Hello.  Welcome back.  Long story short: Aaron and I have been busy this summer.  We’ve also encountered some issues regarding the role of apologetics in Christianity which have put our operations on hold.  While we’re still figuring things out, we will be turning our attention more to doctrinal discussion than defending the faith.

As some of you may be aware, I am a Calvinist.  I believe in all five points of the Doctrines of Grace.  My next posts will go into these five doctrines in depth, but for now I wanted to describe my position as an introduction for where all of this is going.

I recently engaged in a discussion on Reformed theology and was told that I did not due justice to certain traits of God.  Specifically, I did not make God seem very personal or relational.  At the time, my main focus was to promote God’s holiness and sovereignty, but my friend seemed to think that what I said negated other characteristics of God.

I’ve been reading an outstanding book by James White titled The Potter’s Freedom.  I think White does an awesome job at showing just how personal the God of Calvinism is against the God painted by Arminianism.  I find it sad that an Arminian, when faced with the Scriptural support of Calvinism, sees God as impersonal when his own theology makes God nothing more than an impersonal negotiator.

When I say that God is personal, I don’t mean it in the sense promoted by the popular, emergent, seeker friendly church taking over America today.  It is an injustice to paint God as a big buddy up in the sky.  Not to stray too far from my point, but let me just say that the problem with the emergent and seeker friendly churches is that they wish to be in the world, seem of the world, and yet somehow, preach against it.  The first part is unavoidable.  The second is foolish (”friendship with the world is hostility toward God,” James 4:4).  The third is ridiculous.  These churches find the third commitment hardest to uphold since it is an outlier and contradicts the first two.  Instead of preaching the Gospel (all of it, even the offensive parts), these churches want to be relevant.  We will see within the next few weeks why this endeavor is misguided and profitless.  That is, relevant-ism is based on the assumption that putting the Gospel in other forms, or maybe just rewriting it to “sound better,” will accomplish more souls being saved.  Paul was not ashamed of the Gospel (Romans 1:16), and neither should we be.  The reason I use the word ridiculous in this situation is because Scripture speaks directly against such thinking (i.e., that we can entice people to Jesus).  First of all, Romans 3 makes it clear that no one (universal negative here) is seeking God.  Secondly, Romans 8:6-8 declares that unregenerate people are by nature hostile to God.  The Gospel is not attractive to them.  Thirdly, Jesus explains in John 8:42-47 why people cannot naturally understand or respond to the Gospel.  Indeed, He tells the Jews that they must be of God to even hear His words.  It follows, then, that God must do something to convert people before the Gospel even impresses their ears.  So, when churches say they want to be relevant and preach the Gospel, they contradict themselves.  The Gospel is not of the world nor attractive to it, so why try to seem culturally progressive and at the same time preach the Gospel?  This is not only inconsistent but hypocritical.

Hopefully you will see my point through the coming months.  But back to the original point: I want to consider the first chapter of Ephesians and the eighth chapter of Romans to see just how personal God is.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Ephesians 1:3-11

We’ll compare Calvinism and Arminianism more in the near future, but for now just know that when the Bible speaks of predestination, Calvinists see the term as a choice of God made without regard to man’s actions to save a certain number of people who otherwise would be lost eternally whereas Arminianism understands that God foresaw who would accept His gift of salvation and reacted by choosing those people.  Leaving behind the debate over free will, what we should see here is that one view has God acting purposefully to achieve His desires whereas the other has God “knowing” the future and allowing it to happen, and this, passively.  However, looking at this and similar passages shows just how active God is in redeeming His people.  Arminianism makes God’s salvific plan out to be an impersonal possibility; that is, God chose in eternity past to save whoever would choose Him, but not individuals specifically.  Calvinism has God saving individuals He has “foreknown” from before the earth was formed.

Look at how personal Paul makes God out to be: “blessed us with every spiritual blessing,” “predestined to adoption,” “riches of grace lavished upon us,” “obtained an inheritance.”  What do all these phrases bespeak?  A father’s care for His children.  Indeed, the Arminian view utterly escapes Paul.  Consider verse four: “just as He chose us.”  What does God choose?  People.  God does not choose to save (an action) but people.  Paul makes the object personal.  And the first person plural used here makes it clear that God chose specific people, not a “whosoever.”  After all, as James White puts it, “God does not adopt plans, nor nameless, faceless masses of humans but persons.”

28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 8:28-30

I mentioned the term “foreknown” to describe God’s relationship to His elect.  It it important to understand foreknowledge in its biblical sense in order to fully grasp what Paul writes.  Just as Arminians make predestination out to be passive, they also make foreknowledge out to be impersonal.  Unfortunately, God’s foreknowledge is never impersonal; that is, whenever God foreknows (Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20), the direct object of His foreknowledge is always a who, not a what.  Every time God foreknows, the object is personal.  White summarizes:

Therefore, to say that God foreknows acts, faith, behavior, choices, etc. is to assume something about the term that is not witnessed in the biblical text.  God foreknows persons not things.

The Arminian assertion that God’s choice of His elect is based on what He “foreknows” people will do is unfounded.

God’s personal knowledge of individuals is likewise found in the Old Testament.  In Jeremiah 1, God tells the prophet that He “knew” him before He formed him in the womb.  In Exodus 33, God says He has known Moses by name.

17The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.”

White comments on Exodus 33 to say:

This tremendous passage….reveals the very personal aspect of God’s “knowing” of an individual.  Obviously the Lord is not revealing to Moses, “I know your name!”  This “knowing” is intimate, personal, and is connected with the fact that Moses “found favor” in the sight of God.  This is a gracious knowing, a gracious choosing of Moses to receive the benefits of God’s mercy.

White then brings up Amos 3:2.

2“You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth;
Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

It is interesting to note that “chosen” is literally “known” in the Hebrew.  This shows just how strongly personal God’s gracious choice is.  God, obviously, has awareness of other nations than Israel (the person of this passage), but Israel alone does He know intimately, personally.

Returning to Romans 8, we see that God’s knowledge is just as personal as the Old Testament references.  As White says, “[God's foreknowing] is just as personal as every other action on the string.”  Now, hopefully, I cannot be accused of proclaiming an impersonal deity, but a Sovereign, personal Father.

Posted: 07|28|08 at 1:36 am. Filed under: Nick's Posts, Reformed Theology, Thoughts.
Comment | Trackback