Happy Birthday!
Reply
Author Archives: John Samson
My Interview with John Hendryx of Monergism.com
‘According to My Righteousness’
Do the Psalms teach justification by works
Article by Christopher Ash, writer-in-residence at Tyndale House, Cambridge, and a former pastor and Director of the Cornhill Training Course in London. He has written three books on Psalms, including Bible Delight. He is also writing a three-volume commentary on the Psalms, exploring how we appropriate them as the church of Christ. Original source – https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/according-to-my-righteousness
We meet “the congregation of the righteous” and are promised that “the Lord knows the way of the righteous” right at the start of the Psalter (Psalm 1:5–6). But who are the righteous? We shall never make friends with the Psalms, let alone begin to enjoy and appropriate them in our devotions, until we know. They appear again and again, especially in book 1 (Psalms 1–41), often in contrast to “the wicked.”
So many promises are attached to these people. Not only does the covenant Lord know (watch over) their way and guide their steps (Psalm 1:6), but he blesses and protects them (Psalm 5:12), he is with them and terrifies their enemies (Psalm 14:5), he surrounds them with steadfast love (Psalm 32:10–11), he watches them with his eyes and listens for their cry with his ears (Psalm 34:15, 17), he upholds them (Psalm 37:17), and he gives them the new creation, which is the fulfillment of the Promised Land (Psalm 37:29), so that they will flourish in his presence for ever (Psalm 92:12–13). These people — and it is important to remember that, in the Old Testament, these were real flesh-and-blood people — are showered with blessing.
It matters deeply to know who they are, not least so that you and I can make sure we belong among them, inherit their promises, and sing their psalms.1
Who Are the Righteous?
Two large and closely related problems raise their heads. First, we struggle to know what to make of it when psalmists claim to be righteous, sometimes in quite strong terms. For example, the prayer “judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me” (Psalm 7:8) rather alarms us. If I were to pray that, what if the Lord did judge me according to my righteousness and found it severely wanting, as he surely must — must he not? Dare I pray this?
Second, we have to grapple with the apparent contradiction that the psalmists who claim to possess righteousness also admit that it is not possible to be righteous before God (e.g., Psalm 143:2). How can both be true at the same time? How can I possess righteousness if I have no righteousness?
There is a simple, superficially attractive, and yet deeply problematic “solution.” This is to conclude that claims to righteousness in the Psalms are actually professions of self-righteousness that anticipate the later self-righteousness of the Pharisees so roundly condemned by the Lord Jesus (e.g., Luke 18:9–14).2 This is unsatisfactory, first, because it supposes that some of the words of the psalmists are flawed expressions of merely human convictions. Many do hold this opinion, but we have no warrant to suppose that the Psalms contain a mixture of truth and error (unlike the speeches of Job’s three comforters, whose words God explicitly tells us are not entirely trustworthy, Job 42:7).
It is also unsatisfactory because it does not reflect the portrayal of the righteous in the Psalms themselves, to which we turn. While it would be possible to read back New Testament expositions of righteousness, especially in the apostle Paul, we shall focus on building up a picture from the Psalms themselves. I shall do this under seven heads, before considering how these people compare with those accounted righteous by grace under the new covenant.
These headlines are based on a fairly comprehensive study of the words righteous and righteousness in the Psalms. There are more than 120 verses in which one or more of these occur, in about 60 different psalms. A full study would consider each of these in context.
Who are these people? What do they look like, not in terms of their outward appearance, of course, but in their heart, their spirit? What gets them out of bed in the morning — what are their longings, their pleasures, their hopes, their fears?
As we consider them, it is worth remembering that a word study of righteous or righteousness3 will miss the parallel descriptions, in which these people are often referred to as “upright” or “upright of heart,” meaning straightforwardly moral in their lives (e.g., Psalm 11:7; 32:11; 33:1; 36:10; 37:37; 94:15; 97:11); as “blameless,” having integrity, the opposite of hypocrisy (e.g., Psalm 15:2; 18:25; 37:18, 37; 64:4; 101:2, 6; 119:1); and on one occasion as “the living” (Psalm 69:28) since they live in the sight of God. These are all the same people, whose prayers and praises are expressed in the Psalms and whose contours are there delineated.
1. Their Delight
At the heart of the question lies the heart of the righteous. In what, or in whom, do they most deeply delight? Had they been incipient Pharisees, the answer would have been, for each, “I delight in myself. I thank God that I am who I am. I praise myself, and I want others to praise me.”
That the praise and delight of the righteous is focused intensely on the covenant Lord gives perhaps the clearest indication that they belong to this covenant Lord by grace. Repeatedly, we are told that their joy and exultation is found in the Lord (e.g., Psalm 33:1; 64:10; 68:3; 97:12). It is — to put it in colloquial terms — the covenant Lord who puts a spring in their step, who gets them out of bed in the morning, who energizes them and delights their hearts.
2. Their Desire
Closely tied to the delight of the righteous is the question of their desire, their hope, their longing, their aspiration. For what do they hope? The answer, which follows necessarily, logically, and experientially from their delight, is that they desire to see the face of the covenant Lord God. Nothing is more precious to them than to have the face (the personal, beneficent presence) of the Lord turned toward them, both in this life (in part) and in eternity (in full). This is a most precious promise (e.g., Psalm 11:7). Not to have it is the most painful experience on earth (e.g., Psalm 13:1–2; 88:14). Him they seek (Psalm 24:6; 27:8–9), and for him they thirst (e.g., Psalm 42:1–2; 143:6–7). Far from being satisfied in themselves and with themselves, their desire is passionately and intensely directed upward to the Lord.
