Explaining the First Sin

Posted on December 14, 2015 by John Samson

From the Rob writes in to ask: “Pastor John (Piper), as someone who is reformed/Calvinist, I highly appreciate Jonathan Edwards who claims that (1) free will is doing what we desire but that (2) God gives us the desire to do good. With that being said, and keeping James 1:13 in mind, I’m having trouble understanding where Lucifer received his first desire to sin. Norman Geisler says ‘the unmistakable logical conclusion for the extreme Calvinist [is that] both Lucifer and Adam sinned because God gave them the desire to sin’ [Chosen But Free, page 36]. I would imagine that Adam received his desire to sin from Eve who received it from the serpent/Satan, but if God is sovereign over all things — including our desires — would that make him the initial author of the first desire to sin?” How do you answer this mystery?

For as many years as I can remember, I have said that among the mysteries in my theology for which I do not have an adequate answer, one of them is the question how — “how” is a key word here — how did the first sin come about?

And by the first sin, I don’t mean Adam’s first sin, I mean Satan’s first sin, the very first sin in the universe. The Bible opens not with the beginning of evil, but with the presence of unexplained evil. Man is created innocent and the serpent is already there, deceitful, manifestly opposed to the God of creation, and that is where the Bible begins. And as far as I can see, no explanation is offered in the Bible for how Satan became evil. I know there are hints that he was a perfect angel created by God.

Jude refers to angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, whom God has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day (Jude 6). And I don’t doubt that Satan was created good and fell from his proper place like Jude says, because I don’t think that evil and God are both eternal and ultimate realities. I am not a dualist. God and his goodness and wisdom and power are the only ultimate eternal realities. And evil is somehow derivative, secondary without God being a sinner. And all of that virtually all Christians agree on.

How did Satan become evil? I do not know. And it is plain to me that those who believe in ultimate self-determination of God’s creatures, like angels and humans, don’t know either. To say that Satan had free will — that is ultimate self determination — to say that Satan had free will is not an explanation for why he committed his first sin. It is a label. It is not an explanation. It is a label of a mystery. How could a perfectly good being with a perfectly good will and a perfectly good heart ever experience any imperfect impulse that would cause the will to move in the direction of sin? And the answer is, nobody knows, including those who say: Oh, it is free will. That is not an explanation. It is a name for a mystery.

So we don’t know. The Bible doesn’t explain the how of it. So Rob quotes Norman Geisler who says, “The unmistakable, logical conclusion for the extreme Calvinist for both Lucifer and Adam that they sinned is because God gave them the desire to sin.” Now I am not sure whether I qualify for Geisler’s extreme Calvinist, but I strongly suspect that I do. But just at this point I am disagreeing with that description of me and I am saying: No, I am not driven to say God gave Lucifer his first desire to sin. That is an oversimplification of virtually everybody’s viewpoint. I do not know how Lucifer came to feel his first inclination to rebel against God.

But here is what I do know. God is sovereign. Nothing comes to pass apart from his plan, which includes things he more or less causes directly, and things he more or less permits indirectly, and there is no doubt in my mind that Satan’s fall and all of the redemptive plan of God for the glory of his grace afterwards was according to God’s eternal plan. But it is precisely at this point that the how of the causality of Satan’s first sin worked we do not know.

I have a category in my thinking, in other words, for the fact that God can see to it that something come to pass which he hates. This is what he did, for example, when he planned the crucifixion of Jesus according to Acts 4:27–28. The murder of Jesus was sinful and it was planned down to the detail by God. You can read it in the Psalms and you can read it in the New Testament. Precisely how God does that, maintaining his sinlessness and the sin of the things that comes about and the moral accountability of those who do those sins, the how of that, I do not know. But I think the Bible leads us to believe that he is sovereign over all sin and that he never sins. That is what I believe the Bible teaches. Continue reading →

Concerning Continuationist/Charismatic Teachers

Posted on November 10, 2015 by John Samson

“Pastor John, can you recommend any teachers, books, websites, blogs or such that you consider theologically sound in the area of the gifts/leading of the Holy Spirit from a Continuationist perspective? And the earnest pursuit thereof?”

My short answer would be “no.” I no longer consider the continuationist perspective a sound one theologically and so cannot recommend a teacher who would promote it. Of course, all of us have our blind spots theologically (me being no exception) and I am happy to affirm many teachers and ministries in the areas I believe them to be sound.

