The Blueprint of Redemption

Dr. R. C. Sproul Saint Augustine was cynically asked, “What was God doing before He created the world? Augustine’s alleged reply was: “Creating hell for curious souls.”

The reply was, of course, tongue-in-cheek. The Bible doesn’t speak of such a special work of divine creation before creation itself. But Augustine’s bon mot had a serious point that warned against idle speculation of God’s activity in eternity.

However, quite apart from speculation, the Bible has much to say about God’s activity “before” the world was made. The Bible speaks often of God’s eternal counsel, of His plan of salvation and the like. It is a matter of theological urgency that Christians not think of God as a ruler who ad libs His dominion of the universe. God does not “make it up as He goes along.” Nor must He be viewed as a bumbling administrator who is so inept in His planning that His blueprint for redemption must be endlessly subject to revision according to the actions of men. The God of Scripture has no “plan b” or “plan c.” His “plan a” is from everlasting to everlasting. It is both perfect and unchangeable as it rests on God’s eternal character, which is among other things, holy, omniscient, and immutable. God’s eternal plan is not revised because of moral imperfections within it that must be purified. His plan was not corrected or amended because He gained new knowledge that He lacked at the beginning. God’s plan never changes because He never changes and because perfection admits to no degrees and cannot be improved upon.

The covenant of redemption is intimately concerned with God’s eternal plan. It is called a “covenant” inasmuch as the plan involves two or more parties. This is not a covenant between God and humans. It is a covenant among the persons of the Godhead, specifically between the Father and the Son. God did not become triune at creation or at the Incarnation. His triunity is as eternal as His being. He is one in essence and three in person from all eternity.

The covenant of redemption is a corollary to the doctrine of the Trinity. Like the word trinity, the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions it. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is affirmed throughout Scripture. Likewise, the phrase “covenant of redemption” does not occur explicitly in Scripture but the concept is heralded throughout.

Central to the message of Jesus is the declaration that He was sent into the world by the Father. His mission was not given to Him at His baptism or in the manger. He had it before His incarnation.
Continue reading

The Father’s Purpose

“… our first parents violated the conditions of the covenant of works, forfeiting its eternal blessing and incurring its eternal curse. But the Father’s purpose to grant His beloved Son a kingdom of loving, loyal human subjects (Luke 22:29) could not be thwarted by Adam’s sin. In fact, Adam’s treachery could only serve God’s agenda, to display the greater glory of divine grace. The Son would stand among the many children whom God gave Him (Heb. 2:13) as their Liberator from fear and death through His own death (Heb. 2:14–15). The Son would shepherd the sheep given to Him by the Father — sheep whom He calls by name (names inscribed in his Book of Life from eternity past, Rev. 17:8), who are safe in His and the Father’s strong hands. For He, their Shepherd, would lay down His life for them and take it up again, in keeping with the Father’s command (John 10:2, 14–18, 28–29). The Son would finally report His mission accomplished — the mission to glorify the Father by revealing Him to those whom the Father had given Him and by protecting them through the Father’s name (John 17:4, 6, 12). As a result, the Son would lay claim to well-earned glory, and He would entrust His people to the Father and the Spirit for protection and perfection (John 17: 5, 11, 15–19).” – Dennis Johnson

A woman in a hot air balloon…

A woman in a hot-air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.”

“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going.. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”

Why Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel Produce So Many Calvinists

“There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer – I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it.” (C. H. Spurgeon, a Defense of Calvinism)

Why are so many Calvinists being produced in Calvary Chapel when Chuck Smith and Co. are openly against Calvinism?

Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries answers this question and more in this February 9, 2010 edition of The Dividing Line.

Theology Matters!

“No Christian can avoid theology. Every Christian has a theology. The issue, is not, do we want to have a theology? That’s a given. The real issue is, do we have a sound theology? Do we embrace true or false doctrine?” – Dr. R. C. Sproul

Can Singing About the Gospel Become Rote?

From Bob Kauflin writes:

One of the drums I will never tire of beating is this: All biblical worship is rooted in and made possible by the cross of Christ. In my experience, the contemporary church (and any church, for that matter) is always in danger of neglecting the gospel in its songs. I said it this way in my book, Worship Matters:

The gospel is not merely one of many possible themes we can touch on as we come to worship God. It is the central and foundational theme. All our worship originates and is brought into focus at the cross of Jesus Christ.

Glorying in Jesus Christ means glorying in his cross. That doesn’t mean looking at some icon or two pieces of wood nailed together. Nor does it imply that every song we sing has the word cross in it. It has little to do with church gatherings that are more like a funeral than a celebration.

