God is the Potter, and Men Are the Clay

"The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom" (Proverbs 16:4). 

This verse amazes me, because it turns a complex and difficult topic into one simple sentence. It tells us that God, Jehovah, is the Creator, and that He has made all things, including the wicked, not for our own purposes, but for His. Paul uses the image of the potter to convey the same concept: "You will say to me, then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:19-21; see also Jeremiah 18:1-17). Paul's "vessel for dishonor" is the same as Proverbs' "wicked." 

Such Scriptures leave no ground for imagining human autonomy. The God of the Bible is no pagan deity who molds people like pinballs to bounce their own way through life at their own whim or mystical karma/fate. In fact, it is exactly this rejection of autonomy which is the real justification for unbelief. the unbeliever desperately desires to imagine that he is the captain of his own fate, and his imagination is cast down if he ever acknowledges that God is God and the man is not.

We see the same thing in the addict of free-will theology. He, too, retains from unbelief the assumption of his own autonomy. "God didn't create us to be robots," he protests. No, God made us to be His servants; it is sin that makes us robots. Yet, the free-will theologian has nothing to say about his enslavement sin. That, he never says out loud, is preferable to being enslaved to the God who made him. 

Treason to God as Rational Justification for Eternal Punishment

I get challenged regularly by atheists who object to God because, they believe, they don't deserve Hell. they claim that Hell is overkill for the actions of most human beings. 

Do they have a case? No, I don't believe that they do. 

In his book, The Existence and Attributes of God, Puritan Stephen Charnock addresses this point: "Man would make himself his own end and happiness. As God ought to be esteemed [as] the first cause, in point of our dependence on Him, so He ought to be our last end, in point of our enjoyment of Him. When we, therefore, trust in ourselves, we refuse Him as the first cause; and when we act for ourselves and expect a blessedness from ourselves, we refuse Him as the chief good and last end, which is an undeniable piece of atheism. For man is a creature of a higher rank than others in the world, and was not made (as animals, plants, and other works of the divine power) materially to glorify God, but was made a rational creature, intentionally to honor God by obedience to His rule, dependence on His goodness, and zeal for His glory. It is, therefore, as much a sleighting of God for man - a creature - to set himself up as his own end as to regard himself as his own law." 

This concept was not new with Charnock. rather, he put into his own words the thoughts of the Apostle Paul: "Although they [i. e., unbelievers] knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (Romans 1:21-23). 

The two men are describing two different forms of unbelief, of course. While Paul is describing the turning to pagan worship, Charnock is describing the atheist. However, the two forms are fundamentally one, in that they put someone else in the place of our Creator and Sustainer, the triune God of the Bible. All unbelievers have chosen Satan's offer (Genesis 3:5) of autonomy, illusory though it be.

Now the question to the atheist or pagan should be one that either can understand rationally: if a traitor has pulled his rightful king off the throne, whether to take it for himself or to give it to an interloper, is that not a crime which should be subject to the highest penalty available? A political figure may have only the ability to hang a traitor, having no reach beyond physical death. But God's jurisdiction cannot be thwarted by mere physical death (Matthew 10:28). And just as the rebel in Hell does not eschew his rebellion, neither does his divine Judge relent in His judgment through the rest of eternity. 

So, contrary to the assertion of the atheist, the judgment of Hell is both real and perfectly just. The only escape is to flee to Jesus, to be covered by His atoning blood, and to recognize that God remains on His throne, regardless of the efforts of man to cast Him down.

Sin, Human Autonomy, and Practical Atheism

In his famous book, The Existence and Attributes of God, Puritan Stephen Charnock tells us, "By the nonregarding [sic, for "disregarding"]of God, men rush into evil. Pharaoh oppressed Israel because he knew not the Lord. If he did not deny the being of a deity, yet he had such an unworthy notion of God as was inconsistent with the nature of a deity: he, a poor creature, thought himself a match for the Creator." He refers to the passage in Exodus known especially for the account of the ten plagues, as Moses tried to free the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. In that passage, we see comments from Pharaoh like, "Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice and let Israel go?" (Genesis 5:2).

Charnock called this attitude "practical atheism." He notes that Pharaoh never denied the existence of gods, or even of the God. Rather, Pharaoh denied the sovereignty of God, asserting, instead, his personal autonomy from the will and commands of God. That is why Charnock calls Pharaoh's mentality "atheism," because it was a denial, in effect, of the deity, of the Godness, of God. 

