reformed blogging.

The Lord will happiness divine
On contrite hearts bestow;
Then tell me, Gracious God, is mine
A contrite heart or no?

I hear, but seem to hear in vain,
Insensible as steel;
If aught is felt, ’tis only pain
To find I cannot feel.

I sometimes think myself inclined
To love thee, if I could;
But often feel another mind,
Averse to all that’s good.

My best desires are faint and few,
I fain would strive for more;
But when I cry, “My strength, renew,”
Seem weaker than before.

I see thy saints with comfort filled,
When in thy house of prayer;
But still in bondage I am held,
And find no comfort there.

Oh, make this heart rejoice or ache;
Decide this doubt for me;
And if it be not broken break,
And heal it if it be.
- William Cowper

The two heartbeats of Charles Simeon’s life: “Growing downward in humiliation and growing upward in adoring communion with God.”

O, for a closer walk with God!

It is an oversimplification but true to define man’s depravity according to Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism/Calvinism as such: the first man is healthy, the second man ill, and the third man dead.

Arminianism differs from Semi-Pelagianism mainly in its view of man’s complete or total depravity. This does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, but that every part of man: his will, affections, mind are all affected by original sin. Thus, according to Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fall short, and that no one seeks after God, no one understands. Rightfully, then, are Arminians sometimes referred to as 1-point Calvinists in their affirmation of man’s total depravity and inability to save himself. Yet, they differ from Calvinists in that they do not believe in God’s overcoming grace. They believe that men must respond to God’s grace freely (without any influence upon their volition from God) and that it can ultimately be rejected. God works, then, only up to a point, but respects man’s free-will and will not coerce or force anyone to believe or accept Himself, since such a notion would not be true love, but, as some would say, “divine rape”.

However, a closer look into the Arminian notion of total depravity apart from God’s overcoming or irresistable grace is absolutely incongruous. There is no salvation for a depraved man apart from God’s irresistable grace. To admit the doctrine of total depravity is to admit that a man will never choose God by his own free will, since he is always inclined to sin. An Arminian who acknowledges the need of God’s grace for salvation does so in word only and still holds to the Semi-Pelagian notion of depravity. Namely, that a man is not dead in sin, but unhealthy. A compromise must take place, either men are not totally depraved, or God draws all elect sinners to Himself independent of anything in them, even “foreseen faith”.

If man is totally depraved then any measure of positive response to the gospel would be a direct result of God’s grace since any inclination towards God in man, apart from God, is impossible, his nature being inherently sinful. The difference, then, between one who accepts and one who rejects God’s gospel must be God’s overcoming grace acting in the person. In one God works by grace to cause the person to believe, in the other there is grace in the presentation of the gospel but none to cause the man to believe. The latter, unaffected by the gospel is only that way because he is totally depraved. Can God change his will? Yes! That is exactly what has happened in the first man, his inclinations have been turned from sin and death, to God and life. Such a transformation of the heart can only be due to God’s grace and nothing, absolutely nothing in man. Logically, then, God must go against the will of the depraved man in order to save him, for, on his own, he would never turn to God. Thus a man is saved by grace through faith. God’s grace being the cause of salvation, faith the means to that end which He will provide to those whom He has chosen. Will God fail to provide the means to that salvation which He has called His elect unto?

The only other option for the Arminian, then, is to say that man is not, in fact, totally depraved which brings us back to Semi-Pelagianism. A totally depraved man, needs God’s irresistable grace to change his will, to save him. All those whom God chooses to save, He will.

“Unqualified obedience is required from us: not to furnish title to Heaven–that is found alone in the merits of Christ; not to fit us for Heaven–that is supplied alone by the supernatural work of the Spirit in the heart; but that God may be owned and honoured by us as we journey thither, that we may prove and manifest the sufficiency of His grace, that we may furnish evidences we are HIS children, that we may be preserved from those things which would otherwise destroy us–only in the path of obedience can we avoid those foes which are seeking to slay us… The path of obedience must be trod if ever you are to reach heaven.” - A.W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, p.697

One thing that cannot be reconciled with the Arminian notion of “free-will” is physical birth. If Arminians will not accept God’s sovereignty in spiritual rebirth, one wonders how they deal with natural birth. After all, not every person has equal exposure to the gospel. In fact, there are some countries where there is no gospel at all! How, then, can Arminians reconcile this to God’s call? For many are called but few are chosen. None will deny that physical birth is due solely to God’s sovereignty, for what choice does a man have in where he will be physically born? That a man is born in the Middle East in a prominently Muslim country is not because God “foresaw” that they would not believe and placed them there, is it? Those who have not heard the gospel and are thus condemned to hell, was there no foreseen faith? Will God condemn these? It is no surprise that so many Arminian churches have turned to Liberalism and Universalism, since there is no way to reconcile man’s “free-will” to respond to God’s grace and the fact that not all have heard/will hear the gospel.

