‘Credit the Calvinists’: A First Things Article by a Non-Calvinist

It’s always interesting to hear Non-Calvinists interact with Calvin and his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian ReligionMost recently, James R. Rogers, a political science professor at Texas A & M and a self-described non-Calvinist, made some astute observations about Calvin, Luther, and Augustine. Here is his lead paragraph.

I picked up John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion some years back. Dipping into it, I anticipated a dry, grim, and doctrinaire treatise. Perhaps because I came to it with such low expectations, the books surprised me. I found the Institutes surprisingly accessible, written by a lively, engaged mind. I anticipated the argument of the books to be tightly wound around the theme of God’s sovereignty—with the focus on God’s glory coming at the expense of humanity’s abasement. Instead, as in Martin Luther’s treatment of predestination, I found that God’s sovereignty and the doctrine of predestination played a manifestly pastoral role in Calvin’s theology. The focus was not on obliterating the human, but rather underscoring God’s great love for his people in rescuing humanity from death, darkness, and despair. The upshot of the doctrine as I read Calvin was “This is a God you can trust.”

I would whole-heartedly agree with Rogers. Anyone who critiques Calvinism carte blanche has never read Calvin. Calvin’s Institutes—aside from his polemical arguments against Roman Catholicism—is entirely devotional. It beckons the reader not to know theology, but to know God. Predestination for Calvin—and the Calvinists I know—is not a heady doctrine to figure out who’s in and who’s out. It’s the humbling truth that God from eternity past has been at work to secure my salvation.

Rogers whole article, “Credit the Calvinists,” is worth reading, as it recognizes a major reason why Calvinism is both loved and hated today. Against the current spirit of the age, Calvinism offers an anthropology (i.e., a view of humanity) that bespeaks man’s moral inability to seek after God. He summarizes why many oppose Calvinism,

Modern man does not want to be transparent before God, or before anyone else. We deem it an invasion of our privacy and of our autonomy. We want our hearts to be the one place in creation so sacred that even God dare not tread there.

Rogers is right. No one naturally desires to relinquish sovereignty over his life.  As Paul put it, quoting the Psalms,

None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one. (Rom 3:10-12)

The glory of a Reformed soteriology (doctrine of salvation) is that the Triune God liberates the heart enslaved to sin, so that regenerate man might freely choose Christ. Calvinism does not decimate free will; it rehabilitates it by means of the resurrecting power of the effectual call. May we rejoice in that truth and preach the gospel to all men, so that the good shepherd would claim his sheep by name.

Soli Deo Gloria, dss

How Did We Get Here? A Basic Outline on Western Thought

‘How did we get here?’

That’s a good question. Whether you are lost in the woods or lost in the world, retracing your steps is a vital way of finding our bearings and dealing with lostness.

This Sunday, I begin a sermon series on a biblical view of marriage and sexuality. However, before approaching the horizon of the biblical text, we must know where are we and what are we dealing with. I am not suggesting that our cultural location is the church’s normative authority.  Just the reverse. However,  to help Christians (and non-Christians) understand what God expects of our sexuality, we must consider some of the influences that have shaped our present sexual climate.

With that in mind, I have drawn up a basic graph that traces how Westerners have changed their thinking over the last two millennia. Continue reading

A Letter to My Church: A Sexual Manifesto on Biblical Holiness

Pastors have a responsibility to teach the whole counsel of God and to help the people of God form a biblical worldview. With this conviction in mind, I will be leading a series on what the Bible says about marriage and sexuality. In preparation for that series, I wrote this letter to our church: ‘A Sexual Manifesto: Embracing the Church’s New Mission.’ Let me know what you think.

If you haven’t noticed, things aren’t the way they used to be.

It wasn’t long ago that the boys’ bathroom was for . . . well, boys. Homecoming queens had to use a razor on their legs (not their face). Marriage was legally defined as the union of a man and woman. And Christians had a place at the table in regards to influencing public policy.

In what seems like the blink of an eye, all of these givens are gone. With more people in Georgia supporting same-sex marriage than opposing it, the once influential Bible Belt is nor more. Christendom as we know it—or should we say, as we knew it—has collapsed. Welcome to the new America.  Continue reading

Finding An Anchor in the Storm

Last night, our church meditated on the subject of suffering and the problem of evil. It is a complex subject that requires a multi-layer response, which when it is all said and done, still requires agonizing faith to endure in times of horrendous suffering.

