Tag: Christianity

God Working in Us: Philippians 2:13 And the Will

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

I’m getting ready to start up my series on the Calvinist view of the atonement soon. One of the objections which has already arisen in the comments on part 1, is the idea that Calvinists believe God somehow forces unbelievers to believe the Gospel. Faith is not a gift from God, it is claimed, but rather something the lost must do. They are offered life upon the condition of faith, and while God may help them believe, He will not “force” them.

What I find amusing in this objection is how the same people who hold that view find no problems with the following verse.

Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

This verse teaches clearly that in the lives of believers, God works in them both providing the will and doing the works in and through them. This is why Paul says:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor. 15:10)

Christians have no problem affirming that God works in the very hearts and minds of believers. God empowers them for every good work (1 Cor. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:11). He equips us with everything we need to do what is right. But He does more than that, He works in us the very things that please Him:

Heb 13:20-21 Now may the God of peace… equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

In doing all of this, is God forcing believers to please Him? Doesn’t God’s work negate the goodness of the works we believers produce? On the one hand, the good works of believers testify to them and others that we are truly justified and actually regenerate. They provide assurance that we are God’s children. But God is the one producing these works. God requires this of us, but then He works in us to do what He requires.

I think most of us agree with this and find no problems. What is the difference then when it comes to unbelievers? Do they have to give God the key to their hearts before He’ll work in them to believe? Is God’s work in believers okay because we sanctioned it, but not okay in unbelievers because they haven’t? If God works in unbelievers to will to receive Christ as Lord, is this forcing them to do something against their will?

For my part, I don’t see how we can draw a line between believers and unbelievers which limits God’s ability or right to work in hearts. I see the teaching of Scripture that God works in us to will as fitting nicely with the passages which teach that faith and repentance are gifts (see Acts 11:18, 15:9, 18:27; Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:14; Acts 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:21).

I have further support in this idea of there being no hard and fast line which limits God from working in unbelievers like He does in believers. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul starts out by thanking God for the believers growing faith. He doesn’t point to the believers as the source of the growth in faith, but thanks God (1:3). Then later in the epistle, Paul goes on in the same vein:

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13)

Paul thanks God for choosing them to be saved. God accomplished that through His Spirit’s work, and by providing belief in them.

So I conlude we should praise God for working in us to trust Him, and to grow in His grace to the degree that we have. Praise God for mercifully energizing my heart and giving me a desire to live for Him!

Jesus is Alive – Shai Linne

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I thought I’d start out my blogging this year with something fun. I’ve been shown this video clip a few times now, and I thought it would be great to share it with you all.

Shai Linne is a Christ-centered, reformed rapper. The lyrics to this song will challenge and encourage you. I encourage you to give it a try, you’ll find that holy hip hop isn’t so scary. Especially the variety that Shai Linne and Timothy Brindle and company dish out. Check out their label: Lampmode Records.

Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, a dear brother in Christ posted a lengthy rebuke of limited atonement as a comment on my blog. I promised him a response and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his concerns.

A Widespread Concern

Many Christians are very concerned over the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. To them, the very words “limited atonement” imply something totally foreign to Scripture — that Christ’s atonement is limited. Christ’s power isn’t, neither is His love. Worse yet, there are many verses which seem to teach that God loves all and wants all to be saved, and that Jesus suffered and died for all. So Calvinism then, is unscriptural and dangerous in that it teaches Christ’s power is limited.

The motivation behind the above conclusion is commendable. Scripture is more important than any system of belief and Christ’s power is not limited. Such points are important to defend. The problem comes from the basis of the above conclusion. Most Christians who object to Calvinism on this point do not understand what it is that Calvinism is actually teaching by means of the words “limited atonement”.

The Cavlinist Concern

Before I explain what Calvinists affirm by this doctrine, I want to point out something very pertinent to this debate. The very Christians who claim Calvinism limits the atonement, limit the atonement themselves. They admit that not all are saved finally. This admission teaches that the atonement Christ performed did not have complete saving results for all people. And since it was done for all people alike, then it is incomplete in the sense that people must respond and believe to finish the work of the atonement. So, in effect, Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone.

The Calvinist View of The Atonement

This is where Calvinists part ways with the idea of unlimited atonement. When we think about atonement, we see men as dead sinners totally in need of a Savior. Every thought of our hearts are vile and we do not even have the ability to please God in any way. Yet God in his mercy chose a people for his sake to glorify his name. He is cleansing and purifying that people and he has given them as a bride to his Son. His Son keeps them and will not lose any the Father has given him. It is for these and these alone that Jesus in his High Priestly role prays (John 17:9, 12). It is this flock that he keeps and guides. And if one is not part of the flock they will not believe (John 10:26). It is for these– his people, the many– that Christ lays down his life (John 10:11; Matt. 1:21; 26:28). He purchased his church with his blood (Acts 20:28), and he died for the purification of his bride (Eph. 5:25-26). He didn’t also purchase the non-church and die to purify the non-bride.