3. Their Repentance
The third facet of the righteous is of a rather different kind: their penitence. Far from being self-confident, the truly righteous person knows deeply his own sinfulness and urgent need of repentance. We see this most clearly in Psalm 32, in which David celebrates, and tells the story of, his rediscovery of the blessing of confession of sin, repentance, and forgiveness. At the end of the psalm, he exhorts all who walk this way of repentance, “Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, O righteous” (Psalm 32:11). This congregation of the righteous (cf. Psalm 1:5) consists of men and women who have learned, and continue to learn, the necessity and the blessing of confession and repentance. Here in anticipation we see the tax collector, rather than the Pharisee, of Jesus’s parable (Luke 18:9–14).
We see this spirit again at the start of Psalm 143, in which David leads those who have no natural righteousness (v. 2) in pleading for covenant mercy (v. 1), that God in his righteousness will answer him, and them, with steadfast love (v. 8).
4. Their Refuge
The fourth facet is perhaps the one that most clearly indicates the presence of faith or trust. It asks and answers the question, Whither or to whom do the righteous flee when under pressure or threat?
Again and again, we hear and see the righteous fleeing to the covenant Lord as their refuge, the only safe place in the face of the assaults of their enemies and ultimately in the face of the righteous judgment of God. To him they cry for help in troubles, and he delivers them (Psalm 34:15, 17, 19, 21). They commit their way to him, trust in him, confident that he will bring into the open the righteousness (or vindication) that he will give them (Psalm 37:5–6). For him they wait and hope (e.g., Psalm 37:7), for “he is their stronghold in the time of trouble” (Psalm 37:39). They cast their burden upon him, trusting that “he will never permit the righteous to be moved” (Psalm 55:22). Repeatedly, they take refuge in him (e.g., Psalm 64:10). One of the psalms where we see this most intensely is Psalm 71 (e.g., vv. 2, 3, 15, 16, 19, 24).
5. Their Assurance and Covenant Head
We come now to consider the occasions when the psalmists speak about their own righteousness (e.g., Psalm 4:1; 7:8; 18:20–24). What do they mean by this? This is arguably the most significant part of our study, and most needful of careful thought. Two observations need to be made before we can make progress.
First, it is abundantly clear in the Psalms that the source of all righteousness is the God who is righteous in himself (e.g., Psalm 11:7), whose law is righteous (e.g., Psalm 19:9), who does, or works, righteousness as the expression of his covenant faithfulness and love (e.g., Psalm 22:31; 36:6; 48:10; 103:6, 17), and who will judge the world in righteousness (Psalm 9:8; 96:13; 98:9). No human being has righteousness by nature; this is the preserve of the covenant Lord.
Second, the king in David’s line holds a unique position in the Psalms. When studying the Psalms, it is striking how often there is an interplay between a singular leading character (most often the king) and a plurality or congregation of the righteous. Because the Lord saves the king, the king’s people experience blessing in him (e.g., Psalm 3:8).
David calls the Lord the “God of my righteousness” (Psalm 4:1), which appears to mean the God from whom my righteousness, and my hope of vindication, proceeds. In both Psalms 17 and 18, the king professes a righteousness on which his hope is built. In the drama of Psalm 18, he is rescued because of this righteousness (see vv. 20–24). For David himself, this poses a problem, for we find ourselves asking about Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11); how can the David who sinned (or would later sin) so grievously claim such righteousness? The answer, hinted at in the Psalms and blazing forth with the full light of day in the New Testament, is that his righteousness is given to him, ultimately because of the flawless righteousness of “great David’s greater Son” (cf. Romans 5:12–21). The Lord in his righteousness leads David, and all the little anticipatory “messiahs” in David’s line, “in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake” (Psalm 23:3), because there will be a true Messiah who will walk those paths without slipping or sliding into moral failure of any kind. Having said this, there is a real visible measure of actual lived righteousness of life evident in the life of any old-covenant believer who is truly justified by faith (see section 6 below).
The interplay between the righteousness of the covenant Lord and the righteousness of the king is clearly seen in Psalm 35:24–28. In verse 24, David the king pleads for God to vindicate him “according to your righteousness” (that is, in fulfillment of his covenant promises). In verse 27, there is reference to the assembly or congregation of the king’s people, “who delight in my [that is, the king’s] righteousness,” a righteousness given to the king and possessed by the king on behalf of his people. These people will be glad because their king is righteous and therefore they are blessed. And then in verse 28, the king’s tongue tells “of your [that is, God’s] righteousness.”
We see the movement from the righteousness of the king to the righteousness received by the people in Psalm 72. In verses 1–3, God is petitioned to give righteousness to his king. When this happens, the king’s people (ultimately all who are “in Christ”) will be called “righteous” and will “flourish” under the rule of their king (v. 7).
In the light of the New Testament, this focus on the righteousness possessed by the king may be understood to be fulfilled in the righteousness of Christ the King. When David (like Abraham or any Old Testament saint) spoke of his righteousness, he meant, first and foremost, a righteousness given to him by God. When old-covenant believers who were neither patriarchs nor Davidic kings echoed this language, their righteousness likewise was found ultimately in the king, their covenant head. This federal headship of the king is fulfilled when Christ lives a righteous life and dies a sin-bearing death as the representative head and substitute propitiatory sacrifice for his people.
