25 Thursday Feb 2016
Posted in Election, Uncategorized
More from Ralph Venning’s 1650 work, Orthodox Paradoxes
VI. Concerning Election
59. He believes that God is no respecter of persons; and yet he believes that God elected some and left others — when he found no difference.
60. He believes that none were elected but in and by Christ, and yet he believes that Christ is not the cause of election.
61. He believes that God never made any man on purpose to reprobate him, and yet he believes that God ever purposed to reprobate some.
29 Tuesday Jul 2014
Posted in N.T. Wright
Tags
Election, Eschatology, Justification, N.T. Wright, New Perspective, Paul, Paul and the Faithfulness of God
Wright is brilliant, maddening and, as in the case of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, able to write extremely long books:
Someday, I hope to have the time myself
06 Thursday Jun 2013
Posted in 1 Peter, Election, Exodus, Hope, Isaiah, Mortification, Obedience, Praise, Sanctification, Union With Christ
Tags
1 Peter 2:9, adoption, Election, Exodus 19:5-6, Holiness, Hope, incarnation, Isaiah 43:18-21, John Calvin, Lewis Smedes, new age, New Covenant, New Creation, Old Covenant, Romans 8, Romans 8:18-25, Union with Christ
(Some rough notes on 1 Peter 2:9)
1 Peter 2:9 (ESV)
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
The first and last clauses in 1 Peter 2:9 come from Isaiah 43:21:
Isaiah 43:18–21 (ESV)
18 “Remember not the former things,
nor consider the things of old.
19 Behold, I am doing a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert.
20 The wild beasts will honor me,
the jackals and the ostriches,
for I give water in the wilderness,
rivers in the desert,
to give drink to my chosen people,
21 the people whom I formed for myself
that they might declare my praise.
In referencing Isaiah 43, Peter brings the salvation of the Christians into an eschatological focus. Young states that the “new thing” brought about God “is the wondrous redemption that was wrought for His people when the promised Messiah died upon the Cross of Golgotha” (156). That is true – but it is not the end of what God is doing.
Delitzsch writes:
He [Isaiah] knows that when the suffering of the people of God shall be brought ot an end, the sufferings of creation will terminate; for humanity is the heart of the universe, and the people of God (understanding by this the people of God according to the Spirit) are the heart of humanity (197).
This is the point of Paul in Romans 8 speaking of the adoption of the sons of God:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Romans 8:18–25 (ESV)
The redemption wrought by Christ is the beginning of the transformation of the entire physical creation. Christ has not merely wrought salvation as an escape from the world – rather, Christ’s work has utterly transformed the entire nature of everything.
Smedes comments (Union With Christ):
God wanted a new creation with people in it who were His people, and this was His election. He elected a kingdom with a King, a body with a Head, a people with a leader, a universe with a Lord, and sinners with a Savior. He elected in the comprehensive Christ, the Christ who was – in faith – first defined as “Lord of All.” (90).
The purpose of this work – this choosing and creating – is worship:
Israel is to recount, not its own merit, but God’s praises. It is His grace and love they are to declare, not their own works and achievement. Herein is stated the purpose of Israel’s election; they are to be a people that will praise their God (Young, Isaiah, vol. 3, 158)[1].
Indeed, as Calvin notes, salvation is given to glorify God:
This people have I created for myself. The Prophet means that the Lord will necessarily do what he formerly said, because it concerns his glory to preserve the people whom he has chosen for himself; and therefore these words are intended for the consolation of the people. “Do you think that I will suffer my glory to fall to the ground? It is connected with your salvation, and therefore your salvation shall be the object of my care. In a word, know that you shall be saved, because you cannot perish, unless my glory likewise perish. Ye shall therefore survive, because I wish that you may continually proclaim my glory.”
John Calvin and William Pringle, vol. 3, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 344. Our salvation is thus anchored in God’s desire for his glory. And it is for his glory that we will persevere – and for his glory that we will exist. Thus, our salvation glorifies God – and our praises which naturally flow from the recognition of our salvation glorify God.
