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. 

Abortion: "Christian" America's Covenant with Death

In his book Abortion Violation, author Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas cites Proverbs 8:36, in which the personification of Wisdom says, "All who hate me love death." In application, Thomas tells us, "[T]he rejection of God's wisdom leads selfish, autonomous men to love and embrace death. In the case of abortion, it is the death of innocent children made in the image of God" (p. 22). 

In the Bible, god calls this mentality a covenant with death. This phrase is found twice in Isaiah 28, in which God is castigating Israel for her adultery with pagan deities, for which she is to be judged. God quotes a personification of the whole people: "We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through, it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter" (Isaiah 28:15). The people of Israel had convinced themselves that their game of balancing a profession of faith to Jehovah with their secret whoring with demons would protect them from the judgment of Jehovah, the only true God, who had made them a people. 

However, the prophet tells them God's response to their confidence: "Then your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand; when the overwhelming scourge passes through, you will be beaten down by it. As often as it passes through, it will take you; for morning by morning, it will pass through, by day and by night; and it will be sheer terror to understand the message... Now, therefore, do not scoff, lest your bonds be made strong; for I have heard a decree of destruction from the Lord God of hosts against the whole land" (Isaiah 28:18-19, 22). 

America is playing this game. She is playing the whore, both literally and in the sense that Israel did. Sexual immorality is rampant, even among professing Christians. Yet abortion enables the immoral to practice their sensuality without consequences... or so they believe. I think we see the signs already of God's judgment on this imagined sleight of hand. The sacrifice of the innocent will never save the guilty, no matter what "freedom of choice" men may imagine that they have. 

Government Money Policy and the Bible on Weights and Measures

Here is an article from a non-Christian economics think tank about the historical impact of profligate government printing of currency. As I write this, an estimated 80% of US dollars in existence have come into existence under the expansions of presidents Trump and Biden, partly, they claim, as economic incentive during the covid pandemic. The most famous example of such an economic program was under the pre-Nazi Weimar Republic of Germany, in which the currency was so debased that the inflation was part of the instability which inspired German voters to turn to the Nazi Party as an alternative. More recently, we have seen the same events in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and Chavez's Venezuela. 

The result of such a policy is that the same currency loses value with the passage of time. The government benefits from this devaluation because it spends the money before it has entered the market, where it will lose its value. The same is true for businesses favored by government with access to the new money, such as Wall Street and the banks. They have access to the money before it has lost its value, giving them a benefit of privilege that unfavored businesses and the general public cannot have. 

In the Bible, God expresses His divine displeasure with such manipulations of money. In Leviticus 19:35-36, He tells Israel, "You shall do not wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt." He repeats this command in Deuteronomy 25:13-16: "You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God." The references to "weights" may seem strange to our modern ears, since we think of money not as weight but as slips of paper, or even just as a plastic card. However, in the days of Moses, exchanges occurred through the use of scales, which told the weight in specie for a certain weight of commodity. 

The wisdom literature, too, warns against financial cheating. For example, in Proverbs 20:10, the Holy Spirit tells us, "Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord." He repeats the warning in verse 23: "Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good." In both proverbs, cheating through monetary manipulation is named an abomination to the Lord. 

A policy of inflating the currency by government is a policy of theft, which is why it is an abomination to the Lord. it is government which should be the agent of God, not in stealing, but in suppressing theft. Yet our government has a continuing policy of such theft, especially from the poor and elderly. As such, it should be an abomination to every moral person. 

The Assurance of Perseverance

Arminians like to argue against the biblical doctrine of perseverance by citing the biblical warnings against apostasy. Those warnings truly exist; no Calvinist would say otherwise. The problem is that the Arminian argues further that the existence of the warning logically requires that the apostasy of true believers must be possible. To that the Calvinist objects as an unwarranted leap of logic. 