This exemplifies, Charnock continues, the attitude behind all the sins of men, whether or not stated explicitly as it was by Pharaoh. It is, in fact, the false promise made by Satan in the Garden, that Adam and Eve would become like gods, deciding for themselves what is good and what is evil (Genesis 3:5). It is as if he told them, "Forget about God and decide for yourselves." And, like Pharaoh long after them, they accepted the promise of Satan. 

Free Grace and the Creator-Creature Distinction

"Esteem not yourself the better for what you may carry with you. Think not to be accepted because of your present. It is not your money, Isaiah 55:1, John 7:37, nor your double money in your hand that will fetch you corn from above, though it may come from Egypt. Silver and gold, your own works and worthiness, are of no value at the mint of free grace. But there it is, and thence you must have whatever may hinder you welcome at the court of Heaven." -Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

People like to bargain. "If you do X, then I will do Y for you." That is part of our existence as creatures of a similar class. However, seeing our autonomy from our fellow creatures, we imagine that we have a comparable stand with our Creator, offering Him some good works, according to our own standards, in exchange for His forgiveness. 

However, our relationship with God is not of the same sort as that with our fellow creatures. We may be equal to them, and with the autonomous right to offer voluntary exchanges, but neither applies to our relationship as creature to our Creator. 

As our Maker, God retains an absolute right over His creatures. The Bible compares that relationship to that between the potter and his clay: "O House of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O House of Israel" (Jeremiah 18:6; see also Romans 9:21). And what does the lump of clay have that it can exchange with the potter to change its form? Nothing. 

That is why the justification of God's people can be only by His voluntary condescension. "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then, it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... So then, He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:14-18). 

The Unpopular Biblical Doctrine of Reprobation

"The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." 

-Proverbs 16:4 

I think that the least-popular doctrine of Calvinism is that of reprobation, the biblical teaching that God has not only elected some to salvation, but has also chosen the rest for damnation. In biblical language, it is said that God has made the reprobate from the same lump of clay, but as "vessels for dishonorable use" (Romans 9:21; see same phrase in II Timothy 2:20). Both Peter (I Peter 2:8) and Jude, the brother of Jesus (Jude 1:4), tell us that false teachers were anciently purposed for condemnation. 

Yet, though Scripture is explicit on the matter, Christians hate it, deny it, and turn a blind eye to such verses. Even Reformed Christians soften the teaching by saying that it is merely God's passive passing by those whom He has not decided to elect unto salvation. In other words, God, they say, did not decree that the reprobate would die in unbelief; rather, He simply decided not to ordain their salvation. Yet Scripture tells us, "He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). Paul certainly showed no hesitancy in declaring that unbelief is as much the decree of God as is belief. 

So, why are Christians of today hesitant, where our forefathers showed no hesitation to speak plainly? 

I think that it is because of the infiltration of the worldview of autonomy into the Christian mentality that has created this backpedaling. American evangelicals have adopted the American cultural view of autonomy, of personal sovereignty, against which the sovereignty of God is a distasteful atavism. Yes, the Puritans held to God's absolute kingship over the creature, but we have outgrown that. 

We have? 

Not really. Rather, that absolute personal autonomy falls back to a time far earlier than that of Paul, Peter, or Jude. It hearkens back to the words of Satan in Genesis 3:5, when he deceitfully tempted Adam and Eve with the myth of independence of the creature from the Creator. 

The Omnipresence of God: Everywhere and All the Time

"Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God far away? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord." 

-Jeremiah 23:23-24 

With the Scriptures, Christians have always held that God is omnipresent. That is, He is everywhere. 

David made the same point: "Where shall I go from Your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, You are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me. If I say, 'Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,' even the darkness is not dark to You; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with You" (Psalm 139:7-12). 

However, though the two passages make the same point, they reveal very different attitudes toward that truth. In Jeremiah, God is rebuking the Israelites for imagining that the idolatries that they perform in secret are hidden from the God whom they profess. In contrast, David describes that same omnipresence as a comfort, knowing the presence of God both as his defender and as a spur to reject temptation. 

Do we see America's professing Christians in either of these passages? We still have enough of our Christian heritage left that few profess outright atheism or worship pagan deities. Yet, we see the false promise of Satan, that he will give his devotees autonomy from the rule of God, in the actual spiritual practice and lives of those same Christians. 