If I was asked a different question such as “John, what material would you recommend to those who have been influenced by continuationist or charismatic theology?” I would point them to the following three teachings by Phil Johnson as a starting point, and would be praying that the Lord would open their eyes to His truth:

1. Is there a baby in the charismatic bathwater? (video) (audio)

2. Providence is Remarkable (audio)

3. Is that Voice in my Head Really the Holy Spirit? (audio)

There’s more that could and should be said, but these three teachings would be a good starting point, as I say.

Theological Questions

Posted on April 30, 2015 by John Samson

Sinclair Ferguson, Steven Lawson, Russell Moore, and R.C. Sproul answer questions on topics such as why Adam sinned, the importance of creeds and confessions in the church, how we can know if our worship music is pleasing to God, and more.

Questions:

1. If Adam was born free from evil and sin, why did he sin? (00:05)
2. If God is sovereign, what is the purpose of intercessory prayer? (02:20)
3. Is it important that a church subscribe to a confession (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith)? Why or why not? (04:39)
4. What parts of the law are still relevant to us today? (06:57)
5. Why are people so hostile to the doctrine of election? (11:48)
6. Is it a sin to be angry with God? (15:37)
7. Can you still be a Christian if you do not believe that Scripture is the inerrant and infallible Word? (17:39)
8. How can we objectively determine if our worship music is pleasing to God? (22:50)
9. How does one react to being declared homophobic before being able to show love to friends or family who have “come out” as homosexual? (34:29)
10. What has been the best work you have found on the subject of theodicy, if any? (45:15)
11. What is the gospel? (51:54)

Understanding John 5:39,40 (Repost)

Posted on March 10, 2015 by John Samson

Pastor John, “Look at John 5:39,40. The Pharisees loved the Bible but were not even saved. Don’t become like them.” I still believe I should study the Bible but his words ring in my ears as a constant dampener on the joy I feel when I look into God’s word. Is he right?

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” – John 5:39, 40

Many thanks for writing and sharing. I have heard similar things myself spoken by people who have a very surface level understanding of Scripture.

It does not require much in depth study of the Scripture to find out what our attitude should be towards it. Jesus made it clear that when we read Scripture, we were reading what was spoken to us by God (Matt. 22:31). Paul told Timothy that “all Scripture is God breathed” (2 Tim 3:16) and this alone reveals, by its very nature, its supreme authority as the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church as well as our individual consciences.

Job said he loved God’s law more than his necessary food (23:12). In other words, he would rather starve than neglect the rightful place of the word of God in his life.

Psalm 119 is the lengthiest chapter in the Bible and is entirely devoted to show us what our attitude should be to the word of God. Just reading and applying that chapter alone would mean that your friend’s argument is totally undermined.

But what of the Scripture he quotes? Well, it is fairly easy to see how he has misunderstood the text.

In John 5:39, 40 Jesus says, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me [literally, “you do not want to come to me,” Greek ou thelete elthein pros me] that you may have life.”

“The Scriptures” is a reference to what we would call the Old Testament (as the New Testament was not yet written). So here Jesus is saying to the Pharisees, that they search (read/study) the Old Testament, which points everywhere to Himself as the fulfillment, but they don’t see this at all, because they don’t want to.

Jesus was in no way condeming them for studying the Scriptures. That needs to be sounded loud and clear. Jesus was saying that they searched out the Scriptures and in doing this, the truth about Him was staring them clearly in the face but they refused to see it.

It is possible to read the Bible with a closed heart, refusing to acknowledge what is obvious. Jesus is saying that the Scripture is a revelation of Himself. He is not hidden in the pages of the Bible; He is clearly revealed. To read it and not see Him there in the Scripture is the evidence of a closed heart towards God. It shows a willful blindness.

I am sure you remember that Jesus, after His resurrection, walked with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, who were very sad and downcast. Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-27) Later on, the disciples remarked to each other, “”Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

Jesus did much more for them than give them a supernatural experience. He could have just said “Hey guys, I am Jesus and I am raised from the dead.” That would have been amazing and He would later open their hearts to recognize that He was present with them. But Jesus did not do that FIRST. He did something even more valuable. He rooted and grounded their joy about seeing Him raised from the dead in the revelation of Himself found in the Scriptures. He showed them Himself in the familiar pages of the Old Testament.