"That a righteous man may fall is evident. And as evident it is that he cannot fall finally. For, though he fall seven times in a day, as often does he rise again, Proverbs 24:16, and this because 'the Lord upholdeth him with His hand,' Psalm 37:24, and again, 'the Lord upholdeth all that fall,' Psalm 145:14. That is, either He stays them when they are falling, or so orders and limits the matter that they fall not into mischief, as others do, and, to be sure, He will set them on their feet again. The absolute promise cannot be nullified or made uncertain by cautionary words elsewhere delivered" -- Puritan Elisha Coles, A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty. Coles continues, "The Lord does ordinarily bring about His purposes by means, of which cautions are a part. And by which, as a means, He keeps off the evil cautioned against."

Coles' point, which is an important one, is that God's warnings of the consequences of apostasy are one of the means by which He prevents the elect from experiencing those consequences. It is like the parent of a small child, who warns against touching the hot stove. The parent expects his warning to prevent that against which he has warned. Yet the Arminian wants us to believe that the parent's warning implies that the child will, then, proceed to touch the stove and get burned. Not only does the parent have no such expectation,  but God even less so, because He has effectual means for maintaining the faith of the true believer. 

Is the Love of God Universal?

"Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished" (Proverbs 16:5). 

I continue to deal almost daily with people who proclaim that God loves everyone, or even that God loves everyone equally. This is supposed to be an appeal to the wicked, making them confident in trusting God. Yet such people never seem to consider how it sounds to the wicked: "God loves you unconditionally, in your wickedness." It is a statement to the unbeliever that his wickedness costs him nothing, because God is happy with him as he is. I don't doubt that is why there is so much unrepented wickedness in the church, especially sexual immorality and illegitimacy. God loves them; therefore, God loves their wickedness. If any Christian calls the wicked to repentance, he faces this prior false information, making true evangelism an even greater uphill battle.

Yet the scriptures say no such thing. Not ever. Not anywhere. If you ask for biblical justification you will usually get one of two verses. The universalist will often refer to I John 4:8: "God is love." But to whom is John speaking there? The first part of the sentence is rarely quoted: "Anyone who does not love does not know God." The love of God is explicitly named as something that the unbeliever cannot know! The other verse the universalist will toss out is Matthew 5:45: "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." See, we are told, God loves both the good and the evil. That is in spite of the observable fact that "love" never appears in the verse. Rather, it is a simple reference to the mixed nature of humanity, with God's people dispersed among the wicked, as is also described in the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). This is not a blessing intended for the wicked. They are merely enjoying their being in the proximity of the elect (Matthew 15:27). If anything, it is a curse, because it increases their judgment (Romans 1:21). 

The real issue is humanism, a philosophical commitment to the inherent goodness and autonomy of man. In the Bible, man is neither good nor autonomous. He is not a creature who can assume God's love, because that love cannot exclude God's love for Himself. That means that God is jealous of His holiness (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29). He hates that which is contrary to His holiness, so that every man is by nature a subject of wrath, not love (Ephesians 2:3). What the unbeliever needs is not to be told that God loves him unconditionally, but that he faces an eternity of wrath, unless he clothes himself in the righteousness of Christ (II Corinthians 5:21), which comes through faith alone. God loves the believer, not because he is naturally good, but because the Father sees the believer in His Son, who alone is inherently and unfailingly good (Romans 5:8). 

Faith, Holiness, Assurance, and the Covenant of Grace

"This covenant [of grace] does not only give life upon terms of believing, but faith also and holiness the necessary means of attaining that [eternal] life. And this not upon your ingenious [sic, for "ingenuous"] compliance, as some term it, or better improvement of what you have in common with other men, (such allegations the Lord disallows, and often cautions against), but of grace. It is a covenant made up of promises, and promise, by scripture intention, is always free, both freely made and freely performed, without the desert or procurement of men." --Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

The difference between biblical Christianity and any of its competitors is that it stands on that great principle: Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone. Every other religion, whether it falsely claims to be Christian or it is a distinctly-named religion, makes salvation based on the good works of the supplicant, whether in part or in whole. 

