Two of my favorite Bible teachers together – Dr. R. C. Sproul sits down with Dr. D. A. Carson for a short interview to discuss exegesis (drawing out of the text what is actually there) and hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation), so called “problem” Bible passages, and exegetical fallacies (the most common mistakes made when approaching the text of Scripture).
RC Sproul interviews DA Carson on biblical exegesis from Ligonier on Vimeo.
Matthew 24: 22 And if those days had not been cut short, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
Just an observation: thankfully the phrase “if possible” there in Matthew 24:24, shouts loudly to us that it is indeed not in any way possible for the elect to be deceived. God will make sure His chosen ones are safeguarded from the deception, though all around them fall for the lies.
The more time goes by, the more I see that the ONLY reason you or I are ever kept from such deception is not because of any smarts on our part, but God’s Sovereign choice and mercy.
Some time back I wrote an article called “Run for your life” found where I warned of a very troubling concept found in a book by Ann Voskamp, namely to think of our union with God in sexual terms. For many days afterwards I was bombarded with hostile personal attacks in the comments, many of which I had to delete, and yet, no one was able to say that I had misunderstood the author’s words or taken them out of context in any way at all. Anyway, regarding this, here’s a question I received today (edited slightly):
Pastor Samson, I am in absolutely disagreement with Ann Voskamp’s book; but now I have a question, that I am not finding “easy” to answer. Ann has posted a sort of a response to criticisms she has received, in which she quotes men like John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, using the “same kind” of metaphor that she used. I find this very dangerous because many Reformed women now are feeling “safe” about following her lead. That is why I want to be ready to give them an answer. What are your thoughts? Would you consider writing a post explaining what Edwards and Spurgeon meant when they used these words? Thank you.
Thanks for your question. I am not sure I could write with any degree of authority or certainty concerning what was in the minds of the men quoted when they wrote. God would know that for certain, but quite obviously, I do not.
I will say this though. A writer often uses hyperbole and every legitimate means to grab the attention of the reader and rightfully so. May God preserve us from boring writers! Because of this, we should always seek to believe the best of a writer until it is absolutely impossible than to see their words as crossing a theological boundary of heresy and blasphemy. I tend towards giving the benefit of the doubt to any author until I am absolutely forced by sheer weight NOT to do so. I would also hope that those who read my words would extend to me the same degree of courtesy.
Of course, though these men are very highly respected, their own writings would seek to remind all of us that neither any of them individually or all of them collectively are in any way infallible. Even the greatest teachers of the Church should be subject to the God breathed Scriptures and the boundaries of orthodoxy found there. Continue reading
As I mentioned a short gospel article/tract I wrote some time back entitled “The Thief on the Cross” has already been translated into Italian and now, into the Indian dialect of Malayalam. It is ready to be used this coming Good Friday as an outreach in the state of Kerala, India with 10,000 copies going out in the morning newspapers.
This morning I was informed that the tract is now at the printers and I have just been sent a copy of the front portion (above). The words at the top in Malayalam mean “Two Thieves Speak Out.”
I thought you might like to see it and I hope it will encourage you to pray. I would appreciate that so very much. May God be pleased to use this tract as a tool for many of His elect sheep to come to a saving knowledge of Christ this Easter season.
P52 (Papyrus number 52), is the earliest manuscript fragment we have of the New Testament.
The early Christians were generally not the richest people in society and so to spread the message of Christ in written form, they would often use both sides of an expensive papyrus. That is the case here with P52.
As Wikipedia states, the style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 AD and 138 AD. However it is difficult to be precise in fixing a date and the evidence does allow for a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 AD past 150 AD. The fragment of papyrus was among a group acquired on the Egyptian market in 1920 by Bernard Grenfell, but the original transcription and translation was not carried out until 1934, by Colin H. Roberts.
The fragment comes from the Gospel of John chapter 18, verses 31-33 in Greek. The letters in bold are the ones found on the fragment:
?? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????????
OY???? ??? ? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??-
??? ?H?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???-
??H????? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??????-
???? ? ?I????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????
??? ????? ???? ?? ?? O ???????? ??? ???-
?A??N
Translated into English it reads:
the Jews, “For us it is not permitted to kill
anyone,” so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he
spoke signifying what kind of death he was going to
to die. Entered therefore again into the Praeto-
rium Pilate and summoned Jesus
and he said to him, “Thou art king of the
Jews?”
And on the other side of the fragment, from John 18: 37,38 it reads:
???????? ???? ??? ??? TO??? ??????????
??? (??? ?????) ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????Y–
???? ?? ??????? ??? ? ?? E? ??? ?????I–
?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????
? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ?A? ????O
????? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???-
?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???E????