The middle section of 1 Peter 2:9 derives from Exodus 19 and the making of the covenant with Israel at Sinai:
Exodus 19:5–6 (ESV)
5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
It is of interest that Peter quotes a conditional promise, “If you will indeed obey my voice ….” One great purpose of the OT is prove that Israel did not keep the command of God. Indeed, the promise of Isaiah hinges upon Israel being driven from the land due to their disobedience. How then can this promise be granted if the condition has failed?
Peter’s entire framework assumes the New Covenant. Yes, the Old Covenant failed, but God has raised Jesus from dead and granted us hope. He has redeemed us from the curse. We have been sprinkled with the blood of Christ – which recalls the sprinkling of Moses to institute Old Covenant (Exodus 24:8).
Paul’s language in Galatians 4 draws out the significance of Peter’s argument:
4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Galatians 4:4–7 (ESV)
The law brought its curse – but Christ came redeemed those born under the curse of the law. And not only did he redeem those so cursed, but he even extended adoption. In Romans 8, Paul writes that the full extent of the adoption will be the restoration of the physical order. Peter quotes Isaiah 43 which shows that the culmination of the return from exile will be the transformation of the physical order (deserts, beasts, water). And while certainly such images help us picture the spiritual restoration of redemption – there is no reason to think that spiritual restoration will not entail physical transformation of the very stuff of creation (especially when it is explicitly so promised).
The comprehensive work of God – physical and spiritual – extends from the incarnation of Christ (note Peter’s very physical and transcendent Christ: was “made manifest”, he bled, he died, he was physically resurrected – and “he was foreknown before the foundation of the world”). Since the transformation is not merely “spiritual” it rightly claims our entire life.
Thus the “rules” of this new life (set forth by Peter) rightly extend to our entire life. Moreover, the difficulty of the rules does not lie in the things required – but rather requiring them in a world cursed by sin. The difficulty with the law lies (in part/in whole?)in its conflict with the present age. Certainly living as one who belongs to the age to come will create conflict with the present age (and those who are not part of the new creation).
Accordingly since the structure of life must be aligned to the dawning age, our strength to obey must be fetched from the age to come. There can be no holiness in this age without hope of the age to come. Holiness is an eschatological orientation. Hope fetches holiness
This brings us back to the main proposition of the chapter, namely, that Jehovah had not only made them what they were, but had made them for the purpose of promoting His own glory, so that any claim of merit on their part, and any apprehension of entire destruction, must be equally unfounded.
John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, Carl Wilhelm Eduard Nägelsbach et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 470.
13 Tuesday Nov 2012
Posted in Edward Taylor, John, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Meditation, Puritan
Tags
Astronomy Divine, Augustine, Bunyan, Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Edward Taylor, Effectual Call, Election, Feeding the Five Thousand, John, John 6, John Calvin, John P. Meier, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Meditation, poem, Poetry, Puritan, Puritan Poetry
(The entire poem may be found here: https://memoirandremains.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/astronomy-divine-1-edward-taylor/)
The background on Taylor’s meditation is the story of Jesus in John 6[1]. The chapter begins with the feeding of the five thousand: A multitude was coming to Jesus. Jesus asks Philip how these people are to be fed. Philip does not know, because they do not have enough money to them all food. Andrew has found a boy with five barley loaves and two fish. Jesus prays and multiplies the original meal so that all have eaten to the full.[2]
This story bears a relation to the overall frame of Jesus’ ministry promising a future marriage feast (Matthew 8:11-12; Luke 13:28-29; Mark 14:25). More importantly for purposes of Taylor’s poem (and the teaching recorded by John) is the relationship to the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, Communion (all of which designate the same event).
The meal breaks up when the people seek to make Jesus king:
Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. John 6:15 (ESV)
Jesus and the disciples proceed that evening to the other side of the lake.[3]
The next day, the Jesus run around the lake to see Jesus again. Jesus rebukes the people (the Gospel of John works through in great detail what it means to exercise true faith), because they wanted food alone:
26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” John 6:26–27 (ESV)
This concept will be developed at much greater length in discourse. It this theme which ends Taylor’s poem:
This Bread of Life dropped in thy mouth doth cry,
Eat, eat me, soul, and thou shalt never die.