We go to church on Sunday, pray, sing God's praises, and read His word. Then Monday through Saturday, too many of us live as the pagans we really are, whether it is treachery toward loved ones, sexual immorality, covetousness, or any of the other sins in our minds that are not visible to others, we imagine that God sees nothing of them. We are free to lust because these six days belong to us, and God gets His required share on Sunday mornings. 

That is exactly what God rebukes through Jeremiah. Do we imagine that God sees us on Sunday mornings, but then turns blind Monday through Saturday? Many Christians act as if that is the case. But His point, as well as that of David, is that autonomy is a pipe dream, because God is everywhere, always knowing, and sees the truth of our hearts. Who is sovereign? God or us? God does not share. 

The Sovereignty of God Leaves No Autonomy for Men

 Sometimes it is funny to talk to people not well-versed in sound biblical theology. When I ask them, "Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?," they always answer, "Of course!" Then, however, the footnotes start coming out, like the small print in a credit card commercial. "But He gives us free will, to choose to sin or not, to believe or not, to do good works or not." So, in reality, those people consider themselves to be sovereign, not God. That causes me to wonder if they have skipped over the large portions of Scripture that say otherwise. 

For example, in II Samuel 24:1, we read these words: "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them." The account in I Chronicles adds an additional detail: "Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David" (I Chronicles 21:1). So, we have two different writers in their respective books telling us that God had determined to punish Israel but inciting David to sin. God is sovereign over the sins of men. Furthermore, the two books tell us that God uses means to bring about that sin. II Samuel just tells us that David himself is the means. I Chronicles gives us the additional information that He used Satan to incite David. Thus we know that God is sovereign over not just the sins of men, but over the temptations of Satan, as well. 

The story continues: "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the appointed time. And there died of the people from Dan to Beersheba 70,000 men. And when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, 'It is enough; now stay your hand.' And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, 'Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?'..." (II Samuel 24:15-17). The parallel in I Chronicles 21:14-15 says, "So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel, and 70,000 men of Israel fell. And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it." The important thing to see here is that God had sovereignly incited the sin, yet still punished Israel for it. Also, it was David's sin (as he acknowledges in II Samuel 24:17), but God punishes the entire nation. That is simply because David was the covenant head of the nation; therefore, his sin was imputed to all of those who were covenantally represented by him. We are also again told of God's use of means, this time an angel (probably a parallel to the curse on Egypt in (Exodus 12:23, "destroyer"). 

The issue is very simple: fallen man wants to keep some of the autonomy promised to him by Satan in the fall of Adam (Genesis 3:5). Even the professing Christian struggles to relinquish his false sense of self-ownership. yet, God claims absolute sovereignty, over man, over sin, over Satan, and even over salvation. We must come to see that God's worldview is God-centered, no matter how much we want Him to be us-centered.

Man as the Creature and as the Sinner

"When a man sins, he thereby brings a covenantal lawsuit against God. His action violates all five points of the covenant. First, he denies that God is who He says He is: the Lawgiver and eternal Judge. Second, he declares himself no longer under God's hierarchical authority. Third, he says that God's ethical standards do not apply to him. Fourth, he denies that God can or will apply His sanctions, either in history or eternity. Fifth, he asserts that covenant-breakers shall inherit the earth."

- Gary North, "Tools of Dominion"

What North describes here is autonomy, the false belief that mankind is or can be free of God's government. It is the same thing that Satan offered in the temptation of Adam and Eve: "Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). We tend to see these words and think of knowing about good and evil. However, Adam had already been taught about good and evil when God gave him the commandment not to eat of the tree and the consequences if he disobeyed. Rather, Satan is lying to Adam and Eve, promising them that eating of the forbidden fruit will give them the power to decide good and evil. Satan was offering autonomy to Adam and Eve, autonomy from their previous creaturely status, in which they received God's interpretation of good and evil. That is the way in which they would supposedly be like God, having power and authority to interpret for themselves what would be good and evil.

That brings us back to North's comments above. In the reception of Satan's interpretation, a man repudiates his status as God's creation, and seeks to dethrone God as Lawgiver and Judge, imagining, falsely, that he will then be promoted to sit in God's throne. 

