving neighbor, there’s a problem. As Paul reminds us, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,” (Rom. 12:2) so we should shine as stars in the darkness; reflecting the light of the Son. As the Apostle John tells us:

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him,” 1 John 2:15.

Do we love the world? Are we focused on ourselves instead of Christ? Do we desire earthly pleasures and possessions? Is the blood of Jesus shed on our behalf precious to us, or have we become accustomed to it? Do we have a genuine love for God? Is His glory our highest priority?

Just as the Roman Catholic Church was in desperate need of reformation in the sixteenth century, so we are today. The Reformation is not over. Yes, the errors of Rome are numerous, but we need reform in the Protestant church as well. Our worship resembles rock concerts and our preaching is glorified motivational speaking. Our churches are comfortable and casual, and our pastors are hip but lacking in biblical exposition and doctrinal depth. We want sinners to feel at ease. We don’t want to offend anyone so instead of preaching repentance and faith, we present a multimedia event. But church should be different than going to the movies. If we don’t like the music or if the pastor doesn’t say the things we want to hear, we just find another church. We treat church the same way we treat fast food. We would rather have onion rings instead of fries with our burger. Instead of proclaiming Jesus as Savior, Lord, and King, before whom we should bow, He has become our acquaintance, even our homeboy. We have totally lost reverence for the holiness of God. He is holy beyond our imagination. He is worthy of infinite worship and devotion.

We need to repent folks. We need to repent of our apathy, of our complaining, our self-centeredness, and our consumer-driven mentality. We are not called to be consumers of shallow Christianity; we are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ. We must take up our cross and follow Him. It’s not about our tastes, or our preferences. In fact it’s not really about us. It’s about self-denial. It’s about following in the footsteps of the Master and living the crucified life for God’s glory alone. The cross is not only the starting point of the Christian life; it is center of the Christian life. Christ crucified and resurrected should be the center of our world. As the Apostle Paul said:

“For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified,” 1 Cor. 2:2.

Do we need revival? You better believe it! But what we don’t need is a revival of so called “manifestations” of the Spirit. What we really need is a revival of sound biblical doctrine, expository preaching, and Christ-centered living that shuns cultural conformity and is fueled by a passion for the glory of God. The truths that were recaptured by the Reformers need to inflame our hearts once more. The sovereignty of God in all things, the supremacy of Christ, the authority of Scripture, the doctrines of grace, holiness, purity, truth, honor, righteousness, faith, and genuine Christian charity. The five Solas of the Reformation codify this so well. Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone! This says it all. This is the heart of the gospel and the soul of Christianity.

We may long for revival, but what we need is reformation!

Holy Fuzzy Thinking Dr. Craig!

For someone as scholarly and well respected as William Lane Craig, I am absolutely astounded at his fuzzy thinking. Not to mention debates where he used the three-headed dog Cerberus from Greek mythology as an analogy for the Trinity, and the protagonist from the movie Avatar as an analogy for the two natures of Christ. Craig should be smart enough to know that all analogies for God ultimately break down. The finite will never be able to fully comprehend the infinite; not only that, but such poor analogies as Cerberus and Avatar, seriously? Rather, we should point people to the authority of Scripture and define the nature of God as the Bible defines it.

But I digress. The point I wanted to focus on was a question¹ posted on Craig’s website and the answer he gave. The question was about Calvinism and Molinism, with respect to God’s foreknowledge. The questioner was obviously confused, yet Craig’s answer only added to the confusion. I was baffled. I did some more research and looked at other articles and questions he answered in this regard to further ascertain his views. For those who don’t know, William Lane Craig is a proponent of Molinism or what is called middle-knowledge, which is a strange concept devised by a Jesuit theologian in the 16th century named Luis de Molina. I won’t really get into that here except to say that it’s a concept which tries to reconcile the mystery of God’s sovereignty with human free will and culpability by positing that God has "middle-knowledge" of all possible events, people, circumstances, etc. For more information on Molinism and its errors go here. However, I want to address some of the fallacies of Craig’s thinking and the logical consequences that inevitably follow.