When the people hear Jesus, they ask what to do. He tells them to believe on him. They ask, Why should we believe you? When Moses led the people, it was because he got them food – manna in the wilderness.[4]
Jesus answers:
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:32–35 (ESV)
Taylor’s poem answers to this passage:
The Bread has come from heaven: In the first stanza, Taylor notes that the Bread has come to him from a “that bright throne” seen in an “astronomy divine”. Jesus says, “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Another parallel between the poem and Jesus concerns the call of the Father to bring one to the Son (Jesus). In the sixth stanza, Taylor writes:
Did God mold up this Bread in heaven and bake
Which from his table came and to thine goeth?
Doth he bespeak thee thus, This soul Bread take.
Come eat thy fill of this thy God’s white loaf?
It’s food too fine for angels, yet come, take
And eat thy fill. It’s heaven’s sugar cake.
Jesus says,
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— John 6:44–45 (ESV)
This passage is a key aspect of the “Doctrines of Grace” as understood within the Puritan, “Calvinistic”, “Augustinian” and refers to “effectual calling”.[5] Martyn Lloyd-Jones explains that the “effectual calling” is the internal call – it is the subjective experience of the desirability of the external call which goes to all persons:
What, then, is the difference between the external call and this call which has become effectual? And the answer must be that this call is an internal, a spiritual call. It is not merely something that comes to a person from the outside—it does that, of course, but in addition to that external call which comes to all, there is an internal call which comes to those who are going to be Christians, and it is an effectual call. The contrast, therefore, is between external, and internal and spiritual.
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God the Holy Spirit (Wheaton, IL: Crossways Books, 1997), 66.
This is a crucial point of Reformed Theology which is often misunderstood – and which would cause one to misunderstand Taylor’s poem. First, the human being has no claim or standing before God. This is the point of Taylor’s lines:
When that this bird of paradise put in
This wicker cage (my corpse) to tweedle praise
Had pecked the fruit forbade: and so did fling
Away its good; and lost its golden days;
It fell into celestial famine sore:
And never could attain a morsel more.
The human being, having rebelled against God, could no longer obtain any good. Second, humans being willing remain in rebellion against God – despite the offer of God. That is a great issue of the dispute between Jesus and the people with whom he was speaking. Indeed, at the end of this public conversation we read:
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. John 6:66 (ESV)
However, while most will turn away, for some, the call will be effective; that is, Christ will seem desirable.[6] Taylor notes that by stating that he heard the call of God and the offer of Christ as:
It’s food too fine for angels, yet come, take
And eat thy fill. It’s heaven’s sugar cake.
In short, Taylor is not stating that he is better than any one else (which is often what is heard when the word “elect” is used) but rather that he has received grace, unmerited favor (note how often Taylor uses the language of “grace” throughout the poem).
[1] The story is also reported in the other Gospels. However, Taylor references the teaching of Jesus recorded in John 6 – which takes place after the miracle but also acts as a comment on the miracle.
[2] John P. Meier writes in his examination A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, “However, despite our galling inability to be specific, I think the criteria of multiple attestation and of coherence make it more likely than not that behind our Gospel stories of Jesus feeding the multitude lies some especially memorable communal meal of bread and fish, a meal with eschatological overtones celebrated by Jesus and his disciples with a large crowd by the Sea of Galilee. Whether something actually miraculous took place is not open to verification by means available to the historian. A decision pro or con will ultimately depend on one’s worldview, not on what purely historical investigation can tell us about this event” (966).
[3] John 6:15-21 records Jesus walking on the water, which does not play into Taylor’s poem.
[4] Mark records that the meal took place “in a deserted place” (Mark 8:35)
[5] Calvin writes of John 6:40:
But we have no right to break through the order and succession of the beginning and the end, since God, by his purpose, hath decreed and determined that it shall proceed unbroken. 145 Besides, as the election of God, by an indissoluble bond, draws his calling along with it, so when God has effectually called us to faith in Christ, let this have as much weight with us as if he had engraven his seal to ratify his decree concerning our salvation. For the testimony of the Holy Spirit is nothing else than the sealing of our adoption, (Romans 8:15.) To every man, therefore, his faith is a sufficient attestation of the eternal predestination of God, so that it would be a shocking sacrilege 146 to carry the inquiry farther; for that man offers an aggravated insult to the Holy Spirit, who refuses to assent to his simple testimony.
John Calvin, John, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), Jn 6:40.