How the Church Paved the Way for Humanism

There has long been a tradition of dividing the Ten Commandments into two tables, commandments one through four and then five through ten. I am OK with that division. The first four deal primarily with man's relationship with God, and the other six primarily with his relationship with his fellow man. They are often portrayed this way in images of the commandments. That might be a bit fanciful. We have no record of how they were divided between the two tablets. Or even if they were divided. Some people believe that each tablet displayed all ten.

That's fine so far. 

There is also a common view that the civil government is supposed to enforce the second table, the laws against thievery and murder, etc., but has no authority over the first four. 

My question is this: Why? 

Sometimes the answer is that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. We have freedom of religion in this land, so we can't have laws against idolatry. Yet our country has a heritage of so-called "blue laws," laws that required businesses to be closed on Sunday in honor of the Sabbath. "Blue," in this case, derives from a historical usage, in which "blue" was used for something which was overly strict. It was a pejorative term, but passed into general usage. The courts have upheld Sunday-closing laws on secular grounds, such as the practicality of providing a day off for workers. 

However, the question must be, Why does the First Amendment - in reality, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment - outweigh God's commandments? Should a cultural preference become the standard by which even Christians are to live, over the Word of God? 

When God tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3), His desire is clear. So also when He says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (verses 4-5). So, on what grounds do we decide that His will in these two commandments is less important that it is when He says, "You shall not murder" (verse 13)? There is certainly no biblical justification for that judgment. 

When the Westminster Standards were originally written, the Larger Catechism, question and answer 109, included among the sins forbidden by the Second Commandment, "tolerating a false religion."  However, in 1788, when the first Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church met in the newly-independent United States, they removed that clause as offensive to religious liberty. Not as offensive to the Word of God. 

What this should tell us is that the secular humanism which has come to dominate these United States is not a new phenomenon, and did not suddenly puff into existence because prayer was removed from government schools in the 1960's. Rather, it was the culmination of that decision in 1788 to place political and cultural considerations above the enscripturated Word of God. The door was opened to the supposed independence of "secular life" from God. Now we have parts of our lives which are designated "religious," and parts which are designated "secular." And the humanists are perfectly happy with allowing Christians to enjoy that distinction, because it turns all of life outside the church doors over to them. And the church doors are only a temporary barrier, until the humanists have secured their territory against that day.

Truth Is Truth, or It Is False

In today's America, it has become the norm to speak of all truth as subjective, my truth, your truth, etc. All truth, of course, except that all truth is subjective. No deviation from that can be tolerated. "I can't tolerate intolerance." But even that, as much as it is said, is not what people actually do. Tolerance is the norm for any idea to the left of one's own worldview. Intolerance is expected for any idea to the right.

Has that idea infiltrated the church? I think it has. My own governor had no tolerance for the plans of the Republican Party for its convention, regarding social distancing and the wearing of masks in response to the covid virus. But did you see the funeral for the late-Congressman John Lewis, a darling of the left? No social distancing, and not a peep of protest. Just a deafening silence.

However, the historic Christian faith, as opposed to the invented form of the political left, is built on objective truth.

We have the words of Jesus: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Not only did He have an unequivocal understanding of His role in salvation, but also of His nature. He is the way, the only way, and the truth. Not "a" truth, but "the" truth.

And this One who is ultimate truth said of the Bible, speaking to the Father: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). This One who is Himself the truth, has revealed Himself in the Bible, which bears His truth.

And how is His truth, revealed in the truth of the Bible, then carried to His people? By the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13).

I think that what this demonstrates is that a subjective understanding of truth is incompatible with the Christian worldview. The Bible and Jesus personally present a worldview based on explicit events, in historical time. Deviation from it is not just an alternative truth or worldview; it is a choice to disbelieve, with the eternal consequences that come with that choice.

The Spiritual Resurrection of the Believer from Death to Life

One of the continuing influences of Pelagianism is the supposition that men are in a spiritually-neutral state. I suspect that this is a holdover from American culture, because we want to believe that everyone is equally able to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. However, we have this statement from Paul to the believers in Ephesus: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). Even though that sentence is both simple and direct, people will deny it outright.

The significance of Paul's statement is that it does not allow any contribution by men to their own salvation. Just as a dead man cannot rescue himself from drowning, the spiritually-dead person cannot save himself from damnation. It is on that basis that the Apostle continues: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:1-9). It is exactly because man is dead spiritually that salvation must be by grace through faith alone, because only a living person can perform works. Salvation occurs because God has made us alive again by His own power, not by any action on our part.

