A God-Centered God versus Man-Centered Men

I often get a challenge, both from atheists and from cults, "Why did God do X?" The thing about that challenge is its irrationality. Given belief in God, why would a believer expect - or be expected - to be able to explain the actions of God?

Except in the cases where Scripture gives god's explanation, the most we can say is that He chose to act for the sake of His own glory: "So that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory" (Ephesians 1:12; see also verses 6 and 14, and I Corinthians 10:31). This shows us why the unbeliever does not understand that answer. the man-centered mentality believes that it is exists for its own glory. In fact, even many professing Christians share that mentality. Such Christians are worse, though, because they also imagine that God exists for their glory. Their worldview is the reverse of their profession.

However, God does not sympathize with the man-centered mentality: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I do it, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also 42:8). We see here God's god-centered attitude, quite contrary to the expectations of sinful men. that is why he feels no compulsion to explain Himself to mere creatures: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As the great Southern Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell said: "His works are so many mirrors in which He reflects so much of His own image  as they are able to behold. There they may read what he is by contemplating what he does. They cannot approach His awful throne: the light would be intolerable to created eyes. But they can behold Him veiled and shadowed in His works. They cannot fathom His glorious essence, but they can learn His character from what He hath wrought before them and around them. It is this manifestation of His character and perfections, which in themselves are infinitely glorious, that the Scriptures mean when they speak of God's working all things with a reference to His glory" (from "The Gospel, God's Power and Wisdom").

The Empowerment of the Church Under Persecution

There is a saying: "Whoever forgets history is doomed to repeat it." And we are seeing an example play out before our eyes.

Tyrants have persecuted Christians throughout history. We often forget that all of the Apostles except John died violent deaths. The first one is described even within the time of the Bible: "About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword" (Acts 12:1-2). Yet, persecution has never destroyed the Church; it has only made her stronger. Eventually, the Christian faith overthrew the pagan religion of Rome, and became the religion of the empire.

However, the tyrants of China seem to have ignored history (a common fault among Communists), as they have started a new persecution of Christians there. But the Christians have not capitulated. Rather, they have been empowered. We may live to see the day when China, too, becomes a Christian nation.

These events make me think of another thing, though - the somnolent, flabby, and ineffectual church in America. Will god see fit to reform her through persecution? My hope is that He will not. Rather, may she instead be revived to the duties and power she has from Christ her Head.

Jacob & Esau and the Arminian Election Dodge

To my mind, Romans 9 is one of the easier bible chapters to understand. It is straightforward narrative, not poetry or apocalyptic imagery. Yet, some people go through some amazing acrobatics to avoid accepting what it says.

Here is one example: "When Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls— she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'" (Romans 9:10-13, including a quote from Malachi 1:2-3). This seems clear, doesn't it? Before the men had been distinguished by any moral acts of their own, God had sovereignly and mercifully determined to place His love on Jacob, while He placed His just hatred on Esau.

However, Arminians cannot allow that truth to stand, lest they surrender their doctrine of human sovereign will. They claim that the passage isn't about Jacob and Esau as individuals, but rather as the nations that sprang from them. And, in their defense, that is the use of the names in Malachi.

However, look at the other words in the sentence. Paul refers to the brothers in the womb, something which cannot apply to nations. He also refers to their being too young to have acted morally, again not applicable to nations. Therefore, while Malachi used the names to describe the nations, working from type to antitype, Paul backtracked to the brothers themselves, working from antitype to type. These factors do not allow a national interpretation of the passage.

On the other hand, let us allow the Arminian assertion, for the sake of argument. Let us suppose that Paul is describing the election of the nation that arose from Jacob, i. e., Israel, and the reprobation of the nation that arose from Esau, i. e., Edom. How does that avoid the sovereign grace implication that the Arminian rejects? In order to elect or reprobate nations, wouldn't God have to elect or reprobate individuals that make up those nations? Surely logic would tell us that He cannot determine the course of a nation if the individuals of that nation are able to determine their own fate! Moreover, if the election and reprobation of individuals is immoral, as the Arminians claim, then the election and reprobation of entire conglomerations of individuals must be exponentially worse, right?

