Aught of Ours Is to Insult the Sufficiency of Jesus

"Do but consider how it is: Jesus Christ calls you, because you are blind, to come to Him for eye-salve, and you will not go until you can see better. You are naked, and He calls you to come and receive change of raiment, and you will not go until better arrayed. He offers you gold, for He knows your poverty, and you will not take it until you have something of your own to give for it. Look over it again, and see if this be handsome dealing either with yourselves or Him. It is free grace in redemption that is to be glorified, but something of your own would lessen your need of Christ and lower your esteem of His grace. nay, it would be a means to keep you from Him, as farms and oxen did the invited guests from the wedding supper. Consider further: no man was ever accepted of Christ for what he brought to Him. They are best welcome that bring nothing, and yet expect all things." -Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

Revelation 3:17-18: "You say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing,' not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see." 

Particular Atonement and the Defeat of Sin

"To take away sin being the end of redemption, to make the work sure, Christ Himself was made sin, imputatively, not inherently. All the sins of those for whom He died met on Him. He and they were so incorporated, as not to be separated by death. Sin could not die, unless Christ died; Christ could not die without being made sin. Nor could He die, but sin must die with Him. Whole Christ, both head and members universally, were all crucified together, and they all rose together, all excepting sin, and that be left in His grave. And let us remember it is there." -Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" (punctuation and grammar modernized) 

The Goodness of God, His Wrath Toward the Reprobate, and "Common Grace"

"Because of your hard and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's judgment will be revealed" (Romans 2:5) . 

The doctrine of common grace is the majority view in the Reformed camp. I admit that. However, as a member of the minority particular grace view, I have to say that I find the claims of biblical support for common grace to be particularly (yes, pun intended) unconvincing. 

According to the doctrine, God's goodness to all men (Matthew 5:45) is grace to them, every one of them, which enables them, in return, to do some good things, sometimes called "civic good." 

I see a lot of problems with that. 

First of all, yes, God is good to everyone. No Christian could say otherwise. That is because God is inherently good. However, notice that Matthew 5:45 never even mentions "grace." Furthermore, where else does Jesus, quoted in that verse, talk about the goodness of God, in terms of His gifts? In Mark 7:26, a Gentile woman comes to Jesus, and asks Him to deliver her daughter from a demon. He responds, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (verse 27). But she persists: "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs" (verse 28). To that, He replies: "For this statement, you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter" (verse 29). The parallel verse in Matthew 15:28 adds His words, "O woman, great is your faith!" It isn't her mere existence which brings His gracious act; it is her faith! However, notice her words by which he credits her faith, that even the dogs, i. e., the reprobate, feed on the crumbs that fall from the table of the children, i. e., the elect. The goodness of God to the reprobate is by overflow from His loving and gracious blessing of the elect. 

God's goodness is no common grace. Rather, it is particular grace which is so great that it overflows to those who hate Him! 

Someone may reply that even overflow grace is grace to the reprobate. Yet that, too, is denied by Scripture. It is those very gifts for which God judges the unbelief of the reprobate. Paul tells us, "Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him" (Romans 1:21). The more gifts received, and over a longer time, the greater their judgment. In Isaiah 48:9-11, God makes this statement to rebellious Israel: "For My name's sake, I defer My anger; for the sake of My praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. 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." It isn't grace that leads God to withhold His judgments; it is His concern for His own glory! Receiving God's benefits is not grace to the reprobate, but rather an increase in judgment! 

God Hates Divination

One of the worst condemnations of Israel found in the Old Testament prophets is found in Zephaniah 1:12: "I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and I will punish the men who are complacent, those who say in their hearts, 'The Lord will not do good, nor will He do ill.'" God's judgment against His covenant people is not a matter of their denying of Him. They didn't become atheists or convert to a pagan religion. Rather, they denied His relevance. They professed that this God who had brought them out of captivity in Egypt had no place in their lives. 

One claim that the triune God of the Bible makes is to be the source of truth (e. g., John 14:6 and 17:17). Moreover, He claims to be the determiner of history: "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'" (Isaiah 46:9-10). Yet, they turned to other sources of immanency, or so they imagined, accusing Him of irrelevancy and insufficiency. 

God, being the jealous God that He is, rebukes them for such syncretism: "You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes... Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:26, 31). 

These things occur in today's America, and even more so in Europe. In some European countries, mediums outnumber Catholic clergy. Most Americans consider ourselves to be too sophisticated for such superstitions. Yet, do we not look to scientists in the same way? As I write this, we keep hearing "follow the science" as we deal with the covid-19 virus. However, we have been seeing it for much longer in the orthodoxy of Darwinian evolution. Rather than the determinative witness of the Creator, we look to the presumptions of, not science, but of scientists, people who have a vested interest in philosophical domination, but not in evidence. The declarations of orthodox scientists have become the Tarot cards and sheep entrails of the modern unbeliever. 

A Diagram For Interpreting Sheep Liver

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. 

King David the Theonomist

"I will look with favor on the faithful in the land, that they may dwell with me; he who walks in the way that is blameless shall minister to me. No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes. Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all the evildoers from the city of the Lord." 

- Psalm 101:6-8 

The passage above was written by King David. Notice that he rejects the wicked from both his own house, i. e., from among his family, and in the land, i. e., his political realm of Israel. 

While this was the common Christian view in history, including in the colonial and early independence periods of the United States. Yet, today, even professing Christians, those who claim to believe in God's Word, have accepted the view of the humanists that God has no say in the laws of the land. Under the influence of pietism and dispensationalism, Christians advocate any law except that of God. 

What has that gotten us? Abortion, gunfights in the streets and in our schools, burning down our own cities. How has that been a winning strategy? 

In contrast, David, the paradigm of the believing magistrate, took it as his responsibility to eliminate the wicked from the land over which God had given him charge. 

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.