Postmodern “Grace”
The author of Hebrews in 12:15-17 warns:
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
C. H. Spurgeon wrote concerning the failing of the grace of God:
Under the means of grace, there are many who do “fall short of the grace of God.” They get something that they think is like grace, but it is not the true grace of God, and they ultimately fall from it, and perish. . . . [I]n church fellowship we ought to be very watchful lest the church as a whole should fail through lack of the true grace of God, and especially lest any root of bitterness springing up among us should trouble us, and thereby many be defiled. We must remember that though we are saved by grace, yet grace does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action. Though salvation depends upon the merits of Christ, yet those who receive those merits receive with them a faith that produces holiness.
Spurgeon explains that this “failing” is “falling short,” and then “falling short” is not getting “the true grace of God” but “something that they think is like grace.” He says the true grace of God “does not stupefy us, but rather quickens us into action.” The placebo for the true grace of God does not produce holiness.
The true grace of God saves us. Most people want salvation, but they also don’t want the holiness true grace produces. Hebrews uses Esau as an example. He allowed his fleshly desire to keep him from true grace, replacing it with something short of it. God’s grace produces holiness.
Root of Bitterness
Through the years, I’ve read many different opinions about the “root of bitterness.” In the context, it causes a failing of the grace of God. Some say that the root of bitterness is an apostate in the church, like Esau, who then brings about further apostasy from others. Others say that it is sin, which is bitter and defiling. Rick Renner writes:
“It” pictures a person who is continually troubled, harassed, and annoyed by thoughts of how someone else wronged him. The offended person is now so troubled that he is almost emotionally immobilized. Instead of moving on in life, he gets stuck in the muck of that experience, where he wallows day after day in the memories of what happened to him. If that person doesn’t quickly get a grip on himself, he will eventually fulfill the next part of the verse.
Tozer explained it the same way:
The sad and depressing bitter soul will compile a list of slights at which it takes offense and will watch over itself like a mother bear over her cubs. And the figure is apt, for the resentful heart is always surly and suspicious like a she-bear!
Perhaps the preceding verse, verse 14, gives a clue:
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
Esau lacked peace between he and his father, Isaac, and his brother, Jacob. So many especially today allow the slights, real and otherwise, and even actual sins against them to keep them from the grace of God. They also often use these temporal affronts to justify their lusts, incongruous with the true grace of God. It ultimately reflects on their view of God and His goodness to them.
Postmodern Grace
Spurgeon assessed failing of true grace comes by replacing it with something short of the grace of God. I’m titling what I believe is the most common contemporary replacement for true grace, “postmodern grace” (Jesus Loves Me with postmodern lyrics). It isn’t the grace of God, because it is short of the grace of God.
Postmodern truth is your truth. Postmodern grace is your grace. It doesn’t follow peace, because it allows a grudge and resentment to keep it from that. It doesn’t follow holiness, because it sells holiness for temporal, carnal appetites, like the morsel of Esau. Adherents though count this as the grace of God. They remain bitter with those who reject their failing of the grace of God. The bitterness fuels further rejection of true grace, accompanied, like Esau, by tears of grudge-filled resentment.
Postmodern grace isn’t about pleasing God, but about pleasing self. Postmodern grace self-identifies as grace, which is in fact moral relativism. It doesn’t follow after holiness, but after its own lust.
Free Logos & Accordance Books!
Free books with Logos and Accordance Bible software–great! I own–and use regularly–both Logos and Accordance Bible software. I believe Accordance has superior resources for detailed exegetical study of Scripture in the original languages, so I use mainly Accordance for my study of the Bible itself, whether for my own devotional reading, for sermons and for teaching, and so on. I also use Accordance in case I need to look a word up while hearing the great expository preaching at Bethel Baptist Church. I use Logos for most of my commentaries and reference tools, because, in my opinion, the books are easier to read and reference in Logos. Logos also has a superior read-aloud feature, so I can listen to practically every book I have in my Logos library read aloud to me while I am doing errands, driving, and so on.