And one last consideration: the Epistle to the Romans is an entire book about justification. It tells us of the sinful nature of men and what are the consequences of that sin, and the requirements for salvation from those consequences. Yet, the Arminian wants us to think that Paul set aside that purpose in chapter 9, to discuss the national privileges of Israel, and then returned to justification for the remainder of the epistle. Where does the text give any indication of a change in subject? I can certainly understand why the Arminian wants there to be a change, but where does the author indicate it? He never does. It is a case of begging the question by the Arminian theologian.

The Land Promises and the Unity of the People of God

One of the main distinctions between dispensationalism and covenantalism is over the relationship between Israel and the Church. The covenantalist sees them as different administrations of the same thing (see, for example, Acts 7:38 KJV). In contrast, the dispensationalist sees them as radically discontiguous, there having been no church in the Old Testament, and Israel's having a future separate from the church.

One aspect of this is the frequent references dispensationalists make to the promises God made to Israel. While the covenantalist takes the remaining promises to be given to the church, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), the dispensationalist sees them as necessarily remaining to be fulfilled to Israel, i. e., the Jews, in their distinct character.

I want to consider the land promises, in particular, here. Are there remaining land promises for the Jews? I don't think that Bible allows that conclusion, even apart from the identity of Israel and the church.

In Joshua 21:43-45, given after the conquest of the Promised Land, we read this comment: "Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that He swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as He had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass." Thus, the land promise had been fulfilled, not waiting for the modern state of Israel.

Furthermore, in I Kings 4:21, we read this: "Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life." This describes Solomon's enjoyment of that Land, not waiting for it. This is repeated in the parallel passage in II Chronicles 9:26.

In other words, the land promises to Israel aren't waiting for fulfillment! They were fulfilled three thousand years ago!

Moreover, something that dispensationalists fail to recognize is that the fulfillment of God's promises is always far more than the literal promise. In this case, by denying the bitestamental unity of the people of God, the dispensationalist is blind to Psalm 2:8: "Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession." This promise is part of the intra-Trinitarian covenant, made before the world was created, and is a gift from the Father to the Son. And then in the New Testament, that same Son promises it to His church: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20). The rigid literalism and minimalism of dispensationalists causes them not to enjoy the real promises of God, and also to deny them to those same Jews that they have cast out of the church.

Predestination in the Epistle to the Philippians

"It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake" (Philippians 1:29).

There are two common arguments used by Arminians against the biblical doctrine of predestination. One is that God foresees (an inaccurate view of foreknowledge) who shall believes, and then He predestines them to all of the means to achieve that. The other is that predestination refers to national destinies, particularly of Israel, not to individuals.

Both of those arguments are refute by the verse above. How so?

First, note to whom Paul addresses his comment, "to you." "You" whom? To the saints at Philippi. That is not to Israel, or to people in general in the future. It is to a specific group of individuals at the time that Paul wrote this letter to them! Prior to his writing to them (specified as before the creation in Ephesians 1:4), God had mercifully granted that they would come to have saving faith in Christ. God's mercy was the a priori condition that induced the response of the Christians (Romans 9:16, Philippians 2:13). There is no hint that His predestination is a reaction to anything foreseen in the future. Second, Paul refers not just to predestination to salvation but to suffering. Now, it is certainly true that Israel has suffered, and continues to suffer. However, by no definition can it be claimed that they have suffered for Christ's sake. But also, if it is unacceptable for God to cause us to believe in Jesus apart from our sovereign wills, how can it be acceptable that He has chosen for Christians to suffer apart from those same sovereign wills? Does that not mean that the Arminian has rejected the sweetness of the one while he has swallowed the bitterness of the other?

Can Baptism Save When There Is No Water?

In various conversations, I have dealt with Oneness Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Church of Christ members who claimed that I Peter 3:21 teaches Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you

." That is all they quote, and trumpet, "See! Baptism saves you!" And those words look pretty definite. However there is more to the passage than that one sentence.

Notice what Peter says: "which corresponds to this." Ah, now the obvious question should be, corresponds to what? Yet no one ever asks that question.

In the immediately preceding verse, Peter says, "when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water." 

Ah, so the comparison that Peter is making is to Noah, his wife, three sons, and three daughters-in-law, who were preserved during the Flood. Where were Noah and his family during the Flood? "Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood" (Genesis 7:7). Noah and his family weren't in the water. In fact, everyone in the water died. Noah and his family remained dry.