Arminians, to be fair, do not deny that God’s grace is absolutely required for salvation, but so is man’s free-will. That man must choose God as a response to His grace, and this choice must not be coerced or forced by God in any way lest it be a breach of man’s so-called free-will. They hold that predestination and election speak mainly to those with foreseen faith, that God saw down the “tunnel of time” those who would believe and “chose” them. How does this account for those who will die having never heard the gospel? Were they “foreseen” to not have faith? If that be the case, it is still difficult to understand how God will hold them accountable to something they have not heard. Though they hypothetically rejected Christ they never did it in reality never having had the proper opportunity. Thus their rejection, having never occurred in reality cannot be said to be a foreseen lack of faith, unless God foresaw a different world.  An Arminian might object that they are still sinners and thus condemned to judgment, but the next question would be, then, how has Christ properly died for these? Are they not in the world? If Christ did, in fact, die for the whole world without exception, how is His the benefit of His death displayed in these unsaved people? Since they have never heard the gospel the opportunity won by Christ through the atonement (according to Universal Atonement) is not present. In which case an Arminian will either resort to absolute absurdity saying that such people hear the gospel after they die (inclucivism) or universalism. The Arminian is forced to compromise God’s justice, saying that these will not be condemned or to compromise Christ’s atonement saying that Christ’s death for the world was not really for all the world without exception. One cannot have a “universal” view of the atonement and believe in free-will.

The correct view is this, that God unconditionally elected sinners to be saved before the foundation of the world. So that God’s grace is absolutely necessary and is absolutely sufficient to save whoever He desires. God is no respecter of man, there is no “dignity” too great for God to overcome. And though some may resist God’s grace, none can resist it when God wills to save a sinner. For who can thwart God’s plan? Thus the wills of such sinners will (without their own consent) be changed by God to long and desire Him. Therefore, those elect by God are atoned completely through the redemptive work of Christ so that all those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ’s death will not have been in vain for anyone. He will not have died for those in hell, but will have saved completely to eternal life (eternal meaning that the elect can never die or be condemned) those who are the elect. As for those who never heard the gospel they are condemned by their own sinfulness, since, apart from God’s grace, and by their own “free-will” they would never choose God.

Here are seven points according to the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, as to how the servant of Christ ought to perform his ministry:

1. Painfully, not doing the work of the Lord negligently.

2. Plainly, that the meanest may understand; delivering the truth not in the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; abstaining also from an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases, and cadences of sounds and words; sparingly citing sentences of ecclesiastical or other human writers, ancient or modern, be they never so elegant.

3. Faithfully, looking at the honour of Christ, the conversion, edification, and salvation of the people, not at his own gain or glory; keeping nothing back which may promote those holy ends, giving to every one his own portion, and bearing indifferent respect unto all, without neglecting the meanest, or sparing the greatest, in their sins.

4. Wisely, framing all his doctrines, exhortations, and especially his reproofs, in such a manner as may be most likely to prevail; shewing all due respect to each man’s person and place, and not mixing his own passion or bitterness.

5. Gravely, as becometh the word of God; shunning all such gesture, voice, and expressions, as may occasion the corruptions of men to despise him and his ministry.

6. With loving affection, that the people may see all coming from his godly zeal, and hearty desire to do them good. And,

7. As taught of God, and persuaded in his own heart, that all that he teacheth is the truth of Christ; and walking before his flock, as an example to them in it; earnestly, both in private and publick, recommending his labours to the blessing of God, and watchfully looking to himself, and the flock whereof the Lord hath made him overseer: So shall the doctrine of truth be preserved uncorrupt, many souls converted and built up, and himself receive manifold comforts of his labours even in this life, and afterward the crown of glory laid up for him in the world to come.

Q.What shall be done to the righteous at the day of judgment?