That is because the true Christian is aware that he has nothing in himself by which he can appeal to God as worthy of salvation. In answer, as the Puritan Coles says above, Jesus purchased everything, not just justification itself, but also the faith with which we respond and the holiness which it produces. By grace, He purchased them on the cross for everyone that the Father had given Him to be redeemed, and His blood cannot fail to achieve its purpose (John 6:37-39).

In contrast, the unbeliever is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1, Romans 3:23), and thereby under the just wrath of God (Ephesians 2:3, Romans 6:23). It is impossible for such a wretch to offer anything of himself to the offended God, because only a believer can do anything of spiritual good (Romans 14:23, Hebrews 12:14). The Father, apart from the intercession of the blood of Jesus, refuses even to look in love on such a one: "[God's] eyes are too pure to look on evil, and You cannot look on wickedness" (Habakkuk 1:13). Alas, even the prayers of the unbeliever are repugnant to Him (Proverbs 28:9). 

For those for whom Jesus died, that holy flood washed away our sins, the judgment for our sins, and purchased for us faith and holiness. It is only in Him that we can have hope, and have assurance that our hope is on a sound foundation.

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. 

Jesus on the Cross Knew His Sheep

"God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and, 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity'" (II Timothy 2:19).

The Apostle Paul makes the statement above to his pastoral apprentice Timothy. He seems to be quoting something, but we don't know the origin of the quote. However, we can certainly find equivalent statements of Paul's statement, "The Lord knows those who are His." In fact, Jesus Himself made the same point: "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14). Jesus also declared that He knew who is not His sheep: "You [Jewish leaders] do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). 

Jesus also understood the significance of being one of His sheep:"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:27-29). The sheep of Jesus are those that He would later redeem on the cross, a redemption which would be effectual and irreversible (compare John 6:37-39). 

The image I like is another one used in Scripture, Jesus as the bridegroom, and the church, i. e., all of His sheep together, as the bride. In that patriarchal society, fathers chose the spouses for their children. Arranged marriages were the norm. As His Father, God the Father had chosen a bride for His Son, and Jesus, as the dutiful Son, could neither reject that bride for another nor fail to bring His marriage to fulfillment. Yet, the Arminian wants us to believe that Jesus did not know His bride. In fact, the Arminian would have us believe that there was no guarantee that there would be a bride. Rather, the Groom was to be blindfolded, to share His favors with any stranger. He was to give His divine love to even the prostitute (Proverbs 5:1-20). 

But no, Paul tells us. the Lord knows those who are His. he knows His bride, and that she is no seductress.

If God Has Determined All Things, Then Is He Responsible for Sin?

Let us be unequivocal: Scripture says that God has determined all things, from the beginning of the universe to eternity future. He Himself says, "I declare 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 46:10). We also read this: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Proverbs 19:21). Short of being deliberately obtuse, we cannot miss the meaning here. God has determined all things according to His own plan, not according to ours. 

OK, so He has determined all things. Does He change course midway, whether because He has thought of a better way or because men have not approved of His plans? "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man, that He should have regret" (I Samuel 15:29; see also Numbers 23:19). To claim that God would change His mind is to make Him like us, to bring Him down to man's level. And Scripture says that any such attempt is based on a false view of God. 

Then comes the question, what of the wicked acts of men? God could not have predetermined them, because that would make God responsible for sin, right? Well, no, not right. First, let us say that Scripture affirms that God has predetermined even the wicked acts of men: "Truly in this city [i. e., Jerusalem] there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27-28). So, in a prayer to God, Peter and John, while addressing God, confess that He had planned all of the events around the suffering and death of Jesus, even in planning the evil actions of Herod and Pilate. But what was the goal in those actions? The atonement of God's people. In other words, our salvation is dependent on God's predestining the evil actions of particular men! 


Look also at Paul's words in Romans 3:7: "If through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" Using the words of a hypothetical unbeliever, Paul has that unbeliever confess that his lies, his sins, glorify God. "However," the unbeliever pleads, "then I shouldn't be punished for them." The first part is true. His wickedness glorifies God, both through His justice to the unrepentant unbeliever and by His mercy to the repentant elect sinner. However, that wasn't the purpose when the sinner committed his wicked acts, just as Herod and Pilate planned nothing good by their murder of Jesus. That is why God is still just in bringing them under judgment. His bringing about good from their evil is to His praise, not theirs.

