God Blinds the Eyes

"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,

Lest they see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn, 

And I would heal them." 

-John 12:40 

In this verse (quoted from Isaiah 6:10), Jesus is responding to the unbelief of the Jewish audience which heard His words and saw His miracles, yet refused to believe. He describes the sad sentence on them, not for their unbelief, but as the reason for their unbelief: God had blinded them. In theology, we call this reprobation. 

Paul describes the same principle: "So then, He has mercy on whomever He wills [i. e., election], and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:18). 

No principle displays the absolute sovereignty more forthrightly than this one, which is why it may be the most hated doctrine in Scripture, even among self-described Calvinists. It completely eliminates the spiritual autonomy of men, striking at the fallen heart of the unbeliever, and even pricking the remaining pride in the believer. Yet Scripture reveals it, so that we are compelled to believe it. 

Faithful Prayer in a Sinful World

"You can never believe greater or better things than God can do for you. Even sin itself, which is the great (and really the only) evil; it is His enemy as much as yours: and you may be sure He would not have suffered its being in the world if He had not a power to correct and curb it, yea, and to destroy it, too, at His pleasure: take hold of His sovereign strength, and your work is done." 

-Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

It is easy for a Christian to be discouraged from prayer, because of the wickedness and suffering we see in the world. Do such things not show that God has no control over this world? How, then, can I trust Him to answer my prayers? This is a variant of the argument from evil used by atheists. How can your God exist, they challenge, if this world contains so much evil? 

That is because the unbeliever can draw no hope from the promises of God: "We know that, for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Romans8:28). The Apostle Paul suffered far more than most modern Christians will ever know, beatings, imprisonments, and finally execution. Yet this same man put his hope in the awareness that God, far from being helpless, is the divine sovereign over all that happens, making it of eternal benefit to the one who experiences such things in this life. And that is what Coles describes in the quote at the top. The presence of evil and suffering in this world is only at the sufferance of a sovereign God, not a sign of His indifference or powerlessness. Furthermore, He uses such things to shape us into His servants, prepared to do His will both in this world and in the next.

The Most-Specious Argument Against Theonomy

Everyone knows the Fifth Commandment by heart: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" (Exodus 20:12). The apostle Paul refers to it as "the first commandment with a promise" (Ephesians 6:2). It is the basis of all human government, arguing from the least to the greatest. That is, if we should honor mother and father, then, obviously, we owe even more honor to the king. 

What few people consider, however, is the importance that God lays on this social order which He instituted: "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). 

We observe several things here. First, this is a son who is habitually rebellious, not one who is occasionally ill-behaved. Second, the parents have struggled with him, striving to bring him to order. If the parents are sinfully lenient, that is a different sin. Third, they go to the elders of their hometown for action. That is, men who are familiar with the family, and witnesses of both the efforts of the parents and the incorrigibility of the son. And fourth, most importantly, this son is not a child. He is living riotously, including the abuse of alcohol. At the very least, he is a teenager. He is to be removed from society because of his baleful actions and influence on others. Notice the last phrase, which indicates that one of the purposes of this law is to serve as an example to the rest of society. 

Yet, this is the one law which is immediately attacked by the antinomian whenever the proper role of God's law in society ("theonomy") is discussed. "So you want the government to stone children, huh?" Well, as I have already said, we aren't talking about children here. Nor do I want anyone to be stoned. Rather, they make that choice when they commit an act which is legal grounds for capital punishment. What is necessary is not the same as what is subjectively desired. 

Furthermore, look at what has happened to our society as a result of coddling wickedness in our young people! It is impossible to enumerate the crimes that would be prevented before they could happen if the incorrigible wicked were removed before they started their spree of violence. 

So, to answer the challenge of the antinomian: No, I don't want children stoned. I want a society in which children are brought up to respect their elders, society, and, most importantly, the God who rules over us all. 

The Believer Rewarded for Good Works

"There will be degrees of the glory of eternal life and of the blessedness of perfected salvation. These degrees of bliss and glory will be commensurate with the good works that God's people performed in their earthly lives. According as they worked out of love for God and the neighbor and in accordance with the good works they performed, they will receive from Christ the judge more splendid glory, more honorable responsibility, a higher place in the everlasting kingdom of Christ in the new creation." -David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," pp. 389-90 

In this paragraph, Engelsma addresses the biblical truth that Christians will receive different levels of glory in the life to come in accordance with the good works we have done in this life. We see this, for example, in the words of Jesus in the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11-27): "He said to [the first servant], 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' And He said to him, "And you are to be over five cities'" (verses 17-18). 

What we don't see here is Jesus's offering the servants eternal life. Why? Because the unbeliever cannot do good works (Romans 3:12, Romans 14:23, Hebrews 11:6). Nowhere does the Bible describe justification as a reward for good works. Rather, good works are always the consequence of justification. No one is saved by good works; good works are what saved people do. 

As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews said to his readers, "Though we speak in this way, yet, in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things - things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for His name in serving the saints, as you still do" (Hebrews 6:9-10). Notice to whom the writer directs his comments: to the beloved, to those who serve the saints. These cannot be qualities of unbelievers. Again, good works are something that only the believer can do, so it is impossible for any supposed good works to contribute to anyone's justification,.

The Anti-Sabbatarian Use of Colossians 2

In almost every discussion of the abiding nature of the Christian Sabbath, my experience has been that the anti-Sabbatarian will refer to Colossians 2:16: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The argument is that Paul here is telling us that the Sabbath is adiaphora, a matter of preference only. 

What I have never had was an anti-Sabbatarian who mentioned the next verse, Colossians 2:17: "These are the shadow of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." 