The cross stands for all that was accomplished through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. It focuses on his substitutionary death at Calvary but includes everything that gave meaning to that act. His preexistent state in glory. His incarnation. His life of perfect obedience. His suffering. His resurrection. His ascension. His present intercession and reign in glory. His triumphant return.

I will always plead that worship pastors lead gospel-centered worship that is characterized by:

* an awareness that the cross/gospel should be referenced somewhere in the time of singing.
* viewing the gospel as our primary motivation for praising God.
* helping people understand that only Jesus enables us to approach God – not music, musicians, worship * leaders, or particular worship songs.
* encouraging congregations to be most enthusiastic about the theme the Bible is the most enthusiastic about – the Lamb of God who was slain.

When the Gospel Loses Its Power

But over the years I’ve seen learned that this vital truth can be misapplied. We can practice gospel-centered corporate worship in a way that is more obligatory than faith-filled. What once magnified the glory of Christ becomes lifeless repetition. My friend, Jon Payne, shared some thoughts with me on this topic that I found helpful. He pointed out that a formulaic approach to gospel-centered worship can lead to some of the following problems:

* thinking every song should be exclusively about justification, boldness before the throne, or our sins being completely forgiven.
* thinking every song list should climax with a “gospel” song.
* an inability to reference or articulate uniquely other aspects of the gospel – adoption, reconciliation, union with Christ, etc.
* a scarcity of other themes in our songs such as the wisdom of God, the eternity of God, the power of God, the incarnation, the kingship of Christ, heaven.
* worshiping a doctrine rather than allowing that doctrine to lead us to a living Savior. We are not “crowning the gospel with many crowns.”

Leading gospel-centered worship in a faithless way can lead to some bad fruit:

* The gospel and the Savior lose glory in the eyes of bored worshipers.
* People develop a limited view of God and his attributes.
* People don’t learn how to apply the gospel to other areas of life/Biblical themes.
* The gospel becomes a crude, repetitive statement of facts rather than a lens through which we view all of life.
* We think an explicit reference to the gospel makes our worship acceptable, rather than trust in a crucified and risen Savior.
* Rather than expecting to encounter God because of the gospel people come expecting to repeat faithless facts.
* It’s our responsibility as leaders to make sure, as the Puritans said, that we always “labor to be affected by the cross.” The gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest news the world has ever heard and our singing should show it.

What have you done to make sure that singing about Christ’s redemptive work on the cross never becomes rote?

Friday Round Up

(1) There’s some very good deals going on at Ligonier right now in the Friday $5 online Sale.

I particularly recommend the hardback book “What’s So Great About the Doctrines of Grace?” by Rick Phillips, normally $15. It might be a good idea to get multiple copies to hand out to friends.

The Face to Face with Jesus CD series is also worth picking up. Check out the $5 Ligonier sale here.

(2) A reminder from yesterday’s blog post: From my friend, Dr. James White, an outstanding resource on a subject that very few will tackle head on: the biblical definition of “marriage” and a refutation of so called “Gay Christianity.” Many questions are answered biblically including:

How did Jesus define marriage?
What really was the sin at Sodom and Gomorrah?
What does Leviticus say about God’s attitude towards homosexuality?
Just how clear is Romans chapter 1 on this issue?

Here is the link.

Seven Questions

Romans 9: 1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The Context of Romans 9

Two things are clearly evident. Firstly, Paul is a Jew and it grieves him tremendously that his fellow Jews (as a whole) failed to recognize Messiah when He came.

Secondly, the theme of God’s righteousness is central to Paul (see Romans 1:16, 17; 3:21-27; 5:17-21; 8:4) and so he understands that God’s very integrity is on the line if in fact there are all the many promises given to Israel, yet in the end, none of them are fulfilled.

“What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel; that is penultimate. Ultimately God’s own trustworthiness is at stake. And if God’s word of promise cannot be trusted to stand forever, then all our faith is vain.” – Dr. John Piper

After the crescendo of revelation in Romans 8, Paul now attempts to deal with an objection that he knows would be mounted against all he has communicated so far, namely, “If it is impossible for the people of God to be separated from God’s love (the point being made in the preceeding verses), why is it that most of the Jews now stand in just such a condition?”

Most of Israel did not embrace Jesus as Messiah. As such, there is no salvation for them. Paul desires this with a fervent passion (Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.) But it still needs to be explained why a nation who are His special chosen ones, with so many unique privileges, failed to recognize the long awaited Messiah. How can this be possible? It seems outrageous that such a scenario could happen. Therefore, the Apostle Paul is doing what he knows must be done – defend the integrity of God and His promise.