When it comes to the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge, the question that must be answered is: since God is omniscient, how does He know the future? You can't simply appeal to His omniscience to answer the question. Again, how does God know the future? Does He have passive knowledge because He sees what will happen, or does God know the future because He has ordained what will happen? This is the point. If you don’t answer this question, you cannot proceed with any meaningful discussion. The answer lies with the nature of God. God’s omniscience by definition rules out the idea that many people have, that somehow God looks into the future and “sees” what will happen. As if God, like a clockmaker, sort of winds up the universe and lets it go to see how things unfold. The basic problem with this is twofold. First, God is an eternal, transcendent being who is outside of time. In fact He created time. So a Being that is not bound by time and has infallible knowledge is not required to look into the future. The future is already established. Second, there wouldn't be a future in the first place unless God ordained that it should be. In other words, you cannot separate God’s foreknowledge from His decree. This can be seen in many passages of Scripture. Let's look at Isaiah 46:9-10 as an example:

“Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 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.’”

So how can God declare the end (future) from the beginning? How can He know the things not yet done? It is because He has decreed the future. His counsel will stand, and He will accomplish His purposes. Take a look at Acts 4:27-28.

"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, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."

So the crucifixion of Jesus and all the people involved in it, and all of the circumstances surrounding it, happened exactly as God predestined. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Another great example is where the Bible tells us that Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8. How is this so? It is because God ordained it before He created the world. Some people are not consistent in their theology at this point. They think that the fall of Adam and Eve was a surprise to God and redemption is the clean-up operation that God devised to fix the horrible mess Adam made. As if God turned to Jesus and the Holy Spirit and said, “Did you see what Adam and Eve just did? I told them not to eat that fruit! I can’t believe what they just did! Well, okay, let’s see how we can remedy this situation. I've got it! Jesus, would you mind going down there and becoming a man and dying on a cross, and so on, etc.” No! Redemption was God’s plan from the beginning. How can Jesus be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world if this was an afterthought? Look at 2 Timothy 1:8-9:

“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.”

Did you catch that? We were called according to God’s purpose and given grace in Christ before time began! That is and incredible thought. It’s mind-boggling! I don’t see anything in this passage that says God looked into the future and saw that we would place our faith in Christ and so chose us on that basis. No, all of this was settled in God’s mind long before you and I were born, before the world was created, in fact, before time began.

This is the biblical teaching. Now let's contrast it with William Lane Craig's erroneous middle-knowledge view. In a nutshell Craig posits that when God created the world, He was trying to maximize the amount of people that would freely choose Him while minimizing those who would reject Him and so thereby end up in hell. So God chose presumably, from an infinite number of possible worlds that "could" have been created and arranged the circumstances so that the majority of people would freely come to Christ. In this world some people may never choose Him regardless of the conditions, but might have, given a different world and different conditions. This concept starts getting convoluted really fast. So with this idea as the backdrop, here is what Craig says:

"The hypothesis is that God has done the very best He can, given the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him….The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt."²

What? Are you serious? I don't even know what to do with such nonsense! So God is doing the best He can and has to play with the hand He has been dealt? Who dealt Him this hand Mr. Craig? Is there some other deity that is more powerful than God? This is so utterly absurd that it almost isn't worth mentioning. It's hard to believe people entertain such foolishness.

Now Craig is using the word "counterfactual" in the philosophical sense expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions. For example: If I would have gotten up earlier, I would not have been late for work. This is true of course, but the glaring problem is, it is totally hypothetical! Since God knew from all eternity exactly what time I would get out of bed on a particular morning, then I couldn't possibly have done otherwise unless God is not omniscient.

It gets worse. In answer to a question on his website about the creation of possible worlds in which certain individuals may or may not freely choose God, William Lane Craig said this:

"It is of the very nature of free will to make an arbitrary choice between equally good alternatives. So it seems to me that God could choose arbitrarily between these two worlds (though there are countless other options)."³

Wow! Unbelievable. I'm not even going to address his flawed notion of free will in this post, but anyone who says such things loses all credibility. I am sorry to say, I no longer respect Dr. Craig because anyone who can make such absurd statements has left the path of wisdom. This is a direct assault against the very character of God. Does Craig even read the Bible? God does not do anything arbitrarily! He always has a purpose, and that purpose will always be accomplished, (Ps. 33:11, Prov. 19:21). I think the problem is Craig's starting point. It seems that he starts with philosophical presuppositions and then tries to make the Bible fit them, instead of starting with the exegesis of Scripture first. If you begin with the Bible, not philosophy, you won't end up saying ridiculous things like this.

