Jehoshaphat and the Love of the Worldly

I have written before in opposition to the idea that God loves everybody, without discrimination, from Romans 9:13 and Psalm 5:5, or that we are commanded to do so, from Psalm 139:21. It is that latter theme which has come up in my own personal Bible study.

As I am reading through II Chronicles, I have reached the story of King Jehoshaphat of Judah. In chapter 18, he formed an alliance with the wicked King Ahab of Israel. In II Chronicles 19:2, we see the reaction of God to that alliance: "Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.'"

That is a judgment that should send alarms through the souls of all the latitudinarian evangelicals in America. Not only are unequal relationships tolerated, but even promoted, with some blubbery admonition to "love ever'body"! Friendships with unbelievers, business and political alliances, even marriages, in violation of such Scriptures as II Corinthians 6:14-15 and Revelation 18:4.

Holiness takes thought, discernment, not sentiment. No doubt, someone reading this, is saying, "But the Bible says not to judge!" Really? My Bible contains John 7:24: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." And the story of Jehoshaphat demonstrates that God takes that standard very seriously!

Psalm 119:99-100, the Explanation for Why Evolutionary "Scientists" Don't Have a Clue

"I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, for I keep Your precepts."

With these words, the anonymous author of Psalm 119 reveals what is at the heart of the continuous controversy over the question of ultimate origins.

As are all men, unbelieving scientists (and their representatives in education and the popular media) are fallen; they are sinners. Thus, their moral natures are corrupted. However, they continue to be men, so they have the ability to reason. It isn't their ability to reason which is misaligned, but rather their worldview, which is built on erroneous premises.

As a rational human being, a scientist, a bureaucrat, or an educator, has the ability to study and describe the relationships among living things, such as between a plant and its pollinator, or between a carnivore and its prey. Where they fail is their inability to acknowledge the relationship of each creature or species to its Creator. Only a believer can recognize that.

The Apostle Paul describes this contrast in I Corinthians 2:14, "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

This is the problem with court decisions which have banned the discussion of biblical creation, on the basis of "religious neutrality." Secularism isn't "spiritually-neutral." It is a contrary spiritual worldview, a view which has been given legal preference over orthodox Christianity.

The Answer of Genesis to the Question of Stellar Distances, Light, and a Young-Earth Creation

In the conflict between the belief in a young-earth creation and evolutionism (whether atheistic or theistic), the evolutionist side often refers to the distance to some light sources as proof of an old earth, even billions of years old. Their argument is that, since it takes millions, or even billions, of years for light to reach the earth from some intergalactic sources, then the universe must be at least that old.

Some creationists have claimed that non-Euclidean geometry removes the necessity that light must take that long to get here. And that may be true. I simply don't have the mathematical knowledge to express an opinion on the matter. Fortunately for me, such knowledge isn't necessary, because biblical creationism doesn't require that system.

Rather, I believe that the book of Genesis already includes sufficient information to provide the answer.

In Genesis 1: 2-5, the Bible tells us that God created light on the first day of the creation week. That is, He created light as a thing in itself, not simply as the derivative effect of distant light sources. Those light sources appear independently as His handiwork on the fourth day. Why is that important? Because it indicates that light was already in transit between the newly-created light source in the distance and its being seen here on earth. In other words, those light sources were not created as the initiators of the light we see, but rather as the sources of continuous resupply of that light. Thus, for example, Adam saw light from the direction of Alpha Centauri for 4.3 years before he saw the first light actually produced by Alpha Centauri. In the same way, we will be seeing light from the direction of Andromeda for an eon before we see the first light produced by that neighboring galaxy.

So, I suggest that simple logic indicates that the vast stellar distance pose no issue for the belief in the biblical, young-earth creation. The revelation from God of His actions remains sufficient, unchallenged, and unadulterated.

II Kings 24:4, When Will America Pay the Price for Innocent Bood?

I am outspoken both in my support for capital punishment and opposition to legalized infanticide (euphemistically called "abortion"). I am frequently told that those two positions are inconsistent, since both involve killing people. I find that objection offensive and egregious, because it fails to distinguish between guilty life and innocent life.

I have written before about the parallel between abortion in our society and Molech worship in the Old Testament. But it is on my heart to speak on it again.

At the end of II Kings, the writer relates the account of the final destruction of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylon in 586 BC. The coming of the Babylonians during the reign of King Jehoiakim was God's judgment on the apostasy of the King's grandfather, King Manasseh, "for the innocent blood that he had shed, for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not pardon" (II Kings 24:4).

We Americans have killed an estimated 52 million unborn (more accurately, preborn) children, just since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 (some states, including my own North Carolina, had legal abortion prior to that time). That river of blood makes Manasseh look like Mother Theresa! I can't help but weep.

If Manasseh's murder of scores of children in his time brought about the destruction of his nation, what judgment has been earned by the blood of 52 million helpless and innocent babies? And what judgment awaits the American church, which has mostly stood quietly while that holocaust has continued? We rightly condemn the German church for its silence as the Jews were trucked away to the gas chambers. Do we not see the parallel to our own passivity as children are being ripped apart and flushed away?

Jeremiah 10:23, the Nail in the Arminian Coffin

I have watched a particular TV evangelist's show a few times recently. I shall not name him; the particular preacher isn't the issue. In a panel discussion, his co-workers have taken cheap shots at Calvinists several times. One thing they keep repeating is, "God doesn't predestine individuals." They claim that he predestines, not who, but that, i.e., that those who repent and believe shall be saved. Of course, they don't include any scripture references for this claim (because there aren't any), but rather keep repeating "whosoever will," as if that proves everything.