6. Their Life
A pen portrait of the righteous in the Psalms would be woefully incomplete if it did not include a mention of their visible life. I have deliberately held over discussion of this until now, because their life is the fruit, and not the root, of their existence as believers in the covenant God. It would be a mistake to begin with a consideration of their lives of right living. Nevertheless, their lives are inseparable from their identity and closely tied to their blessing and assurance. The covenant Lord does not give to his king and people a righteousness of status simply that they may enjoy it while continuing to live evil lives, for he “is righteous” and “loves righteous deeds” (Psalm 11:7; cf. Psalm 33:5). It is very clear (e.g., in Psalms 15 and 24) that authentic righteousness of life is the necessary marker of the genuine Messiah and of his people. Jesus is the fulfillment of Psalms 15 and 24, as he is of all the descriptions of human righteousness in the Psalms.
Sometimes the righteousness claimed by a psalmist may focus particularly on innocence with respect to a particular accusation (e.g., Psalm 7:8). Under these circumstances, he not infrequently pleads with God for vindication. Often, however, this particular righteousness overflows into a broader whole-life righteousness that, albeit partial, is nevertheless real.
Those who are truly righteous, by virtue of their membership of the covenant people under the king, their covenant head, and who are genuinely righteous because they trust the covenant promises (fulfilled in Christ), will live upright, blameless, and righteous lives. Perhaps the clearest exposition of this in the Psalms is in Psalm 111 followed by Psalm 112. Psalm 111 celebrates the righteousness of the covenant Lord. Then Psalm 112 (with close echoes) declares a blessing on those who exhibit those same qualities in the generosity (cf. Psalm 37:21) and righteousness of their lives. These people act and speak (cf. Psalm 37:30) in ways that demonstrate the fruit of their hearts of faith. Paul will later call this “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26), and the letter of James will expound it forcefully.
7. Their Enemies
The final facet is of a very different kind. The enemies of the righteous, by their polar contrast to the righteous, shine a paradoxical light on the identity of the righteous. Here is a brief pen portrait of who the righteous are not. Most often described as “the wicked” (but also, for example, as “evildoers”), I want to mention just two characteristics that are thematic of their portrait in the Psalms.
The first is their consistent, bitter, implacable hostility toward the righteous (e.g., Psalm 94:21). Here is the fruit of Cain’s unbelieving hatred of Abel, who was righteous by faith. We see this as a consistent theme in, for example, Psalm 37, and also in Psalms 9, 10, and 11.
The second facet of their portrait is that, in polar contrast to those who are righteous by faith, the wicked naturally trust in themselves and their own resources. We see this clearly in the portrait of Doeg, the Edomite, in Psalm 52:1–7. Especially in verse 7, he will not make God his refuge but trusts in his own riches and resources.
Nothing is more obnoxious to the hardened wicked, who trust in themselves, than the presence on earth of the Righteous One, who trusts his Father, and the people of the Righteous One, who share his faith.
Psalms and New-Covenant Righteousness
If we ask, “Are the righteous in the Psalms the same as those who are righteous by grace alone through faith alone under the new covenant?” the answer must be “yes and no.” Overwhelmingly, the answer is yes. We who are new-covenant believers, who belong to Christ, share with them their delight in God, their desire to see the face of God, their penitence, their fleeing to God for refuge from both troubles and judgment, their assurance of forgiveness because of their covenant head, the outworking of their faith in righteousness of life, and the presence in our world, as in theirs, of hostility to Christ and his people (cf. John 15:18–16:4).
But there is, I think, one significant difference between these righteous old-covenant believers and believers in Christ under the new covenant: under the new covenant, we enjoy a deeper assurance and the riches of a definitively cleansed conscience, and this is a blessing known only in anticipation and shadow under the old covenant (see Hebrews 8–10).4
So, when we come across the righteous in the Psalms, as we do in about 40 percent of the Psalms, we recognize in them people who trusted in the Christ to come. By believing and living in the obedience of faith in the covenant promises, they believed implicitly in the Christ who would fulfill those promises. They did not know as clearly as we do the fullness of that magnificent Christ nor the grandeur of those gospel promises. But that apart, we recognize in them people very like us today in Christ. This transforms the way we read the Psalms.
- Some other discussions of this question are to be found in Geoffrey Grogan, Prayer, Praise and Prophecy (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus, 2001), 122–26; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, trans. Keith Krim (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1986), 154–62; Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Geffrey B. Kelly, vol. 5, Life Together; Prayerbook of the Bible (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 155–77. ↩
- C.S. Lewis wrongly refers to “the self-righteousness in many of the Psalms” (Reflections on the Psalms [London: Fount Paperbacks, 1977], 34). ↩
- The three most important Hebrew words are the noun “righteous (person)” (tsadiq), the adjective “righteousness” (tsedaqah), and the abstract noun “righteousness” (tsedeq). ↩
- See Christopher Ash, Discovering the Joy of a Clear Conscience (Philipsburg NJ: P&R, 2014), 128–48
Answering a Critic of Reformed Theology
Pastor Jim McClarty – an ex-rocker, current preacher, saved by astounding grace (and my friend) provides very good (biblical) responses to a critic of Reformed theology:
Because I am a very public advocate for Calvinism (which is a nickname for the historic theology that lays at the heart of the Protestant Reformation), I occasionally hear from critics. Sometimes, their arguments are logical and well-presented. Other times, they’re little more than rants. Usually, they’re somewhere in-between. And I answer most of them — avoiding the really silly or truly angry ones.