This is one of those cases where the context is so obviously contrary to the argument being made that it is painful to hear yet again. In verse 16, the items mentioned are food rules, of which there are none ion Christianity, except to avoid meat sacrificed to idols, unlike the many rules in Judaism; to festivals, of which there are none prescribed in Christianity, but several in Judaism; new moons, which are celebrated in Judaism, but not in Christianity; and finally the Sabbath. According to the opponents, Paul rejected the Mosaic rules of Judaism for three things, but left the fourth to be taken generally. Context matters! 

This is confirmed in verse 17, where Paul refers to these ceremonies of Judaism as completed in Christ. As he said to the Galatians, why hold on to the shadows when we have now received the reality? And what is the reality of the Sabbath? 

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat. But, when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, 'Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.' He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how, on the Sabbath, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath'" (Matthew 12:1-8). 

If the Sabbath, as such, had been abrogated, this was the opportunity for Jesus to say so. Yet, He didn't. Why? Because, He says, He is the Lord of the Sabbath. Not was. That is why the writer of Hebrews can tell us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:9). It would have been silly for Jesus to claim to be the Lord of something which was passing away!

If a person were to argue that the code of Moses added ceremonial elements to the Sabbath, then he would be correct. However, if he were to assert that there is no Sabbath apart from those Mosaic elements, then he would be wrong. That is what Paul addresses in Colossians 2:16. If a Christian celebrates the Sabbath without the Jewish ceremonial elements, then he should be free from the judgment of others. Paul neither says nor implies that the person is thereby freed from the Fourth Commandment. That would be to be guilty exactly of that of which his critics accused him, of being an enemy of the Law (e. g., Acts 18:13). 

Jesus the I Am of Exodus

"The Lord said to Moses, 'Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever.' When Moses told the words of the people to the Lord, the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to the the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. And you shall set limits for the people all around, saying, Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death... When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain'" (Exodus 19:9-13). 

That is part of the account of the Lord's appearance to Moses on Mount Sinai, in part for the giving of the Ten Commandments. 

"Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matthew 24:30-31). 

"The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God" (I Thessalonians 4:16). 

These latter two passages describe the coming of the Lord Jesus in 70 AD in judgment on apostate Israel. Notice the parallels in the two sets of descriptions, one of Yahweh to Exodus-era Israel, and the other to First-Century reprobates among the descendants of that same Israel. The signs associated with the two events are identical! 

The significance of these parallels is that we must conclude that the Person described in each is the same in each: the preincarnate Yahweh and the same Yahweh incarnated in the Person of Jesus. 

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Archangel Michael

One of the doctrines that distinguishes Jehovah's Witnesses from Christians is the Witness claim that Jesus is not God, but is, rather, an incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They base their argument, in part, on Jude 1:9: "When the Archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses..." They claim that "archangel" means "chief angel," which is true, and that the use of the article means that he is the only one, which is not true. 

The funny thing about their use of that passage is what it goes on to say: "When the Archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said [instead], 'The Lord rebuke you'" (Jude 1:9, in full). Michael did not pronounce a judgment on Satan, but rather left it to the Lord to do so. 

Is this what we see from Jesus? 

At the end of His temptation, Jesus said, "Be gone, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10). And again in Matthew 16:23, he says, "Get away from Me, Satan!" So Jesus had no hesitation in rebuking Satan, and He did so by His own authority, not by referring the rebuke to another party. Jesus acted not at all like Jude's description of Michael. 

Look further at Daniel 10:13, which is also mentioned (but not quoted) by the Witnesses: "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me [i. e., the angel in Daniel's vision] twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia..." So this angel has come from a three-week conflict with a prince of Persia. Whether this is a term for a literal prince or for a demonic spirit behind the power of Persia, cannot be determined. Either way, the angel required assistance, which is given by Michael, who is called "one of the chief princes." "Chief" there is of the same significance as "arch-" in "archangel." But notice the article and the plural. We are here explicitly told that the office of Michael is not his alone, but one that he shares with unnamed others. The article does not imply singularity. Every claim made by the Witnesses regarding Michael is here overturned. 

The office of Jesus is, indeed, singular, because He alone is the only-begotten God, described explicitly so throughout the New Testament, not in one obscure verse that must be elided in order to make it appear what the Witnesses claim from it. 

Faith a Gift, Not a Work

"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). 

Arminians assume that Jesus did half of the work of salvation for every single person who has existed or ever will exist. Then some are saved when they match what He did with the work of faith on our part. And I do not choose that phrasing haphazardously; that is how I have had it stated to me. Thus, men are saved, not through faith, but by faith, as the completion of all that God could do on our behalf. 

In contrast, the Calvinist teaches, on the basis of what Scripture says, that faith is the means, not the basis, by which the atonement is effectually applied to everyone for whom it was purchased (see John 6:37-39). That purchase included the gift of faith, so that it is not a work, not a contribution, by the believer to complete the work of Christ on the cross (I Corinthians 2:2). In fact, the Calvinist considers the Arminian view on this subject to be a scandalous aspersion on the blood of Jesus, as if it is unable to save to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25). 

Notice the verse at the top, Philippians 1:29. Paul tells the Philippian Christians that it has been granted to them to believe, not that salvation has been offered, contingent on their completion of it by working faith in themselves. We see the same thing in Ephesians 2:8, where the same Apostle told believers that God gave them their saving faith. 

The essence of this principle is that the atonement was sufficient for every person for whom it was intended, because it purchased everything necessary and sufficient for the salvation of that person. He need not, indeed cannot, add anything to what Jesus did on the cross and for him in Heaven: "He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25).