You can regularly get free books with both Accordance and Logos. To get free books on Accordance, sign up here for their mailing list where they tell you about their free books. Make sure you read down or at least scroll down to the end of their emails, as they sometimes put the free books at the bottom, to get you to read the whole thing. There are several free books you can get from Logos each month. Click here to find out about the Logos free book of the month. You can also get on their mailing list so that they tell you each month about the free book. Logos has a Catholic division called Verbum which also offers a free book every month; you can get this month’s free book and sign up to get notified each month here. Sometimes the Catholic free books are idolatrous garbage, since Catholicism is an evil false religion, but other times they are useful works by patristic writers or some other worthwhile volume (at least for free!). Logos also offer free e-books that are not searchable in the same way their Logos and Verbum resources are; I sometimes get those for free as well, although I have not found them especially helpful.
Maybe you say, “I don’t own Accordance or Logos. Why should I get free books from them?” You can get the free books and use them even if you never buy anything with Accordance or Logos. For example, sometimes Logos has given away expensive and very useful commentaries as their free book of the month. (Other months the books are not as useful, but the price is still right.) You can open and read the free books within the Accordance or Logos laptop/desktop or phone apps even if you never buy a Logos or Accordance base package. What is more, if you ever do buy an Accordance or Logos base package, you don’t have to pay for what you already own, so if you have gotten a lot of books for free already, then you are also getting a discount on whatever base package you eventually purchase. (That’s another reason I take the free Catholic book each month as well as the free Christian/non-Catholic one; if they throw the Catholic book into a base package I end up buying later, I am paying less for the base package.)
Why do Accordance and Logos give away free books? They do it because they think you will eventually buy something from them if you sign up. With the free books, they also tell you about discounts on other books in order to get you to buy them. It probably works, too; if you get enough free books, you probably will eventually buy a base package. But that wouldn’t be too bad–both Accordance and Logos Bible software base packages are very useful for studying God’s holy Word. There are definitely worse things to spend money on.
–TDR
Is God Not Being Obvious Enough, Proof That There Is No God?
I’m not saying that God isn’t obvious, but that is a major reason in what I’ve read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism. It’s also something I’ve thought about myself. God doesn’t go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed. God doesn’t show Himself in a manner that people expect.
Outside of earth’s atmosphere, space does not befriend life. Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth. No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else.
No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth. Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space. That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God’s beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.
Another angle I hear relates to suffering. God doesn’t show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God. Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago. Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.
According to scripture, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means you can’t see Him. John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 say, “No man hath seen God at any time.” One reason God isn’t obvious is that no one can see Him. That does not mean He doesn’t reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us. In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us (John 1:18). 1 Samuel 3:21 says, “the LORD revealed himself.” Romans 1:19 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people. They want, what I like to call, the crown performance. The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. People want more from God, but God doesn’t give that. God deserves the crown performance. He wears the crown. He doesn’t give the crown performances.
Seek God
I believe there are four main reasons God isn’t as obvious as people want Him to be. One, God wants to be sought after. I often say that God doesn’t want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot. Five times scripture says, “Seek God,” twenty-seven times, “seek the Lord,” twice, “seek his face,” and thirteen times, “seek him,” speaking of God. A good example of God’s desire here is Deuteronomy 4:29:
But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Believe God
Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.Hebrews 11:13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Men Rebel
God’s Glory
Does Lordship Salvation Proceed from Calvinism Like Many Say?
I believe what is termed, “Lordship salvation,” and don’t believe there is any other kind. I’ve read articles meant to expose Lordship salvation as false, that say it proceeded from the Calvinism of 17th century Post-Reformation Puritanism. Puritanism also brought the Westminster Confession of Faith. When I think of the five points of TULIP, I don’t get the connection. Lordship salvation is what I read in the Bible. Before I dig into that, I want to clarify some points.
No one is saved by works. Scripture not only does not teach salvation by works, but it instructs against salvation by works (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). The Bible does teach salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not a grace or a faith like the Mormons, their vital doctrine of salvation found in the Book of Mormon, a man-made, uninspired book (2 Nephi 25:23):
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
The Bible not only teaches nothing like that statement, but it teaches that when one adds even one work to grace, Christ becomes of no effect unto him. He also becomes a debtor to do the whole law (Galatians 5:2-4).
On the other hand, “believing” must be what scripture shows is “believing.” “Jesus Christ” must be who scripture shows is in fact Jesus Christ. These aren’t arbitrary, “believing” and “Jesus Christ.” Both must be what scripture teaches. I’m not attempting to be difficult. I don’t want truly saved people to think they’re not saved. “Believing” and “Jesus Christ” are both simple to understand. They go wrong when someone adds to or takes away from what the Bible says.