And it is also why God cannot be said to be the author of sin.

The Limited Atonement of Arminianism

Arminians often accuse Calvinists of denying the atonement to some people by our biblical claim that it was particular. That is, we Calvinists follow the words of Jesus that He would die for those whom  the Father had given Him, His friends, His sheep (John 6:37-39, etc.), or, in the words of Paul, for His Church (Ephesians 5:25). Yes, we believe that the Groom had the right and responsibility to love His Bride, not strange women (Proverbs 5:15).

However, in denying that biblical truth, the Arminian replaces it with an assertion that the atonement was universal, but only partial. That is, Jesus didn't necessarily die to save anyone. Rather, He died merely to make salvation possible.

So, for what purpose did Jesus die: "She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Or, "He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25, cp. Isaiah 52:13-53:12). There are two things evident in these verses. First, that the blood of Jesus was intended to cleanse its objects from sins. And notice the pronouns that Peter uses, "our," "you," and "your." Those are particular pronouns, referring his comment to the audience of his epistle. Who was that? "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again" (I Peter 1:1-3). Peter was speaking to Christians, not to non-Christians. And second, notice that there is no conditionality in these verses. There is no hemming and hawing about what men must do to make the atonement effectual. In fact, the Apostle even says that it is God who causes us to be born again.

However, the Arminian reads those same verses and blanks out the parts that refute him

So, I will ask these questions of the Arminian. Jesus tells us of men who will "die in their sins" (John 8:21). Then He mentions those whose "sin remains" (John 9:41). If Jesus died for the sins of all men, then why do these men still have sin when they die? Then the Arminian is forced to answer, "because they don't respond in faith." Ah, there it is: the Arminian limited atonement! Jesus died somewhat for all men, but that atonement is insufficient, until the man adds his assent.

So, when the Arminian thinks that he is morally superior because the Calvinist says that Jesus fully and effectually redeemed particular people, he is really suppressing his tacit claim that the atonement of his version of Jesus is so limited that it cannot save anyone without a little help from sinful men.

I deny that the Arminian doctrine is moral at all, much less more so that is the doctrine of Calvinism.

Abortion: The Abomination of Shedding Innocent Blood

There are topics over which Christians disagree, whether God approves or disapproves of something. The use of alcoholic beverages comes to mind. However, when God says that He hates something, there is no room for disagreement.

"There are six things that the Lord hates,
     seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
     and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
     feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies, 
      and one who sows discord among brothers." 
- Proverbs 6:16-19

So here the Holy Spirit gives us a list of things which God not only hates, but which are abominations to Him. That is the strongest term used in Scripture for something which God opposes. Some of them might surprise us, such as lying. However, the part I want to emphasize is "hands that shed innocent blood." And it is key to notice that it is innocent blood, so we aren't talking about self-defense, or enemies killed in war, or the perpetrators of crimes deserving capital punishment. Rather, it is about murder, the killing of an innocent party.

Can there be anyone more innocent than an infant in the womb? Yet, we in America kill three thousand preborn infants every day. In God's eyes, that makes us guilty of innocent blood, and, therefore, abominations in His sight, apart from forgiveness by faith in Jesus Christ. This guilt applies to the mothers, the fathers, the doctors and nurses, and to the political leaders who stand by while the genocide continues.

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).

American Pharisees: Lost Without a Physician

"There are those who are clean in their own eyes but are not washed of their filth. There are those—how lofty are their eyes, how high their eyelids lift!" (Proverbs 30:12-13). 

Among Americans, Satan's primary attack against biblical Christianity is not atheism, alternative religions, or evolutionism, as bad as those things are. Rather, he attacks the faith through complacency.

Luke describes the conversion of Levi (another name for the Apostle Matthew): "Levi made Him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, 'Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?' And Jesus answered them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance'" (Luke 5:29-32). At the house of Matthew, Jesus sat at dinner with tax-collectors, a class hated by the Jews, and other sinners. The Pharisees saw this, and rebuked Him for His bad taste in companions. After all, were the Pharisees not the cream of Jewish society? 