For salvation to occur, sins need to be paid for and the penalty used up. God’s wrath needs to be spent on a substitute, that it might be propitiated. The condemned need someone to die in their place, instead of them. Once such a substitutionary death takes place, there remains no more penalty for sins. Such a sacrifice purchases the sinner and buys him back from death’s domain. That blessed man has been saved.

Faith is still necessary, but such faith is a gift of God. The sinner is an enemy of God and hostile to God. He wants no part of God. What makes his anger towards God cease? How can his dead heart start living by faith? How can his unborn existence become born into new life? The Spirit graciously applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial work in the hearts of the elect causing them to awake and instantaneously believe in Christ. To be alive is to have been born, and to be spiritually alive is to have been regenerated. Spiritual life is not possible without faith. And faith is not possible for the non-elect. When the Gospel is preached, the elect ones respond in belief by the working of the Spirit. And the miracle of salvation is seen by all.

Are we co-operators with God in our salvation? He dies for us and just stands at our heart’s door meekly knocking hoping we’ll believe? Or is he the one who comes to the tomb or our hearts shouting “Lazarus come forth!”

The Real Question

So at the end of the day, both groups limit the atonement in some sense. The question in my mind should center on what we mean by “atonement”. After the break here, I’ll provide an excerpt from an earlier post I did on this topic, and offer some other links to help people understand just how Calvinism impacts evangelism, and why I see strong scriptural warrant for the postions of Calvinism.

The following quote is from my post: “Who’s Limiting the Atonement?”

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference””Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

Additional Resources

Why Not to Visit Israel

~ fundyreformed ~ 22 Comments

Every decent Christian longs to go to the Holy Land.   They would love an opportunity to see the places where Biblical events happened, touch places Jesus may have touched, see where the Temple stood and where the empty tomb may have been.   Right?   Isn’t that true?

Well, I agree with John Piper.   I don’t really want to go to the Holy Land.   I don’t feel I need to.   This past Sunday, in Pastor Piper’s message, he declared that he’s never been to Israel, and he doesn’t want to go.   He even asked the church not to send him.   His sermon is available here, but Junior transcribed the part about Israel.   I’ll post his transcription here, and then the edited version in the print copy of his sermon.

Jesus is where we meet God. If you want to say, “Where on the planet today is a holy place that I can do a pilgrimage and be in the house of God?” Answer, “Jesus!” You want to go to a holy place on the planet? Stand still and come to Jesus. There aren’t any holy sites in the Christian religion. Zero. I’ve never gone to Israel mainly for that reason. Please, when I’m here 30 years don’t give me a free trip to Israel – fix my car. I got no problem with you going to Israel. I don’t want any emails. There’s just no more Jesus in Israel than there is in your pew right now.   [Actual quote]

Now Jesus is the new Beth-el. He is the place where God is present. Heaven has opened, and Jesus has appeared. And from now on, Jesus will be the place where God appears most clearly among men, and where men find their way into fellowship with God. There are no holy geographic places any more designated by God as his meeting place with man. Jesus is that meeting place.   [Edited revision of this part]

The reason pastor Piper says these things is that the Bible doesn’t teach that Israel is some special holy land that believers should long for.   No Israel–the land–pointed to a greater reality, that of spiritual fellowship with God.   We don’t need to go anywhere to be closer to Jesus, we are members of His Body.   We don’t need to look for a future Temple, we are the reconstituted Temple.

For more on this idea, I’d encourage you to check out my series of posts on Understanding the Land Promise.

Reading, Writing and The Internet

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Recently, I was discussing how blogging and book-reading complement each other. I find I read more theological books as a result of my blogging than I might otherwise. Yet blogging does eat up time and keep me from reading as much as I’d like. It’s more than just time, however. Blogging gives me bits and pieces of info which fascinate me and substitute the place of reading to some degree.

It’s not just blogging. All things internet promote a piecemeal view of the world. News and information, on the run, in bite size pieces. Immediate access. Unending links to yet more and more and more. The daily presence and impact of the internet on the majority of today’s culture, myself included, is shaping how we think and how we read.

In college, I was required to read Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death. In that book he argued that the various technological media of our day and any other, impact what and how we think far more than we realize. He showed how the printing press revolutionized the world, just as had the alphabet before it, and now the TV (and nightly news) after it. I think Neil’s work should be updated to include the internet’s influence. It will be interesting to see how dramatically it will shape our thinking and culture.

My thoughts here were spurred on by stumbling across an interesting article entitled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” [HT: Stephen Altrogge]. Nicholas Carr, who recently published a book on this topic, does a good job of explaining the problem in this column (published in The Atlantic). It’s definitely worth your time to read it all the way through (without skimming, mind you…).

I’m not so sure the internet’s influence is a huge problem, but I think we should all be aware as to just how much our reading habits are influenced by our internet usage. This makes me even more satisfied with my new focus on reading and reviewing more books on my blog. This will help my blog serve my aim to read more books. I hope you’ll join me in reading more books, because Christians after all, are people of The Book. It follows we need to preserve the art of reading and thinking (and even writing), since God communicated to us not in a movie, or a drama, not on the internet or a magazine, but through books, 66 of them.