A. At the day of judgment, the righteous, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be set on his right hand, and there openly acknowledged and acquitted, shall join with him in the judging of reprobate angels and men, and shall be received into heaven, where they shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and holy angels, but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment. - Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 90

It is not uncommon to hear passionate living being contrasted with proper understanding. On the one side is a passionate life for Christ, full of zeal and love, spent doing the work of God, versus a life of orthodox theology, or proper understanding of God as revealed in scripture. Oftentimes, the latter is downplayed and even set against proper living as if it were its enemy. An example that one might hear is that of a man passionately praying and helping out his neighbors, loving everyone around him, living a “passionate life” while not having the deepest understanding of theology versus another man who sits in his study all day, isolated from the world reading his Bible, studying esoteric doctrines that really have no impact on life, having. The former does the true kingdom work, while the latter studies his Greek and Hebrew, doing no real work for the kingdom. Of course, consideration ought to be taken as to why such a reaction is occurring against theology, there being a degree of truth to it, but such a comparison, in my opinion, is based on a very serious presupposition that is absolutely wrong.

Just to be fair, there are some who do say the above without meaning that the two are in contrast. However, it is safe to say, that many actually do hold that orthodoxy (correct teaching) is an enemy of orthopraxy (correct practice). The fact of the matter is that the two are inseparably bound. Correct teaching, if properly accepted and truly believed, will necessarily lead to correct practice. Conversely, false teaching, if accepted and believed, will always lead to false living.

An example commonly utilized by those who set proper theology against passionate living is that of the Pharisees, who were the top religious leaders of their time, and yet were called “a brood of vipers” and “white washed tombs” by Christ Himself. They are pointed to as those who had the most orthodox beliefs, and because of their dedication to studying the Law alone, they did not please God they became heartless men who sought their own gain, rather than the glory of God. Then, in contrast to these men, were the disciples, mere fishermen, though they lacked the sort of theology that the pharisees had, yet they were passionate about following Christ. Hopefully, the reader can already see a problem. First, the Pharisees did not have the good theology. They were unorthodox. Just a few examples Matthew 15:6, they, “invalidated the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition.” They did not hold to everything that Scripture said, but placed tradition as a higher authority. They called Christ Beelzebul! Can one’s theology get any worse? Christ tells the other religious leaders, the Sadducees that they “are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (22:29) Their theology was completely off, they had a view of God that was so far off that they were called sons of the devil. Some may point to Christ’s exhortation to “do what they say, not what they do” as His affirmation of their orthodoxy, but He was affirming the Mosaic Law that they promoted, not their theology. For they wrongly thought that they were in obedience to the Law, having a false view regarding its demands.Thus, the hypocritical Pharisees were rebuked by Christ were rebuked for false living, but this was not a result of arrogance in orthodoxy, but rather, a completely false understanding of it (as a result of their depravity). Now, I do not think it necessary to show that the disciples of Christ, post-ressurection had orthodox theology, it is, after all, their epistles from which we, who consider ourselves orthodox, derive our theology.

Conversely, it is safe to say that bad theology always leads to bad living. Not saying that bad theology always leads to hell, no doubt, most of us are likely wrong somewhere (particularly in the realm of eschatology… we can’t all be right!) but incorrect theology (to the degree of its emphasis in scripture) will necessarily lead to improper living. An example of this is the church in Thessalonica. They believed that Christ had already come and so they sold all their possessions, stopped working and thus, the entirety of their lives were changed based on this one believe. Because of bad theology, Paul had to write to correct them and exhort them, based on proper theology, to live correctly. Similarly, the book of Galatians was written to fend off the Galatians from false teaching, from a works-based righteousness. This is heresy, or to put it euphemistically, bad theology. The believers were being shaken to the point that Paul had to ask them who it was that bewitched them (Gal. 3:1). The epistles were written for the sake of exhortation or correction in terms of theological beliefs. Thus, the apostles knew their theology, and wrote to correct improper theology.

Even in the case that the “living” was “right” (by this I mean moral in the world’s eyes), if such living was motivated by bad theology it would be pointed out and corrected. A prime example would be the Judaizers who promoted a “moral” life, yet did so on the basis of incorrect theology. If the goal of Christianity was merely to produce a moral person, then the means would not be of importance, but the goal of Christianity is to convert depraved men so that they might trust in Christ for their righteousness. This may cause some to sin more that grace may increase, but clearly such men do not know their theology. If Paul’s aim was to produce men who merely lived “right” lives then he would not have preached the gospel as he did, seeing that it led some to think they could use grace as a license to sin. Paul, in Romans 6, does not turn and change his mind on his doctrine of justification by Christ’s righteousness alone, but holds to it and corrects the theology of the antinomians.