That said, good theology is essential to suffering well. On that note, Oliver O’Donovan has a helpful statement about the ‘inscrutability of providence’ and the need to interpret evil in light of Christ’s resurrection. Here’s what he said. Continue reading

‘As Yourself’: Jesus Command to Love

Over the month of September, our church has been meditating on 1 Corinthians 13 and what it means to love. In preparation for last week’s sermon, I came across this quote by John Piper. In it he turns the therapeutic counsel of learning how to love yourself on its head. Instead of telling sinners whose greatest penchant is to love themselves, Piper points out how Jesus—who knew what was in a man’s heart (see John 2:23-25)—assumed that we already love ourselves and that we must learn to love others “as yourself.”  Speaking of Matthew 22:39, Piper unpacks Jesus’ words, Continue reading

Happily Ever After: A Meditation on God’s Word

What is the Bible?

In theological terms, the Bible is God’s inspired Word, his authoritative revelation of who he is, what he has done, and what he expects from his creatures. Yet, in terms of genre, what is the Bible?

Some speak of Scripture as God’s love letter to humanity; others describe it as God’s instruction manual—Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (B.I.B.L.E.). I am much more inclined to ground the Bible’s imperatives (read: laws) in the infinitives of what God has done (think: gospel). The Bible is not a human book for struggling humans. More fundamentally it is a book from God, about God, for God’s people to be reconciled to God. To say it differently: It is a word about the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, the one in whom all creation is unified (Eph 1:10).

For this reason, the most appropriate designation for the Bible is that it is an Epic Comedy that effects Salvation and Judgment. Let me explain.  Continue reading

Philippians 2:5-8: A Literary Structure

In his commentary on PhilippiansMoises Silva outlines the literary structure to Philippians 2:5-8 in two parallel stanzas. This passage, regularly assumed to be an early Christian hymn, has received much attention from scholars  and for good reason. It beautifully describes the incarnation and crucifixion of our Lord, which entitled Jesus to receive the name of above all names (vv. 9-11).

Silva’s outline  discerns the structure of the hymn and helps the reader see the main points of the passage.

who in the FORM of God existing in likeness of men BECOMING
not an advantage considered his being equal with God and in appearance being found as man
but nothing he made himself he humbled himself
the FORM of a servant adopting BECOMING obedient to death

Here is his line-by-line explanation: Continue reading

Christ, Our Willing Sacrifice

Hebrews 10:4 states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot atone for sin. To those familiar with the argument of Hebrews or the typology of sacrifice in the Bible, it will come as no surprise that an animal cannot atone for the sins of a human. The Old Testament sacrifice can only purify the flesh, and only for a time. The value of an animal is insufficient for ransoming men made in the image of God. Only another man can do that, but then only if that man is unblemished in body and will.

Writing about the mind of Christ in Philippians 2, Alec Motyer makes this point extremely well (see his commentary, The Message of Philippians, 117). Continue reading

Five Things You Need to Know to Battle Conflict

Ever walk plan on making a home repair in less than an hour, only to find that four hours into it, the problem has only gotten worse?

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all the time.

Faced with the thorns and thistles of our fallen world, we groan under the weight of problems and predicaments that are more difficult than we expect. The same is true with inter-personal relationships.

In marriages, schools, and businesses all over the world, people sin against one another. The result? Conflict! Continue reading

Faith Works: The Obedience of Faith in Hebrews 11

In 1993, John MacArthur released the book Faith Works: The Gospel According to the ApostlesIn his book, he showed how the apostles consistently speak of faith as resulting in  good works. This is a doctrine—sometimes called Lordship Salvation; or, historically a defense against antinomianism—that I have embraced for a long time. This week, however, another passage supporting this doctrine came to the forefront of my mind. The passage is the much beloved Hebrews 11.

The use of this passage in the debate is certainly not new, but it was a passage that I had not really considered in the debates surrounding faith and works.  Typically, I would look to Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:10; or James 2.  However, after spending some time on Hebrews 11, I am convinced, it is just as persuasive. Consider with me. Continue reading