But the rebuke of Jesus must have caught those Pharisees completely flat-footed: "I have not come to call the [supposedly] righteous but sinners to repentance." In their moral satisfaction, the Pharisees had no desire for what Jesus had come to give, redemption in His blood. However, the tax-collectors and sinners in Matthew's house knew their spiritual condition, and were looking to Jesus to forgive their sins and restore them to righteousness: "Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for Your name’s sake!" (Psalm 79:9).

And this explains the spiritual anemia of America's professing Christians. Too many of us are satisfied with our moral superiority. Rare is the man who can say from his heart, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (Luke 18:13). Yet Jesus tells us that is exactly the point to which we must come to find Him.

The Example of William Carey: The Two Sides of the Missionary Endeavor

There is an unfortunate tendency among Christians to define everything in two opposing theses. That is unfortunate because life doesn't work like that. It has a lot more than just two options in almost any circumstance. Think of a questionnaire that asks your favorite flavor of ice cream, and then gives only the options of vanilla or chocolate. Can no one prefer strawberry?

One particular example is the definition of mission. Liberal churches still send out men and women that they call missionaries. However, their work is devoted to social activism or welfare institutions. Under no circumstances do they call anyone to repent, believe in Jesus, and form Gospel-proclaiming national churches. On the other hand, fundamentalist missionaries define their task strictly in terms of how many people have been called to believe. Social institutions are poo-pooed as diversions from their task.

That is a false dichotomy. Have we forgotten William Carey, a pioneer in the modern missionary task? While he translated the Bible and preached the Gospel, in order to gather converts, he also built a missionary infrastructure, such as colleges and orphanages.

Does the Bible address this dichotomy? Yes, it does. "Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31:8-9).

God's concern is certainly the spreading of the Gospel to unbelievers. The Great Commission is a command to that end, and is so important to Him that He repeated it in different words in Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, and Acts 1:8. But He also tells us, "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:15-17). The Christian who preaches the Gospel, but has no concern about the physical well-being of the people to whom he ministers is practicing a truncated and unbiblical Christianity. 

I didn't quote that great Commission on purpose. I will do so now: "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" (Matthew 28:19-20). Notice that it doesn't tell us to explain only how to be saved, as vital as that it, but also to observe, or obey, everything that God commands. And that necessarily includes a concern for the less-fortunate.  

Autonomy: The Error of Atheists and Nominal Christians

When Christians talk about atheism, most would say that the fundamental error of the atheist is his denial of the existence of God. After all, that is the meaning of the word. However, they are mistaken. As we see in Romans 1:18, there is no one who doesn't know that God exists. An atheist pretends that God doesn't exist.

Rather, the fundamental error of atheism is its belief in human autonomy. The atheist must convince himself - and others, if possible - that God doesn't exist, and then he will be free to live his life as he desires. This is exactly what Satan offered to Adam and Eve in the temptation: "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). In this context, "knowing" does not mean merely "knowing about," but "deciding." Satan convinced Adam and Even that rebelling against God and His word would leave them free to decide what was right and wrong for themselves.

That assertion was false. Whether Satan himself believed in what he was offering, I do not know. Often a liar starts to believe his own lies.

The Bible says otherwise: "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Proverbs 21:1). This is a statement from the pen of Solomon, the greatest king that Israel would ever know. However, he confesses that, regardless of whatever intentions he might have had, his actions were always those determined by God.

The Glory of Solomon

My question to the atheist is this: If a rich and powerful king came to realize that he was always under the providential hand of God, how can you rationally believe that you are independent of that same God?

However, I am saddened to say that this error is not limited to professed atheists. Far too many professing Christians make the same essential assumption as the atheist, that we can decide for ourselves what belongs to God and what does not. Many of us divide life into a "religious" part and a "regular" part, with God in control of the first part, but with our having autonomy in the second. I am sorry, snowflake, but there is no such division: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31). God claims all of your life, not just whatever dregs you are willing to give Him. If you are claiming autonomy in part of your life, then you are professing the same lie as Satan and the atheist, no matter what title you claim for yourself.