The danger then, is not proper theology, but two things:

1. A knowledge of theology without an embrace of it. There are two faiths described in the Bible, one that justifies (which will also produce fruit) and one that does not (James 2), similarly there is a godly sorrow leading to repentance and a worldly sorrow leading to death. It is not an odd thing to find, then, that there are two types of orthodoxy (not a real distinction within orthodoxy, but one made because it exists) true orthodoxy, and shallow orthodoxy. It is not enough to “know” theology. The demons believe and shudder, Satan is the greatest theologian in terms of knowledge, but an embrace of it by faith must take place. If it is not affecting every part of one’s life, then it is highly probably that somewhere along the line one’s theology is “off”. Either this, or it is not truly believed. Any man who knows he is bound to hell, who has a proper understanding of both sin, hell, grace, faith and justification will necessarily see his own hopelessness and turn to Christ. Yet a man who does not understand either the depth of his own depravity, the consequences of it, the sufficiency of Christ’s work or the doctrine of justification will not turn to Christ. True orthodoxy will lead to orthopraxy. One may object and point out that even the most orthodox believer still sins, yet if viewed carefully the occassions that believers do sin are those occasions that we suppress the truth, thinking that God “will not do good or bad.” There is always a false understanding of theology (or a suppression of true theology) when a Christian gives in to intentional sin. This occurs because of the radical depravity accompanying the fall.

2. A “passionate life” without proper theology. Paul speaks of his fellow country men who “have a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge.” It is very possible to be zealous for God, and yet to be ignorant of Him. There is no possible way to live a proper life without a proper understanding. Or there is no way to have orthopraxy without orthodoxy. It is imperative to have good theology. Bad theology takes glory from God, bad theology, as evidenced in the pharisees will produce a legalistic, works-based righteousness sort of mentality. At best it will make the Christian life extremely difficult, at worst it will lead many down that broad road to destruction. Without a proper doctrine of sin, a proper doctrine of man’s depravity, and of impending judgment, and of God’s free grace in Christ, it is difficult at best, and impossible at worst for sinners to come to Christ.

Good theology, in and of itself is not sufficient, but it is absolutely necessary, and if embraced, it will lead to proper practice. Someone has put it like this, “The deeper the theology, the higher the doxology.” Proper theology and an embrace of it, is everything.

I first heard about Smeaton’s book titled, “The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement” from The Shepherd’s Scrapbook, picked it up not really knowing what to expect, but at this point I think I can say that this book is one of my favorites this year. As the title suggests, Smeaton goes through all the epistles exegetically interpreting specific passages in order to show the apostles’ view of the atonement. His style of writing is clear, and what I really appreciate is how faithful Smeaton is to the text of Scripture. In reading, one does not get the uncomfortable suspicion that Smeaton may be milking a certain passage to read in a way that he wants, or that he is basing his interpretation on unwarranted presuppositions. He clearly proves what he says through thorough exegesis while countering the more popular arguments against the reformed view. The clarity of his writing and exegesis as well as the constant repetition of the basic doctrine of the atonement really do get ingrained into one’s head, and I think it is impossible to read this without being much affected by what God has done in Christ. In addition, one discovers that all this talk about the Reformers getting it wrong has no real warrant. The Reformation did not begin simply because a guilt-laden monk eisogetically interpreted scripture to get what he wanted to hear, but began though the true gospel as found in scripture. Here is an excerpt that cannot but leave the reader with a much deeper view of and greater appreciation for the atonement:

…by God’s appointment [Christ] was made sin, not in mere semblance, but in reality, not before men, but before God, on the great foundation of a federal unity between Him and His people. He was, as it were, the embodiment of sin or incorporated guilt; and we may well affirm that never was so much sin accumulated upon a single head. He was not made sin in a vague, indefinite, abstract way; but the very sins of which we are painfully conscious in the moment of our conviction–that is, our own sins of nature and life–were laid on Him, or transferred from our head to His. He bore their burden; and this rendered it possible to visit Him with the recompense due to sin, and with its necessary punishment, which would otherwise have been impossible. - George Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p.226

“The terrible thing is that in these degenerate times the consciences of thousands have been drugged by preachers (whom it is greatly to be feared are themselves spiritually dead, and helping forward the work of Satan) that have presented “the eternal security of the saints” in such an unscriptural way, as to convey to their poor hearers the impression that, provided they once “accepted Christ as their personal Saviour” Heaven is now their certain portion, that guilt can nevermore rest upon them, and that no matter what sins they may commit nothing can possibly jeopardize their eternal interests. The consequence has been — and this is no imaginary fear of ours, but a patent fact of observation on every side — that a carnal security has been imparted, so that in the midst of fleshly gratification and worldly living it is, humanly speaking, quite impossible to disturb their false peace or terrify their conscience.” - Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, p.618