72. Here, again, I was at a very great stand, not knowing what to do, fearing I was not called; for, thought I, if I be not called, what then can do me good? None but those who are effectually called, inherit the kingdom of heaven. But oh! how I now loved those words that spake of a Christian’s calling! as when the Lord said to one, ‘Follow me’, and to another, ‘Come after me’. And oh! thought I, that He would say so to me too, how gladly would I run after him!
John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), 42.
13 Monday Aug 2012
Posted in Church History, Puritan
There is a commonplace that Puritans believed that material blessing was the result or sign of election, and thus wealth was somehow tied to godliness. This canard is widely cited without reference to the writings of actual Puritans. The idea seems to come from Max Weber (he at least routinely receives credit for this idea – his own thought may have been substantially more nuanced – I simply have not taken the time to read through everything he has written), not the Puritans. At least some scholars are noting that the received wisdom may be questionable; see, e.g., Marjorie E. Kornhauser, “The Morality of Money: American Attitudes Toward Wealth and the Income Tax,”Indiana Law Journal 70, no. 1 (1994): 119-69, see esp. fn. 11. More typical is the bald statement made without reference to the source documents, is something such as this:
American Puritans linked material wealth with God’s favor. They believed that hard work was the way to please God. Created more wealth through one’s work and thrift could guarantee the God’s elect. The doctrine of predestination kept all Puritans constantly working to do good in this life in order to be chosen for the next eternal life. God had already chosen who would be in heaven or hell, but Christians had no way of knowing which group they were in. Those who were wealthy would obviously be blessed by God and in good standing with Him. The work ethic of Puritans was the belief that hard work was an honor to God which would lead to a prosperous reward. Any deviations from the normal way of Puritan life would be strictly denied and disapproved.
Ning Kang, “Puritanism and Its Impact Upon American Values,” Review of European Studies 1, no. 2 (December 2009): 148-51. Here is another:
Sanctification: Proof that one is justified (or “elected” by God). Proof is exhibited by living a life of good works and outward proper moral conduct. One might also receive a “sign” of sanctification (such as wealth) that would signify one’s election. One’s minister, in private counsel, could help a puritan determine a sign.
http://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/janice.whitehead/eng-2327/intro-to-puritanism/, accessed August 13. 2012. Or this (and yes, Puritans regarded laziness as a sin, because the Bible calls laziness a sin. Interesting that we would find a concern for laziness quaint):
Puritan Ethic: Term that characterizes the strong sense of purpose and discipline that Puritans had. Part of the work ethic also resulted from a belief that wealth and success were a sign of saintliness and that idleness was a sin.
http://www.course-notes.org/US_History/Unit_Notes/Unit_One_1600_1763/Puritans accessed August 13, 2012. Yes. This are not necessarily scholarly sources in each instance, but they are indicative of the received knowledge and common teaching on the subject, particularly in the pre-graduate level. Compare this with the statement of an actual influential Puritan such as Manton:
Worldly good things may be given in anger, lest men should be marked out by their outward condition, rather than the disposition of their souls. God would not distinguish the good by the blessings of his common providence, nor brand and mark out the bad by their afflictions. Therefore these mercies that run in the channel of common providence, are dispensed promiscuously. But God hath another way of internal government, carried on within the soul by troubles of conscience for sin, and the comforts of a good conscience as the reward of obedience. Now in this sort of government, the influence of the Spirit is mainly seen ; God showeth his anger or his love, his pleasure or displeasure, by giving and withholding the Spirit; when he is pleased, we have the testimony of it in our consciences by the presence and comforts of the Spirit; when displeased, he withdraweth the Spirit ; this is reward and punishment, the accesses and recesses of the Spirit, if we have sinned : Ps. li. 10, ‘ Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not away thy Holy Spirit from me.’ The retaining and withholding the Spirit is one of the greatest calamities in the world ; ver. 2, ‘ Renew a right spirit in me ; ‘ ver. 12, ‘ And uphold me by thy free Spirit. On the contrary the reward of obedience is the increase of the Spirit : Rom 14:17, ‘ For the kingdom of God is not in meats and drinks, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ Now this being God’s constant way of internal government, whereby he manifesteth his pleasure or displeasure by witholding, or withdrawing, or giving out his Spirit ; and this is a surer way than the effects of his external providence. I cannot say God hateth me, because he denieth earthly blessings, or blasteth them when bestowed; this may be for other reasons than to manifest his anger or hatred: I cannot say God loveth me because I enjoy outward prosperity; but if I have the Spirit, that is never given in anger.