??????? ?? ???? ??????
…
a King I am. For this I have been bornand (for this) I have come into the world so that I would
testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth
hears of me my voice.” Said to him
Pilate, “What is truth?” and this
having said, again he went out unto the Jews
and said to them, “I find not one fault in him.”
To make sense of all this in terms that those new to the arena of manuscript evidence can understand, Dr Dirk Jongkind, a Research Fellow at Tyndale House, explains:
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
To quote Dr. John Piper in his comments on these verses, “After saying in verse 11 that God determines the destiny of Jacob and Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad, he supports this with a quote from the Old Testament. “Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Malachi 1:2-3]
What did Paul see in this quote from Malachi that made it right for him to use it in this way to support the unconditional election of Jacob over Esau? Let’s go read it in context. What we will see is that Malachi’s way of arguing is exactly like Paul’s. Malachi 1 declares:
1 “The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi.
2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have You loved us?”
[Then God answers]
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob;
3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”
Do you see how God is arguing for his love for Jacob?
They say, “How have you loved us?” And He answers, “Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?”
In other words, “Didn’t Esau have as much right to be chosen as you? Wasn’t he the son of Isaac? Wasn’t he a twin in the same womb with you? Wasn’t he even your elder brother? Nevertheless, I chose you.” The whole point of that question, “Wasn’t Esau Jacob’s brother?” is exactly the same point Paul is making here.
Paul saw it in Genesis. And he saw it in Malachi. Jacob and Esau had an equal claim on God’s choosing, namely, no claim. And God chose Jacob unconditionally. That is the meaning of “Jacob I loved.” In fact, we will never understand or experience the fullness of God’s love until we grasp what it means to be chosen freely by God on the basis of nothing in us.”
What should amaze us is not that God hated Esau, for he was a sinner by nature like the rest of us, fully deserving God’s wrath and justice. What should shock us to the core is the fact that God for no reason in Jacob, set His love on Jacob.
Jacob was not in any way more deserving of God’s love than Esau. So why was Jacob loved and Esau not… at least not in the same way or to the same extent? Verse 11 has already told us the answer to that, “so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.”
What about God’s hatred of Esau? How are we to understand this “hatred?”
Again, let me quote Dr. Piper, “I think we should put aside all speculations here and get the meaning strictly from the context in Malachi and Romans 9. Let’s read Malachi 1:3-4,
3 “But I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”
4 Though Edom [i.e., Esau] says, ‘We have been beaten down, but we will return and build up the ruins;’ thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘They may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.'”
Verse 4 points to two ways of understanding God’s hatred.
The first meaning is seen in the word “wicked.” Near the end of verse 4 God says,
“Men will call them the wicked territory.” “I have hated Esau . . . I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory.” In other words, God gives them up to wickedness. This is important in view of what we said earlier about the conditionality of God’s final judgment. God does not bring judgments on an innocent Esau or Edom.
Edom was judged as wicked. When God passed over Esau and chose Jacob before they were born, there was no decree that an innocent Esau would be judged. Rather what God decreed was to pass Esau by, to withhold His electing love, and to give him up to wickedness. And as Esau acted in wickedness, he was accountable for that wickedness and deserved the indignation and judgment of God.
Which leads to the second meaning of God’s hatred. At the end of verse 4:
4 “And men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant [or angry] forever.'”
In a sense you might say there is a passive and an active side of God’s hate. Passively, He withholds electing love from Esau and gives it only to Jacob, and hands Esau over to wickedness – a wickedness for which he is really accountable and blameworthy. Then actively, God is angry with this wickedness forever. And if Esau is finally condemned, he will not be able to say “I do not deserve condemnation.” His own sins will shut his mouth, and his own conscience will condemn him. And Jacob on the other side will tremble with fear and wonder that he was chosen to believe and be saved.”
As we continue in the text of Romans 9 we see that Paul then anticipates the response of an imaginary objector: namely, that God’s choice to have mercy on some but not on all, but for the rest to receive His justice, is unfair or unjust.
Paul raises this as an anticipated response from someone taking exception to what Paul was writing. In all probability, this was not the first time he had taught on this theme, and therefore, he would know all too well the objections that would usually be raised to his teaching. He says, in so many words, “I know exactly what you’re going to say in response to this. You’re going to say that this election idea is just not fair, for God is obligated to show the same kind of mercy to everyone or else He is not being fair. Right?”
Many today believe this exact same objection to be true, but it is important to point out that those who believe Divine Election to be unfair, believe something the Apostle Paul raised as a possible objection to his own teaching. There is absolutely no doubt that the Apostle Paul would not be counted amongst those who thought it unfair of God to choose some but not all for salvation. In fact, he couldn’t have been more clear as to where he stood on this issue.