Still, even as plain as Paul's statement is, many people still deny it. The illusion of autonomy offered by Satan in the Garden (Genesis 3:5) still entices us, so that we must retain some contribution of our own.

However, if some cannot accept the truth on the basis of Paul's words, will those of Jesus carry more weight? For it is He who said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24, emphasis mine). He describes salvation in Him as passing from death to life. Not from sickness to health, as the Arminian professes. The unbeliever is dead, while the believer is alive."And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O My people. And I will put My Spirit within you, and you shall live" (Ezekiel 37:13-14).

Perseverance: Will There Be Free Will in Heaven?

Those who oppose the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (also misleadingly called "eternal security" or "once saved always saved"), especially Catholics and Mormons, claim that we have free will, so we can will to leave our saved state. They never have  have Scripture for this supposed free will. Rather, they insist that it is necessary, in order for people truly to love God or sincerely to obey Him. When I ask, According to what standard?, they usually accuse me of turning men into automatons.

The point is that their objection is emotional, not rational or biblical. It is also cultural, reflecting an American attitude of "fairness." Other cultures don't have that problem. Watch them turn cross-eyed if you make any of these objections to the worshipers of free will!

They have another problem: Are we able to decide in heaven that we have changed our free wills about being there? I know of no one who says so, not even the rankest of Pelagians. When I have asked that question, the response has been that we will be sinless there. Of course we will! Praise God for that! But it doesn't change the question. Doesn't a sinless person have free will? If yes, then why can he not choose to cease being sinless and abandon Heaven? And if not, what happens to their insistence that free will is necessary?

More importantly, if he doesn't have free will in Heaven, then why? If the denial of free will, as the Arminian uses it, in this life creates automatons, and that is too horrible to contemplate, then why can we contemplate automatons in Heaven? 

Does this not prove that it is irrational to assert as a necessity that men have a free will, such that we are autonomous from the decrees of God? It clearly does. And worse, does it not represent the same temptation given to Adam by Satan (Genesis 3:5)? It is incumbent on the advocate of such free will to demonstrate a distinction. I deny that there is one..

What Is the Fear of God?

To the modern reader, there may be nothing written in Scripture more bewildering than one short phrase: "the fear of God." For example, believers are given this commandment: "You shall not wrong one another, but you shall fear your God, for I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 25:17). In contrast, the fear of God is described as the one thing that unbelievers lack: "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).

Then we have this verse: "Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of Him may be before you, that you may not sin" (Exodus 20:20). Do not fear, but fear?

Ah, but then we see some light at the end of this tunnel: "That you may not sin."

Consider also this verse: "You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him" (Deuteronomy 13:4).

From our own cultural perspective, we naturally see "fear" as meaning "be afraid." And the example from Exodus shows that it means that in the Bible sometimes, too. However, it has a broader meaning than we give it today.

We Americans have never had a king, so we sometimes miss some of the imagery of the Bible, which unreservedly portrays God as an absolute king, even calling Him, "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (I Timothy 6:15). The God of the Bible is King in such an absolute sense that He is king of all kings, and lord so absolutely that He is lord of all lords. We are to understand His rule as so singularly absolute that we have no higher words by which to name it.

Now think of the average person on the street who randomly runs into the President, or Prince William, or some TV or sports celebrity. In such a circumstance, the person is often struck dumb with awe, trembling even. He isn't afraid of the personage in the sense that he fears that he will be hurt. Rather, he is struck with such an awe that he cannot conceive of any other thought or action.

To a greater extent, that is the fear of God described in Scripture. The believer is so in awe that he cannot be distracted by any lesser concern or influence. That is why Moses can say that it is fear of God that inspires us to serve Him and hold fast to Him. This isn't a fear of punishment. Rather, it is an awe that precludes any lower considerations. Moreover, the hard part for an American is that it leaves no room for personal autonomy. God is the absolute sovereign, not me. This is not a democratic concept!

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Know the Bad News, then Recognize the Good News

"The law must be applied with power to the conscience, or the preciousness of grace will be very inadequately known. The superficial piety of the present day is owing, in a large degree, to feeble impressions of the malignity of sin" (James Henley Thornwell, "The necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The comment above was part of a long article in the Southern Presbyterian Review in 1849, but would be even more properly written in our current days. If anything, American evangelicalism has degenerated far past that described by Thornwell in his own time. What would he say about "churches" with female ministers, gay marriages, and that serve as laughingstocks to the world.