The reason I’m sharing this particular exchange is because it includes assumptions and arguments that are typical and that show up in my in-box with increasing frequency. Some folk simply cannot conceive of God being absolutely sovereign so they attempt to argue against it by insisting that such sovereignty would necessarily make God evil. And that’s where we’ll jump into the exchange –
The Critic writes:
When the philosophy that drives Calvinism is projected to its logical conclusion, even Satan’s activity is an extension of God’s sovereignty. God sovereignly controls Satan’s every move.Jim:
Not only is that the logical conclusion of Calvinism, it’s the logical conclusion of Biblical sovereignty. The alternative is to have an uncontrolled devil running roughshod over God’s creation. But, the Bible is full of examples of God limiting and binding Satan. Consider Job. Or Satan’s desire to sift Peter, but Christ intervened. Even Legion could not take the herd of swine without Jesus’ consent.Or, to look at it another way, we know that in the book of Revelation Satan is bound and put into an abyss for 1000 years. Afterward he is released, vanquished, and placed in the Lake of Fire. Now, since we know that God has the power to do that, why has He not done it yet? The only rational answer is: Satan plays a part in God’s economy. When God is done with him, He will judge him and seclude him eternally.
Remember, God’s way are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. As high as the Heavens are above the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. Just because we struggle with the idea of God’s absolute power, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true or that God cannot exercise it.
Critic:
This makes God the author of everything evil, and the most wicked sinner of all.Jim:
The Bible repeatedly declares God’s holiness and righteousness. So, if Calvinism led to the idea that God was not only the “author of evil,” but the most wicked of sinners, the whole theology would have been abandoned by thoughtful churchmen years and years ago. The reason Calvinism continues to thrive is that it recognizes God’s sovereignty and His holiness. Straw man arguments about how that makes God sinful are just banal.Theologically, God does not have to be evil in order to create evil in His universe. Just as darkness is the natural state of all unlit matter and energy is necessary to produce light, God can produce evil in His creatures simply by withholding His goodness. He does not have to be positively evil to do this. He merely has to withhold Himself and allow the natural darkness to have its way.
Critic:
Some Calvinists actually admit what I said and seek to defend it from Scripture. If ultimately God sovereignly is in control of everything, and if free will of man, angels, or even Satan, is ultimately under the control of God, then the responsibility for all wickedness and evil must be placed at the feet of God Himself.Jim:
There are no Calvinists who “actually admit” that God is “the most wicked sinner of all.” Please attempt to present our position in a manner consistent with what we ourselves say about it.Volumes have been written on this topic. God is the creator, sustainer, and purpose behind all things. But, that is not tantamount with being the author of evil. That’s why Satan exists. Satan is the instrument through which necessary evil occurs in God’s universe. Think, for instance, of how God used Satan to bring calamity to Job. God allowed it and limited the extent of it. But, it was Satan who performed it.
Or, who brought about the fall in the Garden of Eden? Satan. But, was that God’s design? Yes. Christ is the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8) Why have a sacrifice prepared prior to creation unless the Fall is ordained and inevitable? But, God did not sin in ordaining the lapse. He used an intermediate cause: Satan.
Everything God does is designed to bring Him the greatest glory. And that includes His control over the events of human history and celestial eternity. The responsibility for everything that occurs in God’s universe can rightly be laid at His holy feet. But, that is not the same as charging Him with evil, which no man can do.
Isa 45:5-7 — “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”
If you are going to attempt to limit God’s sovereignty, then what exactly will you use as your plumb line? How far is God capable of going before He reaches the edge of what men will allow? What events is God involved in and what events require His absence? And how will you discern between the two? Where exactly is the limitation on the One who calls Himself “Almighty”?
Critic:
Are Satan’s actions of his own free will? If so, then God has obviously limited His own sovereignty regarding Satan’s activities.Jim:
Of course not. The book of Job (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) proves that. Satan was not free to interact with Job, his family, his possessions, his health, or his life without God’s consent and restrictions. The truth of the text is just the opposite of your conjecture. God limited Satan’s will and activity in keeping with His own purposes and design.Critic:
God allows Satan free will.Jim:
No He doesn’t and you’ll be hard pressed to produce any Biblical evidence that He does.By the way, if Satan does indeed have a free will, then I think we could make pretty good argument that free will leads to evil. Then again, that’s precisely what the Bible teaches; the human will is limited by its incapability to be righteous and natural proclivity for sin.
Critic:
If Satan’s actions are ultimately under the control of God, then Satan is merely God’s puppet, or “dark side.” The God of the Bible does not resemble this kind of god.I John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Jim:
I smell straw. Do you smell straw? It’s like someone is building straw men …This is not good argumentation. You cannot accuse us of holding a position we do not hold and then blame us for holding that position.
Is Satan God’s puppet? I’d say yes. And when God’s done with him, He will put the devil away permanently. But, to posit a form of dualism in which God has a dark side and a light side is rank heresy. So, no respectable Calvinist has ever claimed it — despite your effort to assert it.
The problem is your misunderstanding of God’s character and actions. The problem is not the consistently Biblical theology of the Calvinist.
We agree that God has no dark side. But, the Calvinist sees no discrepancy in allowing the Bible to say what it says. God is the absolute ruler and authority who empowers everything in His universe, the whole time remaining absolutely holy and just. Remember, God is not held to a standard higher than Himself. Whatever He does is right by virtue of the fact that it is a completely holy God doing it. Whether that boggles our human sensibility is of no consequence. It’s still how God portrays Himself.
Critic:
We must keep in mind that Satan’s ultimate ambition is to usurp God’s position, (Isa. 14:13-15, 2Thes. 2:3,4). Satan cannot make himself holy, but he can make God appear to be unholy, closing the gap between man’s perception of God and Satan. Satan simply assumes the dark side of God. Calvinism’s philosophical merging of God and Satan in effect fulfills Satan’s ultimate aspiration.Jim:
This is really sad argumentation. You are ascribing to Calvinists a position that they themselves never advance. You are attempting to equate Calvinism with a form of Satanic darkness or blindness. But, since this is a philosophical position you’ve invented and not anything to do with the systematic theology of Calvinism, it does no damage to our position at all.Anyone can claim that God is on their side and those who oppose their side are under the control of Satan. The important ingredient in this discussion is whether or not the Bible states what you’re stating. And, since it doesn’t, I don’t plan to worry over it.