Later, in appearing to His disciples, we are told, “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures…” Luke 24:44,45

Your friend has given you some very unhelpful and may I say, unscriptural counsel. The Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture, gives His people the desire to study it, and to help us interpret it correctly. When I see someone who has no desire to study the Bible, it causes me concern as to their true heart condition before God. Peter tells us “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good” – the milk being a reference to God’s word (1 Peter 2:2,3). In other words, whatever our stage of growth as Christians we are to mimic newborn babies in terms of our desire for the word of God. That’s plain isn’t it?

There is never anything wrong with searching out and studying the Scriptures. What is wrong is refusing to see Christ as we do so.

As we open up the pages of the Bible to read, study and meditate, we should pray, “Oh God, open up to me the treasures of Your word; and by Your Holy Spirit, show me more of Jesus.”

Its a prayer God loves to answer.

Understanding 1 Timothy 2:4

Posted on February 8, 2015 by John Samson

Chapter 10 of my book “Twelve What Abouts.”

WHAT ABOUT 1 TIMOTHY 2:4?

How can Sovereign election be true when 1 Timothy 2:4 clearly says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”?

In the previous chapter, in doing so, be lost forever. Once again, much could be said for this interpretation. Yet once again, I believe a close examination of the text itself points us in a different direction, which I will seek to outline here.

Before I do so, let me just say that it is entirely possible to go for many years without asking questions about a text of Scripture because we assume we have already understood it. This is the very hallmark of tradition. Blind to our own assumptions we see no need to look at the text objectively and see if our understanding of the text can be verified by the text itself. However, if we take a deep breath and summon up the courage to ask the simple question, “What does the context tell us about the use of the word “all” here in this text?” I believe we will come away with the correct interpretation. Actually, it is absolutely vital we do this because context tells us how a word is being used.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD “ALL”

The word translated “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4 is the Greek word “pas.” As I also mentioned in the last chapter, sometimes the word “all” refers to all people everywhere. On other occasions it means “all kinds” or “all classes or types” or “all within a certain type or class.”

In the same letter, written obviously by the same author, Paul, we read the very familiar words of chapter 6 and verse 10, “For the love of money is the root of all evil…” (KJV).

More modern scholarship recognizes that the word “pas” sometimes means “all” and sometimes means “all types” or “all kinds,” depending on the context in which it is found. Therefore the ESV translation of 1 Timothy 6:10 is “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.” The NASB says, “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil…” The NIV reads, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Again, the Greek word “pas” can mean “all types” or “all kinds.”

I mention this because when we examine 1 Timothy 2:4, I believe the word “all” is being used in a similar sort of way, referring to “all types” of people. I say this based on the context.

Here is the passage in 1 Timothy 2:1-4: Continue reading →

Whatever the motivation…

Posted on January 5, 2015 by John Samson

I appreciate the answer given by Dr. James White below:

I just wrote this Twishort response to a tweet by @PoliClark where, tagging Dan Savage as well, he wrote, “hi James- can you give me feedback? My neighbor was working today (sabbath) so I murdered him. This is correct?” So here was my reply:

@PoliClark Dear Clark, thanks for writing. As a good citizen, I’ve turned your admission of the murder of your neighbor over to the authorities, but my response should give you something helpful to do during the booking process. I am so sorry you relied upon Internet Bible “experts” for your information. It is such a common thing today for people who have not even bothered to read and understand the text, even in a modern English translation (let alone consult the original Hebrew!) to pretend that reading what one person quotes from another person who quotes from another person who actually only saw it on West Wing back in the late 90s is sufficient basis for their actions or opinions. Amazing the shallow, surface-level argumentation that some people will use! But in reference to your question (you did ask if what you did was correct), no, it was not.

First, you obviously have no zeal for the Lord or His law, so you would have no basis upon which to be acting as the magistrate of a nation that no longer exists. The Israelite theocracy was brought into existence first and foremost to be the vehicle through which the Messiah would come who, by His self-giving, sacrificial death on the cross, would provide full and perfect redemption for all who would turn in true repentance and faith to Him. That nation ceased to exist as a nation in AD 70, so you were about 1950 years off in your dating there.

Secondly, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that modern Christians are free to pick and choose from among the Mosaic laws what they will obey and what they won’t. The process of examination of the purpose and applicability of the Mosaic laws is a difficult one to be sure. It requires examination of the text in light of the entirety of biblical revelation, a knowledge of the original context, historical backgrounds, etc.