Also, when someone professes to believe in Jesus Christ does that mean he is truly saved? Is that what scripture teaches about the assurance of salvation? It doesn’t. The Bible teaches the opposite. Merely professing to believe in Jesus Christ does not mean that someone has believed in Jesus Christ. Just because someone even continues to profess faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that he is saved.
The ones that I have read that critique Lordship salvation as Calvinist or Reformed, say that the original Reformers, Calvin and Luther, taught that faith was only acceptance of the Word of God. I could agree with faith being acceptance of the Word of God if it really was acceptance of the Word of God, which means that someone truly accepted in a genuine fashion what the Bible said about Jesus Christ.
As a matter of history, Melancthon in the 16th century defined faith with three Latin words in his Loci Communes Theologici: Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia. Those three in order bring in intellectual, emotional, and volitional. From that, I would argue that the volitional aspect of faith arose before the 17th century. Among writers, these three divided into two, notitia and assensus representing the mind and fiducia, the heart, so that genuine faith involved the head and the heart, not only the head.
I’m not going to do this here, but if one were to follow through with a study of faith in all theological literature, one can see that this volitional or heart aspect goes very far back as an understanding of faith. As an example and before the printing press, Irenaeus in the early 3rd century wrote:
The Law which was given to bondmen formed men’s souls by outward corporeal work, for it coerced men by a curse to obey the commandments in order that they might learn to obey God. But the Word, the Logos who frees the soul, and through it the body, teaches a voluntary surrender.
Clement in the early second century writes:
Called by the will of God in Christ, we can be justified, not by ourselves, not by our own wisdom and piety, but only by faith, by which God has justified all in all ages. But shall we, on this account cease from doing good, and give up charity? No, we shall labor with unwearied zeal as God, who has called us, always works, and rejoices in his works.
This is how men have understood faith not to be mere intellectual assent to facts.
I divide the salvation issue into two parts, “believing in” and “Jesus Christ.” “Faith in Christ” is four times, “faith in the Lord Jesus” once, some form of “believe on” Christ, fifteen times, and “believe in” Christ, eleven times. There are more examples than these, but “believing” must be believing and some faith does not save (James 2:17-26; John 2:23-24). Saving faith includes more than intellect. Repentance means something more than just sorrow (2 Corinthian 7:8-11). Intellect and sorrow without volition falls short of believing.
Taking in all the parallel passages, saving faith must include repentance, which must be volitional. One could say that saving repentance must include faith. Jesus said that if anyone comes unto Him, salvation language, he must deny himself, which means losing his life or his soul (Luke 9:23-25). Scripture describes salvation as the restoring (Psalm 23:3) and converting of the soul (Psalm 23:3). To be restored or converted, a sinner relinquishes his soul to the Lord. This is repentance. Jesus said, I am the way (John 14:6). Someone relinquishes his own way, if he believes in Jesus Christ.
The second half says, “Lord Jesus Christ.” If someone believes Jesus is the Christ, which is necessary for eternal life (John 20:31), then he believes Jesus is King. This fits with Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s preaching to “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” One could say the meaning of this is “repent because the King is here.” The New Testament presents Jesus as King. Someone does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, as the King, and remain in rebellion against Him. He relinquishes His will, becomes subject to the King. This can be proven over and over in the New Testament.
Just as an example, one should read the parable taught in Luke 20:1-19. It’s obvious, Jesus the Son was sent to people, having authority over them. His audience was to receive His authority and ownership, Lordship, if they believed in Him. They didn’t. They killed him, so they were in big trouble. This kind of teaching is all over the New Testament. I understand the popularity of non-Lordship teaching. They walk after their own lusts and don’t want someone as a Boss (2 Peter 3:1-4).
Everything that I’ve written about believing in Jesus Christ does not require being a Calvinist or Reformed. I haven’t read anything that makes that connection. It’s an assertion without proof. Just because Calvinists did believe it doesn’t mean it originated with them. It is what the Bible teaches.
When one reads the early Baptist confession, the Schleitheim Confession (1527), written by Michael Sattler, not a Protestant confession, he reads not a full confession of faith or explanation of the Baptist doctrine. It reveals the distinctions between the Baptists and those not, who claim salvation by faith. Sattler’s statement does not disagree with Protestants on what is “faith in Christ.” One of the few statements in the Confession, however, is the following:
Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves.
This defined for Baptists who believed in Jesus Christ. Repentance and true faith in Christ, including Lordship, did not arise from Calvinism.