Sermon 12, Sermons on Romans 8. Found volume 12, pages 8-9 of Manton’s collected works. And, Thomas Brooks in his book The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod:
God’s hand sometimes may lie very hard upon His people, when His heart, His affections, at those very times may be yearning towards them. Jeremiah 31:18-20.
No man can tell the heart of God—by His hand. God’s hand of mercy may be open to those against whom His heart is set—as you see in the rich poor fool, and Dives, in the Gospel. And His hand of severity may lie hard upon those on whom He has set His heart—as you may see in Job and Lazarus.
22 Sunday Jul 2012
Posted in Biblical Counseling, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Puritan
Tags
Biblical Counseling, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Spurgeon, Election, John Newton, John Owen, Of Communion With the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Puritan
The love of the Father is not merely eternal, it is also free: it is without any compulsion:
he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:5 (ESV)
In A Defense of Calvinism, Spurgeon wrote:
John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, “Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards.” I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine. I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, “I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it. Pray, by all means, and the more, the better, but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading: and as to reading through the Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that you found anything at all: you must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures.”
Owen writes of the freedom of the Father’s love:
He loves us because he will; there was, there is, nothing in us for which we should be beloved. Did we deserve his love, it must go less in its valuation. Things of due debt are seldom the matter of thankfulness; but that which is eternally antecedent to our being, must needs be absolutely free in its respects to our well-being. This gives it life and being, is the reason of it, and sets a price upon it.
Such love of the Father is thus unchangeable: It is based upon the Father’s own free will before time and thus nothing of time can take it away. James writes:
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. James 1:17 (ESV)
As Owen explains, “Though we change every day, yet his love changeth not.”
Finally, the love of the Father is electing, choosing; as Owen writes, “distinguishing”. The Father does not love us without distinction: it is the one whom he loves that he loves. This is a hard thing and a wonderful thing. We you think that the Father loves, you must think that the Father loves me. The love of the Father is not an abstraction scattered among human beings, it is a profound love of the human person in the Jesus Christ. The Father did not elect all – he chose, being under no compulsion to choose any.
21 Saturday Jul 2012
Posted in Biblical Counseling, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Puritan
Tags
Biblical Counseling, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Spurgeon, Election, John Newton, John Owen, Of Communion With the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Puritan
Owen goes on to characterize the love we have in the Father. First, we must realize that the love flows one who is all sufficient: The Father could seek nothing from us, for being all sufficient, self-sufficient in the truest understanding of the phrase, he has no need from another. The Father is “in himself all sufficient,infinitely satiated with himself and his own glorious excellencies and perfections; who has no need to go forth with his love unto others, nor to seek an object of it without himself. There might he rest with delight and complacency to eternity. He is sufficient unto his own love” (Owen, Chapter 4). Thus, the love of the Father is mere, is pure “kindness and bounty.”
Consider further the nature of the love itself: The love of the Father is first “eternal”. Paul, when he wishes to press upon Timothy the surpassing wonder of the Gospel shows him that the love of the Father which brings us to salvation is a love before time:
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:8–10 (ESV)
When he writes to the Ephesian church, he praises the Father for an electing love settled before any creation, before the ages:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3–6 (ESV)
Owen explains that such knowledge should, were it rightly understood, transform our hearts and minds:
It was from eternity that he laid in his own bosom a design for our happiness. The very thought of this is enough to make all that is within us, like the babe in the womb of Elizabeth, to leap for joy. A sense of it cannot but prostrate our souls to the lowest abasement of a humble, holy reverence, and make us rejoice before him with trembling.