Indeed, while it is not my scholarly focus (I have only taught basic Hebrew and Hebrew exegesis on the graduate level in the past), I have invested a great deal of time recently on the topic, as I am preaching through the very Holiness Code I surmise you are referring to. Assuming you have neglected such a study, and not availed yourself of those who have done so with an eye first and foremost to honoring God and His Word (your imminent incarceration being good evidence of this), I will lay out a basic answer to your question.

1) A Sabbath breaker under the ancient Israelite theocracy would be executed upon examination by the governing authorities, not by individual Israelites. Mistake #1.

2) There is no evidence the NT apostles viewed this law as being applicable outside of national Israel, which no longer exists, and hence it would be inappropriate to seek its institution, let alone its enactment and resultant punishment. Mistake #2.

3) If your neighbor had never entered into covenant with the God of Israel to keep the Sabbath day, well…mistake #3, big time.

4) It might be helpful to consider the abiding moral element of the law as it relates to honoring God with your time and observing a cessation of work and labor so as to focus upon His worship, but your neighbor won’t be able to do that anymore due to your action. Mistake #4.

Now, Clark, after your conviction and incarceration, I would direct you to consider the differences between the laws given in the Bible specifically for national Israel, those that were ceremonial in nature, those that pointed to a coming fulfillment in Christ, and those that by their very nature embodied universal moral principles—those mainly being those that derive from God’s act of creation. So, laws that reflect God creating man male and female would be creation ordinances since they reflect God’s creative purposes; those relating specifically to such things as styles of dress that were connected to the pagan worship practices of the nations around Israel while no longer being specifically applicable would still communicate the need to not engage in the behaviors of those pagans.

For example, the single prohibition against a tattoo (Lev. 19:28—though we are actually not certain whether ????????? means tattoo in the modern sense of permanent, injected pigment) is actually found in a passage about doing things “for the dead.” The Deuteronomistic parallel (14:1) further shows that it is not the actual tattoo that is in view, as the parallel refers to “shaving the forehead” as the parallel to ?????????. The point is that the pagan religions around Israel contained beliefs relating to the dead—either provisions for honoring the dead, or, fear of the curses of the dead. As the people of God, the Israelites were to realize that the dead had no power over them, hence, they were not to alter their appearances to either honor the dead, or (as I think more likely), to hide from their curses. And that principle would continue to this day: as God’s people, we are not to concern ourselves about the activities of the dead: God is in control of our lives, not the dead.

So can a Christian have a tattoo?

That would, as I see if, fall under the over-arching concept of Romans 14: that as a believer I am to please my Lord and do all that I do under His Lordship. As such, if I desire to glorify God with a piece of artwork that reminds me of my duties to Him, and I do not do it to sinfully attract attention to myself, then I see no problem with it at all.

Now, before I close off (I mean, booking only takes so long), let me take a wild guess and assume that your actions were motivated by the general assertion that the Levitical law is no longer relevant primarily in the area of sexual ethics and behavior. You might even suggest that the prohibition against homosexuality found in Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 is only in reference to the pagan practices of the peoples around Israel, an issue I myself raised above. I have much to say on this topic, but will be brief for now, if you don’t mind.

There is no question of the sexual immorality of the Assyrian and Mesopotamian religions of the time period immediately preceding the Exodus. And unless you are ready to proclaim all sexual practices moral, even you would have to admit the truth of this statement. So are we just picking and choosing when we cite Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 regarding homosexuality? No, we are not. Lots of reasons, let me give you two and let you go with the police.

1) When Moses gives the series of sexual sin laws in Lev. 18 there follows a lengthy discussion of how the peoples before Israel had violated these laws *and as a result* the land had vomited them out. Their actions had defiled themselves, and the land. Remember, theses are people to whom the Mosaic law was never given. Hence, these laws are binding outside the national boundaries of Israel, they are creation ordinances that reflect God’s creation order.

2) This is confirmed in Paul’s usage of these laws in Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11, where he even joins two terms from Lev. 20:13, ??????? ??????, into a single term to refer to homosexuals. Clearly, then, the Apostle of Christ understood these laws as continuing in their abiding validity, and that is why Christians have followed in their footsteps. I am so sorry you did not ask for this information before acting as you did, but hopefully now you will be able to be a model inmate!