Critic:
The danger for Christians is that only one baby step separates the Calvinism taught in mainstream Evangelical churches from the logical philosophical conclusion that God is both good and evil. Calvinism leads to the conclusion that God is Satan and Satan is God. In the last days this philosophy will facilitate Christians worshipping the Beast.Jim:
God is Satan! Satan is God! And my cat is the Antichrist!!!!A tad hysterical, eh? Don’t worry. Calvinism has been around for hundreds of years and has never led to satanic rituals and devil worship. You’re getting wwaaayyy too wrapped up in your emotionalism. Painting one of the major theological streams in the history of Christendom with the broad “it’s from the Beast!” brush does nothing to advance your argument. It just makes you sound like an alarmist. Perhaps studying and replying to the actual doctrines of Calvinism would serve you better.
And, just for clarity’s sake, no Christians will be “worshipping the Beast.” Why? Because God is sovereign.
Critic:
I am very troubled by the logical implications that the Calvinist philosophy forces Christians to embrace. And I’m also concerned about the image of the Christian “God” presented to the world.Jim:
Ummm … if “the Calvinist philosophy” forces Christians to embrace these logical implications, then why is it that no Calvinist I know teaches or believes this?You’re arguing about a position that does not exist. Take a step back, take a breath, and try to argue about the things we actually do say … as opposed to your unwarranted conclusions.
I am equally concerned about how the Christian Church presents God to the world. The world does not need a God who has the power to save but who is hampered by the apparently superior will of His own creatures. Why would anyone worship such a weak and powerless Deity? The concept of freewill, and the supposition that God will not or cannot encroach on human freedom, leads to creature worship. It places human decisions above God’s decrees. Worse, there is no such God found in the pages of Scripture. So, if you’re truly concerned about the image of God we’re presenting, take a moment to consider the alternative you’re offering and ask yourself two things: (1) is your conception of God biblical and (2) does it promote worship and admiration for God or does it emphasize the superiority of the creature?
Critic:
Calvinism, when consistently taken to its logical conclusions, implies all of the following:1. God’s offers of salvation to “whosoever will” are insincere. God is not completely honest in Scripture.
Jim:
There is no Greek equivalent for the English term “whosoever.” Consequently, God never offers salvation to “whosoever will.” Look it up. And please make sure to include specific texts that prove your contention that God actually offers salvation universally to anyone who wants it.Critic:
2. God offers to save the non-elect IF they will do what is utterly impossible. God taunts the damned.Jim:
Again, where do you find God’s universal offer of salvation to “whosoever will”? If that does not exist (and it doesn’t) then there is no basis for claiming that the Calvinistic position results in God taunting the damned. Saving faith is utterly impossible among all people. There is none who does good, there is none who seeks after God (Rom. 3:11). Therefore, only those whom God graciously enlightens will be drawn to God. It takes more than merely an offer. It takes empowerment, enlightenment, and regeneration.But, since you bring up taunting, what do you make of texts like this? —
Psalm 59:7-8 “Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.”
Psalm 2:1-5 “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”
It turns out that God is perfectly comfortable laughing at His enemies and treating them derisively.
Critic:
3. God created most people for the purpose of torturing them forever. God is cruel and sadistic.Jim:
So, you’re saying that God will eventually save absolutely everyone? That’s the only way around what you’ve charged here. Because, whether God elects people on the basis of His own free choice or whether He saves them on the basis of their own faith, either way God ends up making people for the purpose of judging and condemning them. I mean, if He is truly all-knowing, then He realizes who is going to reject Him. Yet, He makes them anyway.The Arminian has no advantage over the Calvinist on this point. Your God is every bit as “cruel and sadistic” as the God of the Calvinist.
But, the question is not whether God lives up to human notions of cruelty. The question is whether or not God describes Himself as absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men. And, since the Bible is emphatic on that point, our human estimation of His relative cruelty is of no consequence. Hell is a pretty cruel concept, humanly speaking, but it’s still a reality.
Critic:
4. God CAN save all, and DESIRES to save all, but chooses to damn many for no apparent reason. God is insane.Jim:
Anyone whom God judges is fairly and rightly judged. He does not condemn people “for no apparent reason.” They are sinners and they have rebelled against the righteousness of an eternally holy God. Their judgment is just.Agreed, God can save as many as He is pleased to save. But, there is no verse in the Bible that says He desires to save everyone. Sure, people misread and misunderstand texts like 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4 (as I assume you have), but straightforward exegesis demonstrates that those texts are perfectly in league with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty that permeates Scripture.
Does Unbelief Limit God’s Power?
 |
Does unbelief limit God’s power? Mark 6:5-6 seems to say so. But is that really true?
The Heart of the Problem
“The heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind…” – Jeremiah 17:9-10
“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh;” – Romans 7:18
“The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.” – Psalm 58:3
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” – Psalm 51:5
Every child comes into the world with an alarming capacity for evil. Does that shock you? Did you think I was going to end the sentence differently? Scripture teaches us that the heart of the human problem is the problem of the heart. That’s true of us even before we are born.
The theological term for this is “total depravity.” It means that the depravity of man, including all the babies born into our world, is total. Does this mean that people are as depraved as is possible for them to be? Does total depravity mean utter depravity?