Think of this in terms of discipleship and counseling and sanctification: What sin could possibly control and drag us along were we to truly understand the depth and joy of the Father’s love. We sin out of ignorance – not the intellectual ignorance bemoaned by a Greek philosopher, but a true ignorance of not knowing the Father. We sin out of our resources, we sin out of our poverty not realizing how great the riches of the Father are that have been bestowed and procured in Christ. To the extent we cherish the love of the Father in Christ, to that extent we are freed from sin:
13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. 14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 2 Corinthians 5:13–17 (ESV)
29 Thursday Mar 2012
Posted in Bible Study, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Preaching, William Guthrie
Tags
Bible Study, Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Election, Faith, Isaiah 26:3, James 2:19, John 1:12, John 6:40, Matthew 13:44–46, Preaching, salvation, The Christian's Great Interest, William Guthrie
William Guthrie explains that true saving faith is not merely an intellectual recognition:
I grant, he that believeth on Christ Jesus, believeth what God has said concerning man’s sinful, miserable condition by nature; and he believeth that to be true, that ‘there is life in the Son, who was slain, and is risen again from the dead,’ etc.: but none of these, nor the believing of many such truths, evinces justifying faith, or that believing on the Son of God spoken of in Scripture; for then it were simply an act of the understanding;
The Devil himself has such “faith” (James 2:19). True saving faith requires far more than an acknowledgement that some fact is true.
True saving faith
is chiefly and principally an act or work of the heart and will.
It does entail a particular content, but such content becomes a predicate for a change in the relationship between God and man, it is a reception of Jesus as Savior:
So the Scripture has clearly resolved justifying faith into a receiving of Christ: ‘as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.’ (John 1: 12.) The receiving of Christ is there explained to be the believing on His name.
The Scripture, to make plain the nature of this reception, uses various images and explains. Thus in Isaiah 26:3, it is calling staying:
3 You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you. Isaiah 26:3 (ESV)
It is also called “trusting”. It begins with invitation and leads to an unshakeable relationship:
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40 (ESV)
The relationship created supersedes all other concerns:
44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, 46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. Matthew 13:44–46 (ESV)
04 Sunday Mar 2012
Posted in 1 Peter, Isaiah, John, Spiritual Disciplines
Tags
1 Peter, 1 Peter 2, Edward Young, Election, Isaiah, Isaiah 43, John, John 2, John 4, Praise, Spiritual Disciplines, temple, Worship
Edward Young commenting on Isaiah 43:21:
Herein is stated the purpose of Israel’s election; they are to be a people that will praise their God.
Peter explains this further:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1 Pet. 2:9.
Now compare Paul’s explanation of the purpose for election:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph. 1:3-6.
And Jesus:
23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.
24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:23-24. And how do we worship the Father? What temple may we enter?
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
John 2:19-21.
Now Peter draws the circle:
4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,
5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
So why does the Father elect? That the Father may give the elect to the Son (John 6:37 & 44). Such elect will then glorify the Son to the glory of the Father(John 5:23). The Father’s purpose is to elect worshippers.
03 Saturday Mar 2012
Posted in Uncategorized
Preliminary Points:
Some notes on the use of the word “elect” and “election” in the NT:
1) The election (and diaspora) of the readers (1 Peter 1:1)
(a) NT usage of elect as a noun/adjective (NA27 NT)
(i) 22 uses total
(ii) Matthew 4 uses:
(I) Many are called but few are chosen (Matt. 22:13)
(II)In Matthew 24 used to refer to those who are chosen to be separated in the Tribulation (Matt. 24:21, 23 & 30).
(iii) Mark 3 uses: all with respect to Tribulation, Mark 13:19, 21 & 26 (parallels Matthew 24 usage).
(iv) Luke twice
(I) Luke 18:7: those whose prayers will be heard, he will give justice to his elect who cry out to him ….
(II) Luke 23:35: Those mocking Jesus on the cross, “if you are the Christ of God, the Elect/Chosen One”.
(v) John none.
(I) SBL John 1:34 reads, “This is the Elect [NA27 Son] of God”. The SBL apparatus reads, “34 ἐκλεκτὸς Holmes WHmarg ] υἱὸς WH Treg NIV RP”.
(II) The Metzger textual commentary reads, “Instead of “the Son of God” several witnesses, chiefly Western (codex Bezae is defective here), read “the chosen one of God” (P5vid א* itb, e, ff2* syrc, s Ambrose) and a few read “the chosen Son of God” (ita, ff2c syrpal mss copsa). On the basis of age and diversity of witnesses a majority of the Committee preferred the reading ὁ υἱός, which is also in harmony with the theological terminology of the Fourth Evangelist.”