Is the Trinity Practical? by Ryan McGraw
Some time ago I reviewed on this blog Ryan McGraw’s fine book Knowing the Trinity: Practical Thoughts for Daily Life.
I recommend the book highly; too many Christians think that the Trinity is just a doctrine that one holds that has no impact on his life, when, in fact, the Trinity is at the heart of all of the believer’s relationship with God and is thus at the core of the Christian’s new birth, sanctification, glorification, and eternal heavenly fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
If Dr. McGraw’s book (easy to read and not especially long) book is more than one wants to read, however, he has also written a short and helpful pamphlet called “Is the Trinity Practical?” which one can read quickly in just a few minutes, and which distills the truth in his longer book (which itself was a distillation of John Owen’s Christian classic Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a great treasure which I discuss in my Trinitarianism class here for several lectures.)
I purchased a number of copies of “Is the Trinity Practical?” to share with others. While the links in this post are to Amazon as Amazon affiliate links (if you get things on Amazon, please consider using Amazon Smile as discussed here), where you can also see what other people have thought of the book in the relevant book review section at Amazon, the cheapest place that I found to get copies of McGraw’s pamphlet, at least as of writing this post, was with Reformation Heritage Books, which, at the time of my writing this, had a nice sale on McGraw’s pamphlet.
I believe McGraw’s pamphlet could be very helpful for practically all church members. Perhaps you should consider getting some copies and sharing them with others in your congregation? The only warning I would make is that as an orthodox Presbyterian with Puritan leanings McGraw uses the word “sacrament” a few times instead of the better Biblical term “ordinance.” for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But his Trinitarianism is completely orthodox, and other than the word “sacrament” there is nothing that points to Presbyterian ecclesiology in his pamphlet. Dr. McGraw is to be commended for summarizing in short compass what far too many who have even graduated from Bible colleges do not know in our theologically loose day–that the Trinity is central to everything in the Christian life, and is therefore most eminently practical.
–TDR
Which Is True? Restoration, Reformation, or Perpetuity?
Two experiences dovetailed for me to write this post. As to the first, while working out I watched a documentary on Martin Luther. Does Luther’s Reformation represent the truth? Is the true church a reformed one?
The second, I took my dad to a podiatrist in Layton, Utah. As a diabetic, he goes in for his feet every three to six months. In my conversation with the LDS doctor, I gave a short gospel exposition and explained Baptists and the perpetuity of the truth and a true church. Rather than perpetuity or reformation, the Mormons believe in restoration of a true church gone apostate.
I see at least six possible historic positions on the truth. One, we never ever had it. Two, we received it, lost it, and have never restored it since. Three, false teachers corrupted the truth to the degree that some needs reformation. Four, men reformed the corrupted truth (but not likely to its original state). Five, men restored lost truth to its original condition. Six, it was never lost or corrupted. Those six positions find themselves in restoration, reformation, or perpetuity. Someone could add total apostasy to the three to take in the six.
Historic positions on the truth relate also to the church. The preservation of the truth pertains to the preservation of the church. God gave the truth to the church to preserve (1 Timothy 3:15). Applying the same views to the church, one, did the true church end? If it ended, was it restored? If forces corrupted the church, submerging it in various degrees of darkness, was it reformed? Or, was the church never lost, the truth never lost, but both were preserved? These viewpoints of truth and of the church can’t all be true. Only one of them can be true, because each of the three or four contradict the others.
Another important facet to this discussion or question is, how do we know which of these four is true? Only one of them can be true, but how do we know which one? Philosophy of history revolves around the question, what happened? Many other questions, however, arise, important of which is whether a person can report on historical events accurately with his personal interpretation. In this discussion, this is the crux of the issue. From a biblical perspective, God didn’t promise to preserve history. History can be and is slanted by those recounting.
If perpetuity of the truth and the church is true, that truth and the church were never lost, how do we know? What is the proof? Most historical evidence is on the side of corruption and reformation. Is there proof for perpetuity?
As I listened to the introduction in the Martin Luther documentary, the makers presented a very dark world out of which the reformation began. That segment began with an illustration of the painting by the Dutchman, Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights. The producers posited a world as Bosch did. The church was corrupt with few exceptions, John Wycliffe and John Hus.