However, scripture does address their objection. Unfortunately for them, the Scriptures are against their claims, not for. Jeremiah 10:23 reads, "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps." This is a poetic way of stating what the Apostle John says in his Gospel (John 1:12-13), "To all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" [emphasis mine]. And the Apostle Paul tells us (Philippians 2:13), "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." The Prophet and the Apostles agree that God creates belief; belief does not create predestination.

Just Thinking About Some Theological Stuff: Supralapsarianism

For the last couple of days, I have been pondering one of the deeper issues in Reformed theology: the division between supralapsarians and infralapsarians. How are those for fifty-cent words? Anyway, what I say below is my thinking process. I am not completely decided, so I in no way intend what I say to be taken dogmatically.  I am just laying out where my thinking is.

The issue is a division over the order of the decrees. Supralapsarians place election in the mind of God before the fall into sin. That is, from Latin, "supra," above, "lapsus", the fall. Infralapsarians (also called "sublapsarians"), in contrast, place the fall ahead of election. That is, "infra," below, "lapsus," the fall. The difference is over whether God elected a people, then used the creation and fall of Adam to attain the goals of election. Or did He create Adam, who then fell, and then God elected a people as a remedy for the fall. Note that these are not intended to be considered actions in time, but rather the purposes in the mind of God.

To my mind, supralapsarianism reserves election to the issue of God's glory, alone. God is glorified when His attributes are exhibited. Accordingly, election served to satisfy God's existence, not man's. For example, Paul explains that predestination reveals the glory of His mercy (Romans 9:23), of His grace (Ephesians 1:6), and of His riches (Ephesians 1:18). While predestination certainly occurred in love (Ephesians 1:4-5), even that was first His love to us, not ours to Him (I John 4:19, but also in the entire passage of verses 7-21). In other words, to glorify His attribute of love.

In addition, it seems to me that only the supralapsarian view gives full credence to Romans 9:21: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel to honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" That certainly seems to place God's will as the a priori principle of predestination and reprobation, not a posteriori as required by infralapsarianism.

While both supralapsarians and infralapsarians place the decrees in the mind of God before the Creation, i.e., before time (see Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 4:3, and Revelation 17:8), infralapsarians still view election as a remedy for the fall. Their reasoning is that to do otherwise makes God the author of sin. And I certainly grant that as a serious issue. However, I suggest that the objection must be made to Paul, not to supralapsarians. I don't know how to resolve this particular question. However, since I consider all of Scripture to be the Word of God, I must submit to what the Scripture says, and let my own doubts or questions fall wherever they may. And the question is, indeed, acknowledged even in the Scriptures themselves. In Isaiah 45:7, God says, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, Who does all these things."

And finally, I have a problem with the idea of God's doing something to remedy an action of man, as if He were caught by surprise. That makes the purposes of God subject to men, while Scripture puts men subject to the purposes of God (Isaiah 42:8, 43:7, and 48:11).

The first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism correctly states that the chief end of man is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." However, fallen man turns it around and acts as if God's chief end is to glorify man! Reformed theology is a correction to that crowning error of humanism. And supralapsarianism seems to me to be the consistent application of Reformed, i.e., biblical, theology.

Addendum on 12/1/13: I am reading the Reformed Dogmatics of Dutch-American theologian Herman Hoeksema. His answer to the question of God as author of sin seems reasonable. He says that sin lies in the motivation, not in the act per se. He gives the example of killing. Murder for gain is sinful; the execution of a criminal as an act of justice is not. Therefore, God's purpose in predestining the acts of the reprobate contains no sin, because His purpose is to further His plan of redemption of the elect. The act may be sin in the person committing it, because his motivation in the act is sinful, but that motivation is the responsibility of the sinner, not of the providence of God.

God Keeps His Appointments: the Basic Case for Sovereign Grace

The temptation with which Satan brought about the fall of Adam was, "You will be like God" (Genesis 3:5). This is repeated (in the mouth of an anthropomorphized Babylon) in Isaiah 14:13, "I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high." And again (in the voice of the prince of Tyre) in Ezekiel 28:2, "I am a god, [and] I sit in the seat of gods." And the nature of man hasn't changed. Isn't it the thought of every unbeliever, wagging his finger in the face of God, "You aren't the boss of me"?

It is this fallen nature, which plagues even the hearts of believers, that causes the umbrage so many people, believers and unbelievers alike, take, when exposed to the biblical doctrines of election and reprobation. Yet, the word of God expresses these doctrines in simple and straightforward language.

Election is God's choice, before the creation of the world, of specific men to be saved from the judgment that their sins have earned. The simplest text for this principle is Acts 13:48, "When the Gentiles heard this [i. e., the proclamation of the Gospel], they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

In contrast, reprobation is God's choice, again before the creation of the world, of specific men to be passed over and left under the judgment that their sins have earned. We find this stated most simply in I Peter 2:6-8, which ends with, "They stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed" [NASB].

The immediate response to this, at least among Americans, is, "That's not fair!" Well, the Scriptures address that objection, even though God certainly owes no explanations. The Apostle Paul, in Romans 9:20-21, says, "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?' 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?" The very question of "fairness" presupposes that we and God are equal. The biblical view is that we are no such thing. He is God; we aren't. So, when He acts like God, ours is to receive in gratitude and worship, not with the wagging finger of Adam's sin.