No, for even the very worst amongst us can still be looked upon as having the capacity to be even worse than they are. How’s that? Well, remember, Adolf Hitler? As bad as he was, he did not kill his mother or all his school teachers! As strange as it may seem, we can conceive of Hitler being even worse than he actually was, of committing more crimes, and killing more people.
What total depravity means then is that every area of man has been affected by the Fall: man’s entire body, soul and spirit has suffered a radical corruption. This does not mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong, nor that every sinner is devoid of all the qualities that are both pleasing to men and useful to society, when those qualities are judged only by human standards. In addition, this does not mean that every sinner is prone to every form of sin.
To quote Dr. John MacArthur “it means that children do not come into the world seeking God and righteousness. They do not come into the world with a neutral innocence. They come seeking the fulfillment of sinful and selfish desires. Although the outworking of the sin nature does not necessarily attain full expression in every person’s behavior, it is nontheless called total depravity because there is no aspect of the human personality, character, mind, emotions, or will that is free from the corruption of sin.”
As parents, our natural reaction is to recoil at such an idea about the little ones who are newly born to us. We tend to see them as totally innocent. Yet the Bible reveals that these little ones are born simply naïve and inexperienced, and all the potential for sin is already present in their hearts.
In reality, we do know this, for how many parents have actually had to teach their children to be naughty? No, the kids do that all by themselves!
Where do kids get this depravity? It’s not a learned behavior, but rather an inbred disposition. Kids get it from their parents, who get it from their parents, and so on, all the way back to Adam. Adam, “begot a son in his own likeness, after his image.” Gen 5:3. Adam’s children all bore the stamp of sin and were infected with evil desires, including, like Adam, an aversion to the things of God, who hid himself from the presence of the Lord (Gen 3:8).
If you having trouble with all this, just remember that your children are just miniature versions of yourself! When children are simply permitted to follow the dictates of their own hearts, the result is disaster. Left to themselves, kids don’t follow the ways of godliness. “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him.” (Prov. 22:15).
That’s why Paul summarized the entire parenting task in a one-verse admonition to fathers: “Do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)
As parents, we need to be evangelists in our homes. We are not to leave this task to others, including the children’s ministry or youth department at a Church. God holds us as parents (and especially fathers) responsible to teach the children the message of the Bible. This includes giving the children an understanding of the law of God, the Holiness of God, His just wrath against sin, the gospel of Divine Sovereign grace, and the need of a perfect Savior. Then we need to point them to Jesus Christ as the only One who can save them.
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men” Rom 5:12, “for as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners…” Rom. 5:19. All of us as descendants of Adam have inherited the guilt and stain of sin. No one is exempt, or born innocent, except for Jesus Christ, who was supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit, free from the moral taint of Adam’s sin.
Perhaps “radical corruption” is a better term to describe our fallen condition than the historic term “total depravity.” “Radical” not in the sense of being “extreme,” but radical in the sense of its original meaning, stemming from the Latin word for “root” or “core.” Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being, permeating our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that Romans 3:10-12 declares: “There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.”
Man, by nature, does not want to know God. “There is no one who seeks after God,” as the above Scripture says. As Dr. Michael Horton noted, “We cannot find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a police officer.”
Spiritually speaking we were all born D.O.A. (dead on arrival), with no desire for God. Paul, addressing the Christians at Ephesus wrote, “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God…” (Eph. 2:1-4). Only by the direct, gracious intervention of God will anyone ever come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
C. H. Spurgeon put it this way: “Through the fall, and through our own sin, the nature of man has become so debased, and depraved, and corrupt, that it is impossible for him to come to Christ without the assistance of God the Holy Spirit. Now, in trying to exhibit how the nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ, you must allow me just to take this figure. You see a sheep; how willingly it feeds upon the herbage! You never knew a sheep sigh after carrion; it could not live on lion’s food. Now bring me a wolf; and you ask me whether a wolf cannot eat grass, whether it cannot be just as docile and as domesticated as the sheep. I answer, no; because its nature is contrary thereunto. You say, “Well, it has ears and legs; can it not hear the shepherd’s voice, and follow him whithersoever he leadeth it?” I answer, certainly; there is no physical cause why it cannot do so, but its nature forbids, and therefore I say it cannot do so. Can it not be tamed? cannot its ferocity be removed? Probably it may so far be subdued that it may become apparently tame; but there will always be a marked distinction between it and the sheep, because there is a distinction in nature. Now, the reason why man cannot come to Christ, is not because he cannot come, so far as his body or his mere power of mind is concerned, but because his nature is so corrupt that he has neither the will nor the power to come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit.” Sermon, Human Inability, March 7, 1858
“For as through the one man’s disobedience (Adam’s) the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One (the Lord Jesus Christ) the many will be made righteous.” Rom. 5:19
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22.
Sinners are completely helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation. Because of the Fall of man, the sinner is not morally neutral, but by nature is actually hostile towards God. He is, in fact, the sworn enemy of God. Though physically alive, he is spiritually dead. Unless he is born again, he cannot enter or even see the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5).
Man’s will is not free but in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not, indeed he cannot choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. He cannot because he will not. Therefore it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance and wooing to bring a sinner to Christ – it takes a radical regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature – a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone.
REGENERATION PRECEDES FAITH – Faith is actually the evidence of new birth, not the cause of it – (Regeneration > Faith > Justification). Repentance and faith are only possible because of the work of God in regeneration, therefore both are called the gift of God.