Hus apparently means “goose” in Bohemian. Hus is reported to have said while being attached to the stake for burning, “You can kill the goose, but one day soon a swan will come that no one will be able to silence,” and Luther came a hundred years later. Luther’s pulpit had a swan engraved or painted on it, asserting himself the fulfillment of Hus’s prophecy.
With the reformation view of history, Luther becomes important. He becomes the vessel of the Reformation, it’s veracity attached to him. Was that true? Luther retained many Roman Catholic doctrines, including a state church. He was better than the Catholics, no doubt. Based on his own writing, I don’t think Luther was converted. A reformation viewpoint embraces Luther and then adapts him to provide the proof.
The Bible is true. What Jesus said was true. The reformed view isn’t much different than that of the restorationists in its reliance on scripture. Jesus and the Bible teach perpetuity. As I watch a Luther documentary, it is easy to see a reformed view of history as a matter of personal interpretation through a convoluted lens.
The Mormon podiatrist asked me when the Baptists started. I didn’t provide him a hint to ask that question. It was important enough for him on his own. How did I answer? I said that Baptists started with Christ, and I added, “Of course I would say that, right?” I revealed that there have always been true churches separate from the state church. That’s what Jesus prophesied and He couldn’t be wrong (Matthew 16:18-19).
I hear the reformed say, “The Reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the doctrine of justification had been lost. I have often asked men, “Do you believe the truth was preserved through Roman Catholicism?” People have a difficult time answering that. It’s easy to see why. Roman Catholicism was an apostate institution that had departed from the faith, when the Reformation started. The Reformed or Protestants trace themselves through Roman Catholicism, a viewpoint incompatible with a scriptural position on the truth and the church.
A perpetuity view starts with scripture and then gives the most complete historical evidence that corresponds to what the Bible says. In every century since Christ and the founding of the church, churches exist separate from the state church that embrace scripture as authority. With a scriptural presupposition of perpetuity enough historical evidence exists to support that viewpoint. Many historians vouch for this.
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous.
The famed Quaker commentator, Robert Barclay, said (The Inner Life of the Societies of the Commonwealth, London, 1876, pp. 11-12):
We shall afterwards show the rise of the Anabaptists took place prior to the Reformation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the Continent of Europe small hidden Christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the Anabaptists, have existed from the times of the apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church.
Annaeus Ypeij (1760–1836) and Isaac Johannes Dermout (1777–1867), Dutch Reformed theologians and historians, in their Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk wrote:
We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times, Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who, long in the history of the church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and, as a Christian society, has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.
I include these only as samples. There are many more quotes that back the hypothesis that assemblies existed separate from Roman Catholicism, which believed and practiced the Bible. They long predate the Reformation, substantiating a perpetuity viewpoint.
Modernism of the nineteenth century brought a solely empirical basis for truth. The nature of knowledge brought the necessity of rational justification for faith. Traditional beliefs that proceeded from scripture alone were questioned and criticized. The empiricist claimed knowledge through the senses alone. The only reasonable view of the world comes by scientific discovery. Sufficient evidence for perpetuity could be questioned next to the massive documentation of Roman Catholicism. This clashes with the doctrine of scripture.
Faith is the basis of pleasing God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Faith isn’t contradictory to reason, but it is superior to reason. I like to say that faith bypasses our lying eyes. Revelation exceeds, transcends, or eclipses discovery.
At the same time, perpetuity is reasonable because scripture is reasonable. This fits Romans 12:1, “reasonable” (logikos). Enough history exists either direct or indirect to corroborate the scriptural presupposition of perpetuity. Saying that the truth was lost and the church ceased as an institution is not reasonable. It’s like saying that the world got here by accident.
You know the conclusion. Restoration and reformation are false, but perpetuity is true. What does that mean for authority, the truth, or the church? It has repercussions worth exploring. If you joined something Protestant, Reformed, or Restorationist, you’re in something false. What does that leave you? Pleasing God requires living by faith, which means obeying scripture. This is why I believe in perpetuity and I’m a Baptist.
The Meaning of “Done” and the Work of Christ
I didn’t hear language until recently both in preaching and in reading of the existence of only two religions, one “do” and the other “done.” This nice turn of phrase might help someone who thinks salvation is by works. A popular leader in “new revivalism,” comparable to the label “new Calvinism,” wrote a book titled, “Done.”