God has a plan for all things. He doesn't play cards or roll dice. There is no "could have been," or "might have been" with God. He didn't create the world by an arbitrary decision. There weren't countless other options. It was the only world He intended to create. And those whom God intended to redeem will be saved. They will never be lost because God had an eternal plan to save them, "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," Eph. 1:11.

¹ http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-molinism-as-depressing-as-calvinism

² http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-and-the-soteriological-problem-of-evil-once-more

³ http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion

Well I finally did it! I finished John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It took a long time, but it was definitely worth it. It is not an easy-read novel or a fast-paced pager-turner, but contained within is a wealth of knowledge. It is a massive tome of deep biblical theology; a comprehensive compendium on the chief tenets of Christianity as well as a defense against heresy and the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. I recommend every Christian read it. And if you want to learn more about Calvin the man, I recommend, The Expository Genius of John Calvin by Dr. Steven J. Lawson.

As I read his work and learned about his life, I found some things that were both amusing and profound, so I made a short list.

Calvin’s favorite word: Piety
Calvin’s second favorite word: Cavil
What Calvin is probably most remembered for: The doctrine of election
Where Calvin is probably most misunderstood: The doctrine of election
Calvin’s most beautiful treatise: His discourse on prayer
Calvin's primary role Pastor
Calvin's highest aim: The glory of God

If you think Calvin was an authoritarian, fire and brimstone Reformer who thundered God’s wrath and burned heretics at the stake, you should read his discourse on prayer. It will change your opinion of him. Yes, Calvin was a powerful Reformer who rediscovered and articulated the core biblical truths which altered history in sixteenth century Geneva. And his Institutes of the Christian Religion has become a defining masterpiece of Protestant theology.

But Calvin was primarily a pastor and a preacher of the gospel. He was a biblical expositor of the highest order, so much so that Philip Melanchthon called him “the Theologian." He worked tirelessly, preached constantly, and wrote extensively even on his deathbed. When he was so gravely ill, to the point where he could no longer walk, he still desired to preach. And so was carried to church on a stretcher. He was beset with many ailments throughout his life and died at age 54. Yet for all this, Calvin was just a man, a sinner saved by grace. He deserves no praise, except to say he was gifted by the Holy Spirit to expound the Word of God.

I don’t follow John Calvin, except where he followed Christ, though imperfectly, as we all do. I follow Holy Scripture. I follow the Lord Jesus. Yet I think Calvin was a brilliant theologian who was used by God in profound ways. And if some dare to "cavil" at the doctrines of predestination and election, we must remember that Calvin didn’t invent these doctrines. Like it or not, the Bible clearly teaches them. We must never forget that Jesus Himself said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day,” John 6:44.

Radically Reformed?

When I thought about starting this blog I was initially going to call it "Radically Reformed." I wanted a title with either the word "Reformed," or "Reformation" in it. Plus it kind of rolls off the tongue. I was hesitant to use the word "radically" because words mean different things to different people. So I went to my old friend Webster to see what he had to say. I like to look up the meaning of words and their etymology. It's interesting how words change over time and sometimes mean very different, or even opposite things from what they originally meant. Anyway, here's how Webster defines the word radical: 1) very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary; 2) very basic and important.

As I began to reflect on this it didn't bother me so much and I began to think of some things that were radical in Scripture, as well as in church history, and in my own life.

Jesus did some radical things. He ate with sinners and tax collectors. He healed the sick on the Sabbath Day. He rebuked religious leaders. And He did strange things like making mud with His spittle and anointing the eyes of the blind. He even brought the dead back to life. The incarnation itself was totally out of the ordinary. In fact, it was unprecedented! The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And what may be even more radical was instead of overthrowing Roman rule and reigning as the triumphant Messiah; He became the suffering servant and died on a cross to redeem His people.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformation was considered radical. Many Protestants today don’t even know what they are protesting. Yet in those days, joining the growing Reformation movement could cost you your life. It took a lot of courage for an unknown Augustinian monk named Martin Luther to stand alone against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet in 1517 the sound of pounding nails as Luther hammered his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg reverberated throughout the world and changed the course of history forever.