Jesus made the same point to the Pharisees: "He said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.' And He said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. But you say, If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do'" (Mark 7:6-13).

Are Children Culpable for Sin?

I run into a lot of people who deny the sinfulness of children. Some of them claim that there is an age of accountability, below which children are not accountable for their actions. When asked for the biblical evidence for that, such people merely turn purple and claim that I am wicked for questioning them. Others claim that sin is only recognized in those with the mental capacity to recognize the nature of the child's actions. Again, where does the Bible say any such thing? The answer is usually something to the effect of, "Well, it just has to be that way."

On the contrary, there are several Scriptures which teach the exact opposite, such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

The one I want to look at now is Proverbs 20:11: "Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright."

Notice that Solomon here doesn't even say that we see the nature of the child, but rather that his nature is revealed by his actions. That is exactly the same as the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:18-20: "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." Both passages tell us that external actions are not what makes the sinner, but rather the heart that produces those actions. We are not sinners because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners.

And Solomon tells us that the heart of the child, whether it is upright or sinful, is also revealed in his actions. That necessarily precludes any supposed sinlessness in children. That doctrine is manmade sentimentality, not a biblical principle.

This is my question to anyone who holds that children aren't sinful, or are not culpable for their sin: Why don't you kill your children before your age of accountability? After all, if they are truly held to be sinless, then killing them now would guarantee that they would go to heaven, wouldn't it? The fact that you don't do so demonstrates to me that you don't really believe what you're saying. And that is often the case. A person's theology of the heart is often better than is his theology of profession.

The Sovereignty of God: Over Dice, Over Mice, and Over Men

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33)

We humans can have hopes for the future, or even plans for the future. However, what we cannot have is knowledge of the future. There is virtually an infinity of factors that will affect what happens tomorrow, and even more so as you consider further into the future. It is common to apply our human limitations. God cannot decide what will happen in the future, can He?

The problem is that such an assertion applies human limitations to God. They do not, and cannot, apply. Unlike men, God is omniscient. That is, He knows exhaustively all things, past, present, and future. And that is not only what will be, but what might be, every possible outcome from every possible contingency. "I distinguish the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come, saying: ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" (Isaiah 46:10). Notice that He asserts not just passive knowledge, but rather determinative knowledge. He knows for a certainty will will happen because all things happen according to His prior determination of them.

That is the fundamental difference between the knowledge of God and the knowledge of men. It isn't a difference of quantity, with God's knowing more and man's knowing less. Rather, God's a priori determination and exhaustive knowledge are inherently joined. This is repeated throughout the scriptures.

"In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10).

"In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

Men cannot know the future, because the universe is autonomous of man. However, God can know and determine all things because no one and nothing is autonomous of Him.

Which brings me to the Proverb quoted above. Nothing could be more contingent than the casting of lots. In fact, we do so, i. e., throwing dice, exactly because the result is random, and cannot favor either party. However, as I noted above, nothing can be autonomous from God. Therefore, there can be no such thing as chance to Him. And if He determines even the rolls of dice, than which nothing can be freer from the human perspective, then neither can men expect to be autonomous from His sovereignty in our own choices, even the most powerful among us: "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Proverbs 21:1).

Sin and Guiding Principles

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverbs 16:25). 

Our society has become very mystical. Just listen to how we express ourselves. It is rarely "I think" now. Everything is prefaced with "I feel," instead. Movies advise us to "follow your heart." The heroes in the Star Wars movies - of which, I admit, I am a fan - are told not to think, but to let "The Force" guide their actions. 

I think that is a very dangerous way to live.

Look at the Proverb that I quoted above. Doesn't it address exactly that kind of subjectivist mentality? It warns that following feelings will lead to a deadly consequence. Why is that? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9). 