In a sense, depending upon the explanation, the “done” versus “do” aphorism is true. With a different explanation, it can also be false though, and dangerous. What I read, very often it is. Many who emphasize “done” and not “do” are wrong, mainly in their watery, pliable definition of “done.” The ambiguity provides for doctrinal perversion.
It makes good preaching to turn to the words of Jesus, “It is finished” (tetelestai, perfect passive), the work of salvation done by Christ on the cross. With the popularity of a new and false view of sanctification, many Christian leaders now say that since salvation is done, when you sin, just preach the gospel to yourself, so you won’t feel burdened down by the guilt. Tetelestai is perfect passive (not to get super Greeky with you), not the aorist tense, completed action. With the perfect, the work is done, but the results are ongoing. Jesus works, but His work doesn’t stop working.
Paul wrote in Philippians 2:13, “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” He’s not done working in you. “It is finished,” but the results are ongoing. How do you know your salvation is done? Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew7:21). “He that doeth.” That’s not “done;” that’s “do,” “doeth.” For the one who is really “done,” he will “do.” When someone isn’t doing, then his salvation isn’t done.
The work that Jesus does transforms the actual life, not some kind of fanciful, chimerical life, not actually lived. Some of the “done” people say, Jesus lives it, and you just claim what He did as if it was you. Some reading this may say that you’re not believing that. You are when you lump sanctification with justification. How you know you’re saved is that He keeps saving you. Evidence. It shows up. God provides measurables.
Partly why Jesus’ righteousness doesn’t show up in the the “done ones” is that they did not repent, unless a deconstructed, dumbed down repentance. They changed their mind about their not trusting in what Jesus did. They repented of depending on self. This is the so-called repentance of the Pharisees that diminishes righteousness, what Paul called, ‘establishing your own righteousness and not submitting unto the righteousness of God’ (Romans 10:1-4).
Salvation is “done,” don’t get me wrong. What does “done” mean? When God saves someone, He changes him, makes him a new creature (2 Cor 5:17). Sin doesn’t dominate him any more (Roman 6:14). The eternal life he possesses is more than a quantity of life, but a quality of life. The epistle of 1 John says the life of God indwells the done one (1 John 1:1,2, 5:11), what Peter described as partaking of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
Very often, modern purveyors of “done” mean, even if for only practical purposes, their salvation is all set regardless if they practice sin as a lifestyle. Any hint that a life is going to change and salvation means “do” and not “done.” As a consequence of this false view, he becomes cemented in sinning, because he sin with no repercussions.
The apparent, albeit wrong, alternative to “done” says receive salvation through Christ’s death after trying to be a good person and living a righteous life. A biblical alternative is that salvation isn’t done until the believer is glorified, and when his salvation is truly done, Christ indwells Him and continues saving him. When God doesn’t indwell someone and transform him, he can only still “do,” except in a dangerous way, fooled in thinking the Lord saved him, when He hasn’t.
Why is the Holy Ghost the “Holy” Spirit?
A few weeks ago on 9/17/2021 we answered the question “Why is the Holy Spirit named the Holy ‘Spirit'”? We learned that the answer to that question is that, most fundamentally, the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit” because He proceeds from the Father and the Son in a manner comparable to being breathed forth, just as the Father and the Son are Father and Son because the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.
What about the “Holy” in this most frequent designation of the third Person in the Trinity? Just as we saw in the last post that the Holy Ghost is not in His essence “Spirit” in a sense any different than the Father and Son are Spirit, so the Father’s essence is infinitely holy, the Son’s essence is infinitely holy, and the Spirit’s essence is infinitely holy (for the three possess the identical undivided essence, as they are homoousios), so the Holy Spirit is not in that sense any more or any less holy than the infinite holiness that is a glorious attribute of the Father and the Son.
So why, then, the “Holy” Spirit?
First, the Holy Spirit is so called because He possesses the infinite Divine holiness, in contrast to all created spirits (and it should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit is the immediate Agent of Christ casting out unclean spirits.) Second, as One who is utterly transcendent and pure in His being, and One who is to the highest degree consecrated to and in the closest union with the Father and the Son–that is, as One who is holy, and in accordance with the order of operations in the Trinity where the Divine acts are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit, because the Son is eternally of the Father, and the Spirit eternally from the Father and the Son, the Spirit is the Divine Person who immediately acts in making men holy. In other words, He is called the Holy Spirit because His nature is holy and His operations or works are holy and produce holiness in redeemed creatures.