(III) The appellation “elect” is used of Jesus otherwise only in connection with the cross: Luke 23:35, those mocking Jesus; 1 Peter 2:4 & 6, referencing Jesus’ election as The Stone of the Temple.
(vi) Acts: none.
(vii) Romans twice:
(I) Romans. 8:33: Who will bring a charge against God’s elect?
(II)Romans 16:33, a reference to Rufus, “chosen in the Lord”.
(viii) Colossians 3:12, Put on then as the elect of God, holy and beloved.
(ix) 1 Timothy 5:21, “In the presence of God and of Jesus Christ and of the elect angels, I charge you ….”
(x) 2 Timothy 2:10, “I endure everything for the sake of the elect”
(xi) Titus 1:1, “Paul a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus for the sake of the elect of God ….”
(xii) 1 Peter, four uses
(I) 1 Peter 1:1, the addressees, “to the elect ….”
(II)1 Peter 2:4, Jesus “in the sight of God, chosen and precious”
(III) 1 Peter 2:6:, “I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious”
(IV) 1 Peter 2:9, “but you are chosen race ….”
(xiii) 2 John 1, twice
(I) 1:1, The elder to the elect lady
(II) 1:13, The children of your elect sister greet you
(xiv) Rev. 17:14,”those with him are called chosen and faithful.”
(b) Observations: a title for the people of God while in the world.
(i) It is originally used of God’s people as those being saved through judgment (cf. Hamilton), in that it begins as a designation of Jesus.
(ii) It is used generally as a designation for believers (similar to the usage of “saints”).
(iii) Twice (Col. 3:12, 1 Pet. 2:9) used as the predicate for an imperative, because you are chose, then you must X.
(iv)At most used of Jesus four times. Once mocking. Twice based upon a quotation of Is. 28:16 (Peter uses the language as a referent for Jesus and then quotes the text. It is common for Peter in this letter to introduce a proposition and then provide Scriptural support afterwards as a proof and summation). The passage is in the context of God’s judgment upon those in rebellion against him. The structure is similar to Psalm 2: Men in rebellion and God responds by sending his Son.
(v) Once it is used of the angels who willingly serve God.
(c) The verb is used 22 times (NA27).
(i) Mark 13:20, as a description of those who will be chosen to preserve in the Tribulation.
(ii) Luke four uses
(I) Luke 6:13, Jesus chose the 12.
(II)Luke 9:35, The Mt. of Transfiguration, The Father says, This is my Son, my Chosen One …. In the parallel of Matt. 17:5 & Mark 9:7, the word “beloved” is used in place of “chosen”.
(III) Luke 10:42 & 14:7, used of people choosing something.
(iii) John 6:70 & 13:18: Jesus referring to choosing the 12.
(iv)John 15:16, You did not chose me, but I chose you …
(v) John 15:19, I choose you out of the world
(vi)Acts
(I) 1:2 & 24: references to Jesus having chosen the 12 and Jesus choosing the replacement for Judas.
(II) 6:5, choosing Stephen
(III) 15:7, Peter, God chose me to evangelize the Gentiles.
(IV) 15:25, the letter to the Gentiles, we chose some men to send to you
(vii) 1 Corinthians 1:27-28: God chose lowly, weak things of this world.
(viii) Eph. 1:4: God chose us in him
(ix)James 2:5, God has chosen the poor.
(d) Observations: With the exception of two incidental uses, choosing is an act of God. Jesus’ saw himself as sovereign over the members of the 12, which was understood to continue even after the ascension. The actions of the early apostles choosing Judas’s replacement, Stephen, and the men to carry the letter were seen as congruent or originating in God’s choice. Peter saw his personal action in evangelism as the choice of God. God’s choosing is independent of the world or the world’s valuation (before the foundation of the world, things despised in the world, the poor).
(e) The phrase God’s chosen people may be slightly restructured as “the people whom God has chosen.” It is important, however, in choosing a term for “chosen,” to avoid the implication that such individuals are merely privileged individuals. The implication should be that they are “chosen for a purpose.” It is particularly important to avoid any term which will suggest that they are the ones that “God has bet on” (Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 8).