Only the Father knows

Posted on October 6, 2014 by John Samson

Matthew 24:36 says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

This seems to be problematic, for if there is something the Son does not know, would this not indicate to us that he is not omniscient (all knowing)? God is all knowing and yet this tells us that there is something Christ did not know. Pastor John, how do we reconcile this verse with the Christian concept of the Deity of Christ?

Thank you for your question. The verse is often raised by those in the cults who openly deny Christ’s Deity. However, a very satisfactory biblical answer to the question emerges when we understand and embrace some good theology.

The Council of Chalcedon (in 451 AD) outlined what theologians refer to as “the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.” This Council is one of the great Ecumenical Councils accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant Christian churches. It provides a clear statement as to what orthodox Christians believe concerning the Person of Christ, drawn of course, from the Biblical text. Translated into English it reads:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

These are intentionally very precise theological statements. It is vitally important we get this right. Heresy awaits all who would veer from this safe biblical position. At Chalcedon it was affirmed that Christ was “perfect/complete in Godhood also perfect/complete in manhood, truly God and truly man.”

Christ is one Person with two natures, a human nature and a Divine nature. The full attributes of deity and the full attributes of humanity were both preserved without mixture or confusion. Christ does not have one nature which is a mixture of divine and human. No, He is fully God and fully man – one Person, with two natures. The human nature remains human with all the attributes of human-ness. The Divine nature remains divine and possesses and maintains all of the attributes of divinity.

In the Incarnation, the second person of the Godhead became a man. Colossians 2:9 says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

Regarding his humanity, Jesus learned about the world around him just as other children would do. Scripture tells us that he grew and became strong (Luke 3:23); there were times when he was thirsty (John 19:28), hungry (Matt 4:2) and was weary (John 4:6). These things show the humanity of Christ rather than His deity. God is never weary, thirsty or hungry. On the other hand, Jesus was also fully God, and, as God, he had infinite knowledge (cf. John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Continue reading →

Christology – Questions and Answers

Posted on September 26, 2014 by John Samson

From the “We Would See Jesus: Ligonier 2014 Fall Conference” at Reformation Bible College here is the Question and Answer Session:

Gregory Beale, Michael Morales, Stephen Nichols, R.C. Sproul, R.C. Sproul Jr., and Derek Thomas answer questions ranging from Jesus’ baptism, the atonement, and church history, to their favorite books of the Bible, and the theology of N.T. Wright.

Questions:

Why was it necessary for Christ to be baptized? (1:17)
Derek Thomas, before you ran out of time in your message, what was going to be your third proof point for the resurrection? (3:19)
After Christ accomplished his atonement, when and how, according to God’s moral justice, did the Father’s disposition toward the Son change from unmitigated wrath to redemptive favor? (5:45)
How does Jesus’ identity as the Word qualify Him to uniquely fulfill God’s commission to Adam? (9:15)
Do you believe Jesus Christ carries Mary’s genes, or are His genes unique? (12:05)
The Bible says that Adam was made in the image of God, but it also says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Is Christ in the image of God the same way as we are? If not, why does the Bible use the same terminology, and what marks the difference between our image bearing and Christ’s image bearing? (13:19)
Stephen Nichols, as a church historian, beside the Reformation, what period in church history should we be most interested in? (15:25)
Do you believe we need another Reformation, or another revival in this country? (17:25)
What are some key principles or Scriptures that you gentlemen use to revitalize your faith when you’re severely discouraged or feel very dry in your faith? (21:49)
What are your favorite book of the Bible, or if it is a Psalm, which Psalm? (24:08)
What did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 1:24 when he calls Christ the wisdom of God? (30:31)
The Bible teaches that Jesus was raised from the dead after three days. If He was crucified on Friday and risen on Sunday, how is this explained? (32:35)
Regarding unconditional election, my son asked me, “What’s the point of creating people if they won’t have an opportunity to be saved?” What do I tell my son? (33:12)
Is Limited Atonement just theological semantics? How important is it for the believer to embrace this doctrine? (36:04)
R.C. Sproul, you quoted Martin Luther saying that justification by faith alone is the foundation upon which the church stands or falls. What are we to believe about N.T. Wright’s doctrine of imputation? What does the New Perspectives on Paul do to sola fide? (41:13)
Many in the Reformed camp believe that N.T. Wright is correct and has a good view on the resurrection, would you agree with that? (43:30)
R.C. Sproul, I’ve heard you mention a connection with Francis Schaeffer in the early days of Ligonier. Can you share with us your relationship with him and how his influence helped you decide the structure of Ligonier Ministries? (45:08)