So the title “Holy” is not expressive in particular of the Spirit’s procession or spiration from the Father and the Son; the Name expressive of the Spirit’s manner of subsistence in the Trinity is “Spirit,” as “Father” and “Son” are the Names expressive of the first and second Person’s manner of subsistence. “Holy” is not indicative of His ontological personal property, but “Spirit” is indicative of ontology, like Son and Father. “Holy” instead is a title frequently adjoined to the personal Name “Spirit” of the third Person in a manner somewhat comparable to the way in which “Lord” is affixed to the name “Jesus.”
Since the Spirit is eternally from the Father and Son, He draws us into fellowship with the Father and the Son. He is termed the “Holy Spirit” because He is infinitely consecrated to the Father and Son, perfectly holy in His own essence, and set apart from created spirits as possessor of Divine holiness to the highest degree, who is holy the way only God is holy. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, He is the One who applies the work of Father and Son He makes us holy.
John Owen in his Pneumatologia: A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit provides a helpful explanation (pgs. 55ff., Owen, Works vol 3):
Again; He is called, by way of eminency, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. 51:11, רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ, “The Spirit of thy Holiness,” or “Thy Holy Spirit.” Isa. 63:10, 11, רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ,—“The Spirit of his Holiness,” or “His Holy Spirit.” Hence are רוּהַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ and רוֹּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “The Holy Spirit,” and “The Spirit of Holiness,” in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἄγιον, “That Holy Spirit.” And we must inquire into the special reasons of this adjunct. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner. And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. 20:8, “I am Jehovah which sanctify you.” And God in that work ascribes unto himself the title of Holy in an especial manner, and as such would have us to consider him: chap. 21:8, “I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.” And this may be one reason of the frequent use of this property with reference unto the Spirit.
But this is not the whole reason of this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called “The Spirit of God’s Holiness,” Ps. 51:11, Isa. 63:10, 11; and in the New Testament absolutely “The Spirit of Holiness,” Rom. 1:4. And this respects his nature, in the first place, and not merely his operations. As God, then, absolutely is called “Holy,” “The Holy One,” and “The Holy One of Israel,” being therein described by that glorious property of his nature whereby he is “glorious in holiness,” Exod. 15:11, and whereby he is distinguished from all false gods, (“Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness?”) so is the Spirit called “Holy” to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account is the opposition made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit: Mark 3:29, 30, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” And herein first his personality is asserted; for the unclean spirit is a person, and if the Spirit of God were only a quality or accident, as some fancy and dream, there could no comparative opposition be made between him and this unclean spirit,—that is, the devil. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures. His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called “Holy,” even the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is so styled also with respect unto all his operations; for it is not only with regard unto the particular work of regeneration and sanctification, or making of us holy, but unto all his works and operations, that he is so termed: for he being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and they being in themselves all holy, be they of what kind soever, he is called the “Holy Spirit.” Yea, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, although they may be great and terrible, and such as to corrupt reason may have another appearance; in all which we are to acquiesce in this, that the “Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity,” [Hos. 11:9], Zeph. 3:5. The Spirit of God, then, is thus frequently and almost constantly called “Holy,” to attest that all the works of God, whereof he is the immediate operator, are holy: for it is the work of the Spirit to harden and blind obstinate sinners, as well as to sanctify the elect; and his acting in the one is no less holy than in the other, although holiness be not the effect of it in the objects. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews,—one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence, a work which, for the strangeness of it, men “would in no wise believe though it were declared unto them,” Acts 13:41,—he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isa. 6:3, 9–12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25, 26.
There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are wrought, by God’s permission and in his righteous judgment, by evil spirits; whose persons and actings are placed in opposition to the Spirit of God. So 1 Sam. 16:14, 15, “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.” So also verse 23, “The evil spirit from God was upon Saul.” So chap. 18:10, 19:9. …
To return; As he is called the Holy, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Ps. 143:10, רוּחֲךָ טוֹבָה תַּגְחֵנִי;—“Thy Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness;” so ours:—rather, “Thy good Spirit shall lead me;” or, as Junius, “Spiritu tuo bono deduc me,”—“Lead me by thy good Spirit.” … So Neh. 9:20, “Thou gavest them” רִוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה, “thy good Spirit to instruct them.” And he is called so principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as “there is none good but one, that is, God,” Matt. 19:17; as also from his operations, which are all good as they are holy; and unto them that believe are full of goodness in their effects.
Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2 pg. 277) summarizes why the third Person is called “Holy” and called the “Spirit”:
And although the divine being we call God is “Spirit” (John 4:24) and “holy” (Isa. 6:3), in Scripture the term “Holy Spirit” is still a reference to a special person in the divine being distinct from the Father and the Son. He owes this name to his special mode of subsistence: “spirit” actually means “wind,” “breath.” The Holy Spirit is the breath of the Almighty (Job 33:4), the breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6). Jesus compares him to the wind (John 3:8) and “breathes” him upon his disciples (John 20:22; cf. 2 Thess. 2:8). The Spirit is God as the immanent principle of life throughout creation. And he is called “holy” because he himself exists in a special relation to God and because he puts all things in a special relation to God. He is not the spirit of humans or of creatures but the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11–12; Isa. 63:10–11).
You can learn more about the true God, the Triune God, in the class here.
–TDR
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory
People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.
Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.
Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
The Chiastic Structure of the Bible and History and an Immediately Appearing Earth (Young Earth)
How did the physical universe get here? When you read Genesis 1, it reads like what I am titling, an “Immediately Appearing Earth” (IAE). In other words, the creation of or origin of the earth wasn’t a process. You will find many arguments for the young earth or immediately appearing earth. What does the Bible say? Or what does God say? Let’s admit, no one was there to see it, except for God, so we should trust what He said. God created the universe and He gave the account of what He did. If we believe He created it, we should also believe how He said He did it.
Genesis 1 doesn’t indicate a process to the origin of the earth. What we read is immediate appearance. The grammar and syntax of Genesis 1 show this, but the structure of the entire Bible also portrays it. The biblical authors very often wrote the narratives of Old Testament or Hebrews texts or passages in what is called a chiastic structure, also called an inverted parallelism.
The entire book of Lamentations takes the chiastic structure as well as it’s middle chapter. The chiastic structure of the whole book emphasizes the third chapter of five, and then the third chapter, the lengthiest of the five, three times longer than the other chapters, is also chiastic, giving a clue to the point of Lamentations. The central axis of the book is Lamentations 3:22-36. With none to comfort Jerusalem in her affliction, she comforts herself when she remembers that the LORD is merciful and compassionate, faithful and good to those who seek Him.
The Bible also point to an immediately appearing earth as seen in its structure. One could go much more detailed than the following, but consider this schematic.
The Bible starts with creation and ends with creation. The chiastic structure moves forward from the first creation, which is the doctrine of first things, and moves backward from second creation, the doctrine of last things. The Bible and history pivots on Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and the ending, the alpha and omega, but He is also everything in between. In the diagram above, the chiasm forms an apex, where Jesus stands at the top. That’s what this structure shows more than anything.
God creates in the first creation and in the second creation. They are parallel in the chiasm. If the second creation is an immediate appearing earth, which it is, then the first also is. It must be. Other parallels indicate all this is an existing structure. One that supports the position of an immediate appearing earth is that God provides the light for both the first creation and the second creation. It’s a kind of tip that says God doesn’t need our science. He does want our faith though.
Does anyone question the immediate appearance of the second earth? Does anyone posit a process for the future earth? They argue for a very slow process for the first earth and for reasons unnecessary if they believe in creation in the first place.
The ground out of which God formed Adam in Genesis 2:17 is the same ground out of which He formed the animals in Genesis 2:19, both Hebrew words for ground related to the Hebrew word for man, Adam. Animals appear instantaneously, as does Adam. None of this is a process. None reads like a process.
What makes Adam unique to the animals is the breath of God, the spirit in man (Genesis 2:7), breathed into him, which is the image of God in man (Genesis 1:26). This is not a development. Both animals and man appear with age at a necessary degree of difficulty, one of impossibility without the power of God, that is the same as the original appearance of the heavens and the earth. The Hebrew verb bara, to create something out of nothing, is used with heavens and earth (1:1), animals (1:21), and man (1:27).
Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
*************
I wanted to have the above post out last night and wasn’t sure I could write more. I want to point out at least one more chiastic structure that relates, I believe, to an Immediately Appearing Earth. Man immediately appeared with his own creation in Genesis 1 and the expansion on that account in Genesis 2. Man immediately is recreated in his resurrection and glorification. This structure matches that of the earth. Man waits for His redemption as does creation groan for its day of redemption (Romans 8:22).
Recent Comments