His diagnosis is correct. As the church has come to despise God's law, she has lost sight of the sinfulness of sin and its insult to the God she claims to serve. If the word is used at all, "sin" is left undefined, and only in occasions of unfortunate poverty and ignorance. Never is any person called a "sinner," because that is harsh and unloving.

A false Gospel that says only that "God loves you" to everyone leaves everyone satisfied with sin. God loves everyone unconditionally, so there is no need to repent. Church discipline is unheard of in our day.

The result is to use Thornwell's words, a feeble church, and people with a superficial piety.

That wasn't the way Jesus lived: "I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). And His cousin and favorite Apostle tells us: "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8). When was the last time a minister called out sin as being the influence of the devil, rather than ignorance or poor economic conditions? And what does the Bible say about that silence? "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18).

Rather, this is how the Bible defines sin: "Sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). And this brings us back to the problem identified by Thornwell. If minsters do not preach on the Law, then their congregants never learn God's standard of right and wrong. And if Christians have no standard, then we have no standard to present to our world: "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Timothy 1:8-10).

Paul the Apostle

Paganism and the True and Innate Knowledge of the Triune God

The Apostle Paul records something interesting in Romans 1:18-23: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

In this passage, Paul is referring to the knowledge of God which all men have, through the Law of God recorded in each man's conscience (Romans 2:15), reinforced by god's revelation of Himself in His works of creation (Psalm 19:1-4): "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." 

As Paul tells us in the Romans passage above, the inherent knowledge of God is received with hatred. The unregenerate man seeks to escape his awareness of God and our accountability to Him. One way in which he does so is to replace the true, triune God with mute idols in the forms of men and animals (see also Isaiah 44:9-20). Therefore, the existence of paganism is not a neutral historical event; it happened exactly because men are sinners under the wrath of God, that we know our condition, and we crave some solution that will quiet our consciences. In the case of paganism, the effort is to quiet our consciences while being able to continue in our deception of autonomy from the true God, who yet rails against the unregenerate man in his conscience. 

And Paul was not speaking from mere theory, but from his experience in the pagan world of Greco-Roman culture (Acts 17:16-34). "The religion he [Paul] proclaimed was preeminently that of a sinner - adapted in all its provisions to the spiritual necessities of a fallen being under the righteous government of God. The altars around him were dumb, yet pregnant, witnesses that the wants which the Gospel undertook to relieve were not the fictions of fancy, nor the creatures of superstition, but the urgent demands of the soul" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

Unbelief Is Ingratitude

In Romans 1:18-25, the Apostle Paul gave this description of the unbeliever: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." 

He tells us several surprising things. First of all, unbelief is not ignorance. God has so revealed Himself that no man can claim that he does not know about God (see, for example, Psalm 19:1-4). There is no such thing as an atheist. Every single human being who lives now, has ever lived, or will ever live, knows that God exists and that he is accountable to Him. 

Which leads us to the second surprise, that men hate that knowledge, and try to suppress it. That is the origin of both pagan religions and atheism, the heart of the unbeliever's effort to bury the knowledge of God, in order to remain free to imagine that he is sovereign over his life and can decide right and wrong for himself. 

This hatred of God, commonly called unbelief, expresses itself in the use of God's gifts, such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink, while crediting it to ourselves or to some other source apart from God. Unbelief is founded on ingratitude! 

"Such a conduct as the generality of men are guilty of towards God, continually and through all ages, in innumerable respects, would be accounted the most vile contemptuous treatment of a fellow creature, of distinguished dignity. Particularly men's treatment of the offers God makes of Himself to them as their friend, their Father, their God, and everlasting portion; their treatment of the exhibitions He has made of His immeasurable love, and the boundless riches of His grace in Christ, attended with earnest repeated calls, counsels, expostulations, and entreaties; as also of the most dreadful threatenings of His eternal displeasure and vengeance" (Jonathan Edwards, "Original Sin," Book 1, section 5).

 

 

American Evangelical Tolerance: The Game Plan That Failed

In America, the popular version of evangelical Christianity has followed our new national orthodoxy: "Thou shalt not offend." God loves everyone unconditionally. Even the Pope has joined in, claiming that atheists might be saved without knowing it. To talk about God's holiness, wrath, or judgment is to be considered too fanatical for polite company.