All who were appointed for eternal life believed

Posted on August 16, 2014 by John Samson

Pastor John, what would you say to an Arminian who says for Acts 13:48 that the Greek word “tasso” for “ordained” or “appointed” does not have the meaning that we Calvinists give? By going to Matthew 28:16, Luke 7:8, Romans 13:1, Acts 15:2, Acts 22:10, Acts 28:23 and 1 Corinthians 16:15 where the word “tasso” is translated “devoted”, he says, “why not translate the Greek word ‘tasso’ in Acts 13:48 also as ‘devoted'”?

Thanks for your question. Acts 13:48 is very clear in speaking of God ordaining or appointing certain people to eternal life and these are the ones who come to faith. The ESV reads, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” The NIV reads, “all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” Clearly, the phrase “as many” or the word “all” indicates that everyone who had this appointment, made the appointment. There are wide ranging theological implications to this statement, all of which greatly trouble Arminians who seek to make the belief of individuals the reason (or ground) for God ordaining people to eternal life. Arminians believe in conditional election (election is based on God foreseeing faith in certain individuals); Calvinists in unconditional (faith is not the product of an unregenerate heart but a Divine gift given to those He chooses to save). Acts 13:48 is very clear though: God ordains specific individuals to eternal life and these are the ones who believe.

I would respond to the Arminian who suggested “devoted” as a better translation of the text by saying firstly that one should ALWAYS be highly suspicious of any translation of a Greek word that flies in the face of all the major Bible translations. That is a very good general ‘rule of thumb.’ To say that a word has been mis-translated so badly by all the leading scholars who have served translation committees in the process of the Bible translations we have in our hands, defies all credibility.

Secondly, is there even one major translation that uses the word “devoted” in this context? Can the Arminian point to any that does so? I do not know of any. There are good reasons for that.

Note the wording of the major translations regarding the word in Acts 13:48:

KJV “ordained”

NIV “appointed”

ASV “ordained”

ESV “appointed”

NKJV “appointed”

NRSV “destined for”

NASB (Update) “appointed”

NLT “appointed”

NET “appointed”

Thirdly, does the Arminian REALLY wish to be saying that those who believed were more devoted than others? Theologically, that would make faith a meritorious action, and therefore something in which to boast.

For more on the Greek in this passage, I recommend Dr. James White’s book “The Potter’s Freedom” pages 186-190, where it is discussed in detail.

John

Tithing Today

Posted on August 6, 2014 by John Samson

Is the principle of tithing still in effect today?

Firstly, please allow me to define our terms. The word ‘tithe’ simply means “a tenth part” or “one tenth.” The tithe is distinguished from an offering. A tithe is the tenth part or 10% of our income. An offering constitutes everything over and above the tithe.

Tithing involves returning to God the first fruits of one’s prosperity – a requirement to give ten percent of our gross annual income or gain. If a shepherd’s flock produced ten new lambs, one of those lambs was required to be offered to God. This was from the top. It was not given after other expenses are met or after other taxes have been paid. The tithe was given to God before all other transactions took place.

As a biblical principle tithing was in place long before the Law, during the Law and is nowhere rescinded in the New Testament. In saying this, I want to be quick to also say that our giving does not end with tithing. The New Testament Christian, in light of the grace found in Christ, and because of the overflow of a grateful heart of generosity, should actually seek to do more than tithe. Tithing is merely the starting point.

I would agree with Dr. Ligon Duncan when he writes:

“Many Christians argue about whether the tithe (10% of our income) is still the standard for our giving to the Church (disputants usually want to show that less than 10% is fine). Paul scuttles the whole debate in one verse. He says: ‘For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich’ (2 Corinthians 8:9). Christ’s self-giving is now the standard for our giving! We begin from the base of the tithe and aim for emulation of His self-sacrifice. Our giving is to be inspired and instructed by Christ’s inexpressible gift. In light of such a challenge, who could possibly satisfy himself with asking ‘how little a percentage is acceptable for me to give?’ Do you try to get by with giving as little as possible to the Lord, or do you give in view of the Lord’s costly sacrifice?” (emphasis mine) Continue reading →

Effectual Grace

A blog by John Samson

Category Archives: Questions and Answers