Again, quoting the same sermon of Spurgeon: “”Oh!” saith the Arminian, “men may be saved if they will.” We reply, “My dear sir, we all believe that; but it is just the ‘if they will’ that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares, ‘Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;’ and as long as that ‘ye will not come’ stands on record in Holy Scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will.’ It is strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. ‘Now,’ says one, ‘I believe men can be saved if they will.’ My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer, ‘Did you ever meet with any person who was? Scores and hundreds, nay, thousands of Christians have I conversed with, of different opinions, young and old, but it has never been my lot to meet with one who could affirm that he came to Christ of himself, without being drawn. The universal confession of all true believers is this: ‘I know that unless Jesus Christ had sought me when a stranger wandering from the fold of God, I would to this very hour have been wandering far from him, at a distance from him, and loving that distance well.’ With common consent, all believers affirm the truth, that men will not come to Christ till the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them.” Human Inability, March 7, 1858
Gen 2:15-17; Ps 51:5, Jer 17:9; Jn 3:1-8; 6:44; 8:34, 47; 10:26; Rom 3:10-18, 8:7, 8; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1-9; Ph 1:29; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb. 12:2; 1 Jn 5:1
Come to the Son
Mary In New Testament Perspective
Article “The Misplaced Marian Emphasis of Roman Catholicism” by Keith Mathison – original source: https://www.keithmathison.org/post/the-misplaced-marian-emphasis-of-roman-catholicism
One of the most noticeable features of Roman Catholicism is its doctrinal and practical emphasis on Mary, the mother of Jesus. Every significant Roman Catholic dogmatic theology text includes a lengthy section, if not an entire volume, devoted to Mariology. Dozens upon dozens of lengthy books on Mary are published every year, and this doesn’t include all of the candles, statues, pendants, portraits, nightlights, lampshades, rosary stands, throw blankets, jigsaw puzzles, and more with Mary’s image.
Over the centuries, Mary’s role in Roman Catholic doctrine and practice has only increased. In the nineteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church declared as dogma the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (not to be confused with the doctrine of the miraculous conception of Christ), and in the twentieth century, the Roman Church added the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. Vatican II used the title “Mediatrix” to refer to Mary. As Mediatrix, Mary is seen as the one who mediates the redemptive work of her Son Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic practice includes prayers to Mary, hymns to Mary, and exaltation of Mary as queen of the universe. These are essentially acts of worship, effectively making of Mary a quasi-divine goddess of sorts.
Obviously, Mary had a unique role in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. The incarnation began in her womb. As the Definition of Chalcedon expresses it, the Lord Jesus Christ was “begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity.” She truly was blessed to be chosen for this unique task. And her humble and faithful response to God’s call upon her is a model example of faith.
That said, does the dramatic emphasis on Mary in Roman Catholic doctrine and practice correspond in any way to the emphasis we find in the doctrine and practice of Christ’s apostles?
No, it doesn’t.
Anyone familiar with Roman Catholic doctrine and practice might suspect that the New Testament is filled with teaching about Mary and filled with examples of devotion to Mary. However, as is often the case with Rome, the correspondence between its teaching and practice and the teaching and practice of the Apostles is non-existent. The emphasis among the Apostles is upon Jesus Christ. As Paul says, “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23). And a bit later: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). No one is surprised at the apostolic emphasis upon Jesus Christ. But do they also emphasize Mary in the way that the Roman church does?
Let’s look at one way we might consider emphasis – the number of times a person is explicitly mentioned by name (I know this has only limited use, but this is a blog post, not a journal article, and this does shed some light on the question).
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is mentioned explicitly by name a total of 19 times in the entire New Testament. The majority of those references are naturally found in the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke because birth narratives are where mention of a mother would be expected. In Matthew, she is mentioned by name 5 times. In Luke, she is mentioned by name 12 times. That’s 17 out of the total of 19. In Mark, she is mentioned by name once. Outside of the Gospels, Mary is mentioned by name only once in Acts 1:14.
Mary isn’t mentioned by name a single time in the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude. She is referred to as “woman” once by Paul in Gal. 4:4 when he writes, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.” Even this one reference, however, is saying something about Jesus rather than about Mary. It’s indicating His true humanity. Scholars are continually publishing books on the Pauline theology of this doctrine or that doctrine. It’s not even possible to write an article on the Pauline doctrine of Mary, however, much less a book, because Paul doesn’t say anything about her.
Outside of the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, Mary is mentioned by name only twice in the entire New Testament and not even once in the epistles where the various newly planted churches are being given foundational apostolic teaching regarding doctrine and practice.
For the sake of comparison consider the number of times some other biblical figures are mentioned explicitly by name in the New Testament and in the Epistles:
Moses – 79 times in the NT (23 of those in the Epistles)
Abraham – 71 times in the NT (33 of those in the Epistles)
David – 54 times in the NT (6 of those in the Epistles)
Isaac – 18 times in the NT (8 of those in the Epistles)
Noah – 8 times in the NT (3 of those in the Epistles)
Adam – 7 times in the NT (6 of those in the epistles)
Eve – 2 times in the epistles
Eve is mentioned by name only twice in the epistles, and that is still more than the number of times Mary is mentioned by name (zero times). [As a side note, it is fascinating that around the third century or so, as Christians started looking for people and events in the Old Testament that prefigured people and events in the New Testament, they focused on Christ as the second Adam. Somehow, they concluded that if Jesus is the second Adam then Mary must be the second Eve. An entire Mariology then began to develop from this curious parallel they drew. The analogy is faulty, however. Eve was Adam’s wife, not his mother. If anything in the New Testament is an analogy to Eve, it is the bride of Christ, not the mother of Christ.]