That’s why all the opening verses of Romans 9 which show God’s special relationship with Israel and the unique privileges they enjoyed are merely a prelude to address this central issue in the sixth verse, namely how could it be possible that Israel failed to embrace Messiah. The logical question to be asked is “Did God’s promises to Israel fail in any way?”

Paul wants to answer that question with a resounding “no!” and he wants to explain WHY this is the case.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

God’s word has not failed. Yet on what basis can Paul declare such a thing?

The answer is that when God made His promises to Israel, God defined Israel as not merely those of a certain physical descent, but a chosen group of people amongst that rank. This is the Israel to whom the promises were made. Therefore, understanding this, God’s word to “Israel” has not failed in any way at all – all the true Israel will inherit the promise.

Lets read verse 6 again to make sure we grasp this:

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

It has always been this way!

Having made this declaration, Paul then seeks to show that this is not some new doctrine he has come up with out of nowhere. This is not new in any way at all. In fact, this concept lies at the very heart of Israel’s history and identity.

To prove this, he gives two Biblical examples. These are particularly striking in that Paul does not reference something obscure and unfamiliar in Israelite history but cites the very patriarchal fathers themselves. In other words, this concept can be traced all the way back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to deny it, would be to run roughshod over Israel’s very identity in the purposes of God.

Firstly, concerning Abraham’s children: though both Ishmael and Isaac were the physical children of Abraham, only Isaac was chosen to be the heir of the promise:

7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

The second example given is Isaac’s twin sons, Jacob and Esau. We could not be given a clearer illustration to demonstrate the fact that physical descent is not the basis for God’s choice. Here we have two brothers who shared the same womb, and yet one was chosen and the other was not.

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

For the sake of time, let me focus on verse 13 and its context and ask seven questions:

(1) Some seek to find refuge from the obvious by saying that the two twins (Jacob and Esau) became nations, so the verse is talking about national rather than individual election. However, though it is certainly true that the two brothers did become nations, that fact is not mentioned in the passage whatsoever. The text simply talks of two twin brothers and of God’s electing purpose for each of them before they were born.

Furthermore, every nation is made up of individuals, and so the concept of Sovereign election is still in place and unavoidable (if God chose one nation and not another). Isn’t that right?

(2) Verse 11 says, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls…”

Election is unconditional – “not because of works” – yet isn’t it true to say that every non Reformed approach to the passage makes election entirely based on works – the future actions/decisions of man?

.. and if it is true, as some say, that God’s choice of one twin over the other was based on what He foresaw would be their future actions, why did God not say this (this passage would have been THE place to say it more than anywhere in the Bible) and how is it that this concept is never mentioned in the Bible – not even once?

(3) Following on from question 2, if election is based on what God foresaw of man’s actions, why on earth would verse 14 ask the question it does? It would make no sense to ask about God’s fairness IF in fact, God was totally “fair” in electing based on man’s choice. In other words, verse 14 is only a logical question to ask IF in fact, Paul was seeking to teach that God’s electing grace is Sovereign and unconditional, without a view to the actions of man (past, present or future).

If someone looks at the passage honestly, isn’t this conclusion unavoidable?

(4) If words mean anything at all, isn’t it also unavoidable to conclude that God had a different measure of love for one of the twins rather than the other?

(5) However we define the word “hated,” doesn’t this one verse alone compel us to forsake the idea that God has the exact same measure of love for all people?

(6) Some react to this by saying “I could never love a God like that. My God loves everyone the same way.” Yet if this IS the word of the only God that is, isn’t it true to say that such a person, will have to one day stand before the God who inspired Romans 9, and not some made up “god” of the imagination?

(7) Isn’t it better to accept and embrace God’s clear revelation of Himself, on His terms, rather than spend a lifetime fighting and railing against the God of Romans 9?

“19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

Just asking…

Miscellaneous Quotes (41)

“I am an historian, the elders should protect the sinner from the church. When a sinner is defiant, the elders should protect the church from the sinner.”

“…a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it, appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous…” – John Calvin

“The Elect that the Father gives to the Son are preserved by the Son. The basis of our assurance is not to be based upon a confidence of our ability to persevere. We talk about the Perseverance of the Saints and I believe that the saints do in fact persevere but the reason that they persevere is because they are preserved and so it’s better to speak of the preservation of the saints than the perseverance of the saints and so we hear in this chapter Jesus appeals to the Father that those who have been given to Him may be kept.” – R.C. Sproul – Gaining True Assurance part 5 in The Assurance of Salvation series

“A ‘moral’ atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks.” – Greg Koukl

“Where God’s wrath is no longer a problem, Christ’s cross is no longer the solution.” – Michael Horton
Continue reading