The Lord Jesus Christ has also done something radical in my own life. Far from such earth-shattering things as raising the dead or changing history, although no less meaningful to me, He has opened my eyes to see the truth revealed in His word. By His grace, I laid aside my presuppositions and allowed the Bible to speak for itself. I began to see the truths recaptured by the Reformers. Unwillingly at first and not without struggle, but the more I study, the more I am convinced.

I now consider myself to be Reformed for no other reason than because I am forced to be by the clear testimony of Holy Scripture. Faithful, consistent exegesis is the only basis for this transition. I simply find it to be the most God-honoring, Christ-exalting, biblically faithful system of theology. In fact, I would say that it is nothing more than true biblical Christianity.

For over thirty years I was largely ignorant of the Reformed faith up until a few years ago. Like so many of us, we simply believe what we have been taught without looking at it critically or testing it in light of Scripture. This of course requires hermeneutics and hermeneutics requires work, but the benefits are abundant. As I studied like never before, I began to see throughout the entirety of Scripture truths that were always there but I somehow missed. The Bible opened up like an unfolding flower. The God I worshipped suddenly grew infinitely larger, and my love for Christ and His atoning sacrifice grew deeper. I feel as though I have only scratched the surface and have a long way to go, but the well is deep and the goal is God, "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen," Rom. 11:36.

Life and Doctrine

The Apostle Paul told Timothy: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers,” 1 Timothy 4:16 NIV.

Contextually, Paul is exhorting young Timothy his protégé, not to let anyone look down on him for being young, but to keep a close watch on his life and the teaching that was committed to him. As he says in verse 12, "set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity." Paul then reminds Timothy to devote himself to the reading of Scripture and to teaching, not neglecting the gift of God within him. This exhortation can be applied to all believers and especially to pastors and teachers.

The goal of every believer is to live a God-honoring, Christ-centered life. To walk in the footsteps of the Master as faithful disciples; imitating the Lord Jesus Christ and growing in sanctification as the grace of God works through us, 1 Corinthians 11:1, 15:10, Philippians 2:13.

No less important than right living is right doctrine. How do we know how to live the Christian life? Doctrine. Theology. Doctrine informs our understanding of who God is, who we are, and how we are to live and worship Him. Orthodoxy fuels orthopraxy.

So how do we know whether or not what we believe is doctrinally sound? Well it depends on who you ask, but in general doctrine is first of all derived from Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura). The Bible is the final authority and contains everything we need for faith and practice. Also, the creeds and confessions of the church have helped codify the tenets of Christianity and are invaluable for understanding sound doctrine. Much of this of course, depends on hermeneutics. That is why it is vitally important to learn the art and science of biblical interpretation so we won't be easily led astray. Hermeneutics seems to be a lost art in the church today and we need to regain it. Even so called "leaders" seem to be unaware that there are actually rules for interpreting the Bible, which is why so many heresies and false doctrines are prevalent in the church today. Paul's words to Timothy in his second epistle are so instructive:

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth," 2 Timothy 2:15.

We must learn to rightly handle God's truth. Theology matters! But why does it matter? First, the word theology comes from two Greek words, theos, meaning God, and logy, or logía, which is a suffix meaning the study of something. So theology is the study and understanding of the nature of God. As Christians we tend to also use the word theology in a broader sense. We refer to theology as not only the study of God, but also of Christian faith and teachings as revealed in the Bible. What could be more important than that? If you are a Christian and theology isn't high on your priority list, it's time to reexamine your list. Actually, it's time to tear it up and start over. Theology is paramount. We can never exhaust it, because God is inexhaustible. He is infinite. He is eternal; the self-existent, immutable, sovereign creator of all things. Our understanding of Him affects every aspect of our lives, so this is not something we can neglect. As C. S. Lewis said:

"Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones — bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas." - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

The pursuit of godly living and sound doctrine should be our highest aim, motivated by a love for Christ and a desire to glorify God in all we do. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism so aptly tells us, the chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. And this is principally done through the reading and study of God's word, as well as through prayer, worship, and fellowship with other believers. And so again, as Paul exhorted Timothy:

"Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers," 1 Timothy 4:13-16.