In any case, Mary is never mentioned by name in any of the epistles. Does this mean that Mary is unimportant? No, but her level of importance is where the apostles placed it when they wrote the birth narratives in the Gospels. She had the awe-inspiring and unique blessing of being the mother of God-incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. But once the apostles move beyond the birth narratives, she fades into the background. The focus is now on the one she bore in her womb. The focus is now on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostles are Christ-centered in their doctrine and practice, and there isn’t even a hint of the kind of Mary-centered doctrine and devotion that is now found in the Roman Catholic Church. Paul doesn’t talk about her in his writings. Peter doesn’t talk about her in his writings. James doesn’t talk about her in his writings. They continually talk about Jesus. They preach Christ and Him crucified.
Roman Catholic Marian doctrine and practice is to the teaching of the Bible what the romantic subplot between Tauriel and Kili in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit films is to the book written by Tolkien.
The extreme misplaced emphasis on Mary in Roman Catholic doctrine and practice is simply one more of the many ways that the Roman Catholic Church publicly displays how radically different it is from the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
More Than Meets The Eye
Defining Sin
An article by Dr. R. C. Sproul entitled “Sin is Cosmic Treason.” original source: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/sin-cosmic-treason/
“The sinfulness of sin” sounds like a vacuous redundancy that adds no information to the subject under discussion. However, the necessity of speaking of the sinfulness of sin has been thrust upon us by a culture and even a church that has diminished the significance of sin itself. Sin is communicated in our day in terms of making mistakes or of making poor choices. When I take an examination or a spelling test,if I make a mistake, I miss a particular word. It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to look at my neighbor’s paper and copy his answers in order to make a good grade. In this case, my mistake has risen to the level of a moral transgression. Though sin may be involved in making mistakes as a result of slothfulness in preparation, nevertheless, the act of cheating takes the exercise to a more serious level. Calling sin “making poor choices” is true, but it is also a euphemism that can discount the severity of the action. The decision to sin is indeed a poor one, but once again, it is more than a mistake. It is an act of moral transgression.
In my book The Truth of the Cross I spend an entire chapter discussing this notion of the sinfulness of sin. I begin that chapter by using the anecdote of my utter incredulity when I received a recent edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Though I was happy to receive this free issue, I was puzzled as to why anyone would send it to me. As I leafed through the pages of quotations that included statements from Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others, to my complete astonishment I came upon a quotation from me. That I was quoted in such a learned collection definitely surprised me. I was puzzled by what I could have said that merited inclusion in such an anthology, and the answer was found in a simple statement attributed to me: “Sin is cosmic treason.” What I meant by that statement was that even the slightest sin that a creature commits against his Creator does violence to the Creator’s holiness, His glory, and His righteousness. Every sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is an act of rebellion against the sovereign God who reigns and rules over us and as such is an act of treason against the cosmic King.
Cosmic treason is one way to characterize the notion of sin, but when we look at the ways in which the Scriptures describe sin, we see three that stand out in importance. First, sin is a debt; second, it is an expression of enmity; third, it is depicted as a crime. In the first instance, we who are sinners are described by Scripture as debtors who cannot pay their debts. In this sense, we are talking not about financial indebtedness but a moral indebtedness. God has the sovereign right to impose obligations upon His creatures. When we fail to keep these obligations, we are debtors to our Lord. This debt represents a failure to keep a moral obligation.
The second way in which sin is described biblically is as an expression of enmity. In this regard, sin is not restricted merely to an external action that transgresses a divine law. Rather, it represents an internal motive, a motive that is driven by an inherent hostility toward the God of the universe. It is rarely discussed in the church or in the world that the biblical description of human fallenness includes an indictment that we are by nature enemies of God. In our enmity toward Him, we do not want to have Him even in our thinking, and this attitude is one of hostility toward the very fact that God commands us to obey His will. It is because of this concept of enmity that the New Testament so often describes our redemption in terms of reconciliation. One of the necessary conditions for reconciliation is that there must be some previous enmity between at least two parties. This enmity is what is presupposed by the redeeming work of our Mediator, Jesus Christ, who overcomes this dimension of enmity.
The third way in which the Bible speaks of sin is in terms of transgression of law. The Westminster Shorter Catechism answers the fourteenth question, “What is sin?” by the response, “Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God.” Here we see sin described both in terms of passive and active disobedience. We speak of sins of commission and sins of omission. When we fail to do what God requires, we see this lack of conformity to His will. But not only are we guilty of failing to do what God requires, we also actively do what God prohibits. Thus, sin is a transgression against the law of God.
When people violate the laws of men in a serious way, we speak of their actions not merely as misdemeanors but, in the final analysis, as crimes. In the same regard, our actions of rebellion and transgression of the law of God are not seen by Him as mere misdemeanors; rather, they are felonious. They are criminal in their impact. If we take the reality of sin seriously in our lives, we see that we commit crimes against a holy God and against His kingdom. Our crimes are not virtues; they are vices, and any transgression of a holy God is vicious by definition. It is not until we understand who God is that we gain any real understanding of the seriousness of our sin. Because we live in the midst of sinful people where the standards of human behavior are set by the patterns of the culture around us, we are not moved by the seriousness of our transgressions. We are indeed at ease in Zion. But when God’s character is made clear to us and we are able to measure our actions not in relative terms with respect to other humans but in absolute terms with respect to God, His character, and His law, then we begin to be awakened to the egregious character of our rebellion.
Not until we take God seriously will we ever take sin seriously. But if we acknowledge the righteous character of God, then we, like the saints of old, will cover our mouths with our hands and repent in dust and ashes before Him.