It should at least make us stop in our tracks. How can we accuse God of being unfair in this doctrine of election, when the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that there is absolutely no injustice on God’s part to show mercy to whom He will? If God is the author of Scripture, which I believe He is, then it is God Himself, through Paul, who is flatly denying any alleged injustice on His part!
Mercy can never be demanded. If mercy can be demanded, then we’re no longer talking about mercy. Mercy is always given at the discretion of the one showing mercy; for if this is not the case, we would be talking about justice and not mercy. For example, if a Governor pardons one criminal on death row, it doesn’t mean he has to pardon every criminal on death row. Showing mercy to someone is not unjust, nor unfair, and neither is showing justice to others. It is never unjust to be just. There is no crime committed when a Judge dispenses justice; and likewise when a Judge shows mercy.
Let’s continue with Paul’s argument.
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
Regarding this issue of election, of God choosing one and not another, the Apostle denies in very clear and emphatic language that there is unrighteousness or unfairness in God. There is no injustice in God, and lets remember, there was no righteousness in us, which would require God to be gracious to us. As Paul writes elsewhere, predestination and election occurs “according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” (Eph. 1:5, 6) Mercy is always given at the discretion of the one showing mercy. God reserves the right to dispense His mercy as He sees fit, to the person or persons He chooses.
continued in part 3 here
Here are some things I came across that I wanted to share.
(1) From the Ligonier Ministries website: In recent days, the evangelical church has been rocked by Rob Bell’s open questioning of the doctrine of hell. Dr. Sproul answers those questions in a forthcoming book, Unseen Realities: Heaven, Hell, Angels and Demons. In the following excerpt from the book, Dr. R. C. Sproul strongly affirms that hell is a biblical concept and a very real place. Unseen Realities, which is jointly published by Christian Focus Publications and Ligonier Ministries, will be released in the United Kingdom in May and in the United States in July. Excerpt found here (its excellent!!!)
(2) I love this quote of Dr. J. I. Packer concerning the Puritans:
“For the Puritans, the landscape of piety–that is, the spiritual topography of the ongoing life-situations in which each saint serves God–was determined by four realities, on all of which, as their books show, they laid out a great deal of expository effort. These were the sovereignty and sanctity of God, under whose eye we live, in whose hands we are, and whose purpose to have us holy, as he is holy, explains his way with our lives; the dignity and depravity of human beings, made for God but ruined by sin and now needing total renewal by grace; the love and Lordship of Christ, the Mediator, the Christian’s Saviour-King; and the light and power of the Holy Spirit, who convicts, quickens, regenerates, witnesses, leads, and sanctifies.” – Dr. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Crossway, 2010; repr.), 332
(3) I think it is well worth just over a minute of your time to watch this. May God stir our hearts to seek Him for something only He can bring – revival to His people! Blaze Spirit blaze, set our hearts on fire!
God bless!
In Romans chapter 9, Romans 9 follows on from Romans 8, and in the latter part of Romans 8, Paul is stating the fact that nothing and no one can separate the true believer from the love of Christ. But this raises a huge question; namely, why is it that not all Jews, the chosen people, have recognized their Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ? How can nothing separate God’s people from the love of Christ and many of the Jews be separated from it? That’s exactly the question Paul is seeking to answer in Romans 9.
There are no chapter and verse divisions in the original Greek text, and actually, Paul starts talking about predestination and election in Romans 8. So let’s start at Romans 8:28 reading through to chapter 9 so we can establish the context for Paul’s argument.
Romans 8:
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
In what theologians refer to as “The Golden Chain of Redemption,” God is revealing to us an unbreakable chain that starts in eternity past, goes through time, and on into eternity future. This chain is forged by God Himself, and has five unbreakable links: God foreknows, predestinates, calls, justifies and glorifies.
Notice that there is one ambiguity in the text; something that is not actually stated but is definitely implied – that being the word “all.” Let’s see this clearly by inserting another possible implication by way of contrast, the word “some.”
“For (some) whom He foreknew, He predestined; (some) He predestined, He called; (some) He called, He justified; and (some) He justified, He glorified.”
What kind of comfort and security would that give to us? Would we be able to say “who can separate us from the love of Christ?” I think our answer would have to be, many things could separate us (if the intended implication was the word “some” in this passage). It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and certainly would not give us any kind of security in Christ, the very thing Paul is seeking to do in this passage. Instead, I believe 100 out of 100 Bible scholars would all agree that the implication of the text is that all He foreknew, He predestined; all He predestined, He called; all He called, He justified; and all He justified, He glorified.
When I realized this, in my studies, I began to see a key word in this text that opened up much to me. That is the word “called.” Why? Continue reading