Subjectivism, the feelings-based worldview, is based on a false, unbiblical supposition, that the heart is necessarily and naturally good. Therefore, in a confused and disturbed world, we are supposed to be able to rely on that internal compass, just as we can rely on a physical compass in a wilderness where every direction seems the same.

However, as Jeremiah tells us, the heart is not good. It isn't even neutral. Rather, it is given over to wickedness. Jesus explained this to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:18-20: "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." Rather than as a source of guidance, it is our heart which produces every error and wicked act that we commit. To follow your heart is, just as Solomon said in the Proverb, to follow a path to death.

Picture it this way, to return to my compass analogy. If a hiker were trying to find his way through the wilderness with a compass that was broken somehow, such that it always pointed the wrong way, what would be his fate? Lost, starved, probably dead. The same is true for any man who follows his heart.

The Illusion of Autonomy from God

"The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Proverbs 16:9).

It is the essence of unbelief to imagine that a man is, or can be, autonomous from God. Ever since the Fall, the heart of every man has chafed against the awareness that God made us, sustains us, and exercises absolute dominion over us. In fact, that is exactly the case that Satan made to Adam and Eve, leading to their fist sins.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.He said to the woman, 'Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?' And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil'" (Genesis 3:1-5).

Satan made a disingenuous offer to Adam and Eve: "Rebel against God and serve me, and I will give you authority to decide good and evil for yourselves." Adam and Eve accepted his offer, and came under the dominion of Satan. However, they never received the promised autonomy, because Satan didn't have it himself to give it to them. He, too, can only act as God permits him to act (Job 1:12). Does Satan imagine himself to be autonomous? Possibly.

Yet, Solomon, the wisest and richest king Israel ever knew, denied that he was autonomous from God. He admitted that he made plans to do this or that, but it was the purposes of God that always prevailed.

And this is my question: If an absolute ruler, with massive wealth and unquestioned power, yet confessed that his actions were always at the sovereign and prior command of God, who are you, O Man, to claim that you are sovereign, determine your own life and morals, and will yourself to salvation, eternal life, and sanctification? What presumption!

Fair and Equal, Versus the Justice of God

"The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Proverbs 16:4).

In American culture, there is a high value placed on fairness and egalitarianism. Anyone with at least two kids has experienced the protests of, "That isn't fair!" Or, "he got more than I did!" The standard parental response is, "Well, life isn't fair."

I am not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with either fairness or equality. However, I do object to their being turned into overriding considerations. That is how we get socialism, the assumption that fairness requires, not equal rights, but equal outcomes. If two people, one hard-working and the other lazy, are paid the same, is that fair and equal? Certainly. However, is it just? I would say "no." If a rich man dies, and leaves his children well-provided, while another man, a poor one, dies and leaves his children destitute, is that fair and equal? Obviously not. Is it just? In this case, I would say "yes." Would it be fair and equal to deprive the rich man's children of their inheritance, in order to make to everyone's outcome the same? Ah, there is the crux of the matter!

The question is this: If one person benefits from a thing that another person does not have, is that fair and equal? Think about Christmas. If your parents could afford to give you a ten-speed bike, but the parents down the street can only afford to give their kids a new pair of gloves, what do we do? Take away your bike?

This is the difference between justice and fairness in the examples I have described: the ability of some parents to give more is nowhere by depriving other parents of the same ability (I am not talking about criminals, of course). That is, the children who have received less in my examples would have received what they did, no matter what had happened to the richer children.

The same principle applies to the purposes of God. When the Scriptures are read that tell us that God has determined His use for every person who has existed or ever will, is it fair that the purpose is positive for some, but negative for others? "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:21). But asking that question is to ignore that we exist only because He has given us existence. And, as Paul implies, it is the right of the creator to create things according to his own purposes, not according to the desires of those things.

People, including professing Christians, hate that truth! they snarl and proclaim their devotion to fairness and equality, while sweeping aside the proper issue of justice. If we had not been created to serve the purposes of God, then we would have had no existence at all! therefore, the purposes of God do not deprive us of anything that we would otherwise have had. Therefore, "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have You made me like this?'" (Romans 9:20).