So, Peter is comparing a situation in which people remained dry to water baptism! If his point were that baptism is salvific, then Noah and his family would have been the only people not saved during the Flood! And such an absurdity proves that baptismal regeneration is not what is taught in I Peter 3:21.

Rather, continuing in that verse, "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." So, not the baptism per se, but rather what it represents, "a good conscience," a synonym for "faith." Peter is actually teaching the opposite of what the sacerdotalists claim for him, justification by faith alone, not by the addition of any ritual.

Does a Command Imply the Natural Ability to Obey?

A common argument I see from Arminians is to cite a biblical command, such as the command to repent in Acts 17:30, and then to assert that the command implies the natural ability to obey the command. In actuality, there is no such logical necessity. Rather, the Arminian assertion includes itself as an unstated premise in the argument, producing a circular argument.

Moreover, the argument is contrary to reason, not the result of it. When Jesus arrived in Bethany at the request of Mary and Martha (John 11:1-44), He had delayed too long, and their brother Lazarus had already died, in fact, days earlier. Yet, what did Jesus do? He called into the tomb, "Lazarus, come out" (verse 43). And, indeed, the revived Lazarus did exactly that. He rose from his grave, and came to Jesus, still in his funeral garments. 

Now, my question, Mr. Arminian, should be an obvious one: Did Jesus's command to Lazarus to rise from death imply that Lazarus had a natural ability to do so? 

Only a madman would say "yes," so the Arminian assertion is demonstrated to be false.

Southern Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell addressed this question: "If God still continues to be man's sovereign, and man God's lawful subject, [and] if the Lord still possesses the power to command and man is still under obligation to obey, it should not be thought strange that God deals with man according to this relation and actually enjoins upon him an obedience to law which He has no determinate purpose to give. This can be regarded as nothing more than the rightful exercise of lawful authority on the part of God; and to deny that He can consistently do this without giving man the necessary grace to obey is just flatly to deny that God is sovereign or that man is subject"

Mormonism: The Devil Made Me Do It

In the Bible, the temptation that Satan made to Adam and Eve is quoted 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." This doesn't mean "knowing" in the sense of "recognizing," but rather in the sense of "determining." Satan tells the first couple that disobeying God will liberate them from the control of God, so that they can determine good and evil for themselves, apart from the standards of God.

That temptation is a lie (John 8:44). There is no autonomy from God, not even for Satan himself (Job 1:6-12). It should be obvious that Satan cannot give what he himself does not have.

In Mormonism, there is a doctrine that says that Jesus and Satan were brothers in their preexistence. The Father put a challenge to them to carry out His plan of salvation. Satan offered, instead, a plan of universal salvation. The LDS website explains it this way (references are to Mormon scriptures): "It was in this setting that Satan made an unwelcome and arrogant proposal to change Heavenly Father’s plan so that it provided universal salvation for everyone (see Moses 4:1). Before we discuss how he claimed to accomplish this, it is important to note that Satan is referred to in these verses as 'the father of all lies' (Moses 4:4). On another occasion he is called 'a liar from the beginning' (D&C 93:25). We would be absurdly naïve to assume that Satan was telling the truth when he made this exaggerated claim of universal salvation."

According to Mormonism, how is the individual supposed to make the right choice between the Father's plan of salvation and Satan's? Their answer is found in Doctrine and Covenants 9:8: "Behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."

Do you see any parallels there? While the biblical God commands us to believe on the basis of His word alone, the Mormon God says that each person will be able to decide on the basis of a subjective feeling. Go back to Genesis 3:5 above. Is that not the same thing that Satan offered, falsely, to Adam and Eve?

While Mormons claim that their doctrine is the rejection of Satan's lies, that doctrine is the same as Satan's lies, as recorded in the Bible.

The only hope for the Mormon is to repudiate his autonomous determination of what is right or wrong and to submit to the infallible declaration of truth by the triune God of the Bible.

The Self-Refuting Logic of Arminianism

Anti-Calvinists often resort to a circular definition of predestination: God foreknew who would believe, and predestined those people.

However, there is a serious flaw in that argument, even beyond circularity.

If God knew it in advance, then their conversion was predetermined. Predetermined by what? Not by the will of the person, who wasn't born, yet. Not predetermined by God, the Arminian claims. That leaves what other options? Another god? Satan?

The logic of the Arminian cannot avoid predeterminism. It is only GOD's predetermination that the Arminian rejects. Isn't that unbelief?