However, that American religion is not at all like the biblical faith from which it came.

Here is what the Bible says about the justice of God: "That day [of judgment] is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, to avenge Himself on His foes. The sword shall devour and be sated and drink its fill of their blood" (Jeremiah 46:10. Where is that tolerant, all-loving deity of today's Christian? Certainly not in this verse.

Here is another one: "The LORD has a sword; it is sated with blood; it is gorged with fat, with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom" (Isaiah 34:6).

These verses are just examples, not alone in expressing the violence of the judgment of God. Moreover, they reveal a God who is utterly unlike the creampuff advocated by the average American professing evangelical. Why is that?

It is because of the content of the "love" advocated by that brand of evangelical. He thinks of God's love as requiring approval of whatever he wants to do. Only a meanie describes anything as wicked or as deserving of judgment.

The problem is that the love described by such people is love for them, and for what they want. They do not allow the other side of love, God's love for Himself. God is not allowed to love Himself or His holiness or His word. In other words, such people advocate a one-directional tolerance, a tolerance that benefits them. They feel no obligation to tolerate God or what He values. And, sadly for them, God does not feel bound to honor their definition of tolerance. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:20-21). 

You see, when these evangelicals created their religion of unconditional love and tolerance, they just assumed that God would go along with the gameplan. If they had consulted Him, though, they would have discovered that God doesn't play by their plan.

The New American Babel: Humanism

I love America. It is my homeland, and the home of my ancestors for three hundred years, not even counting my American Indian ancestors. It is as a patriot and a believer that I recognize that she is currently dominated by secular humanism, the religious view that holds that the intellect of men is the standard of morality. Even most professing Christians are actually humanists, judging all things according to whether those things make them feel good.

However, the Bible gives God's answer to humanism: "The LORD of hosts has purposed it, to defile the pompous pride of all glory, to dishonor all the honored of the earth" (Isaiah 23:9). the more that men lift themselves up, regardless of the Christian terminology they put on it, the more they are setting themselves up to be overthrown. What effect that will have on the nation as a whole, I don't know.

What I do know is that this is not a new problem. it is exactly what happened soon after men started to rebuild after the Flood: "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, 'Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth'" (Genesis 11:1-4). So soon after godly Noah, his descendants were pursuing their own glory, just as their predecessors had. However, God witnessed their conspiracy: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.' So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:5-9).

The Tower of Babel represented the decision of men to glorify themselves as men. However, God saw and confounded their plans. The issue is that men may reject our place as creatures, and thus God's place as Creator. However, God never does either.

Now, my fear is what God will do to America, when He wearies of her tower of humanism. Every prior empire has been cast down violently. I pray they He will bring repentance before He brings judgment.

Humanistic Autonomy and God's Rule over the Wicked

If you ask a random person, at least among professing Christians, "Is God sovereign?" virtually 100% will answer "yes." However, if you dig a little more deeply and ask, "Over what is God sovereign?" you will probably get blank stares.

That's because most people hold to mixed worldviews, with some elements from a Christian tradition mixed with humanistic elements that they have absorbed from the society around us, properly known as "syncretism." They just blank out whatever conflicts occur between the parts of the worldview, like oil and vinegar as they separate in the bottle.

I have discussed God's sovereignty in salvation numerous times, but that isn't my issue this time. My question today is, Is God sovereign over evil, especially over evil people? Most people will answer something like, "Of course not; the wicked have used their free will to oppose God." In other words, men are autonomous from God, and good and evil depend on our choice to be under His government.

That is false. In fact, that answer is an example of an idea from the humanistic worldview. To go further, it is an expression of Satan's worldview, a paraphrase of his temptation to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5: "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." "Knowing" here doesn't mean "knowing about," but rather "knowing by choice." Satan was offering, though falsely, autonomy from the interpretive will of God, so that Adam and Eve could decide good and evil for themselves. 

What the humanistic worldview avoids is the knowledge that there is no such autonomy: "The LORD has made everything for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Proverbs 16:4). What Solomon tells us here is that all things, even the wicked, exist to serve the purposes of God, not their supposedly-autonomous self-will. And that's why the idea is so unpopular with Americans. We, especially, think of ourselves as the rulers of our own destinies. However, the Bible reveals to us that that idea comes from Satan. It is improperly the part of the worldview of any Christian, as we can see in the consequences that it brought on our first parents (Genesis 3:14-19).