The Sword Room

Israel rejected God as their king in place of an earthly ruler. In their foolishness they thought a powerful human warrior king would provide them the visible tangible security they desired, instead of the theocratic system where they must trust the unseen God and rely on a succession of judges raised up by the Lord for their protection and deliverance. As then so now, people want to look to a man instead of God.

So God gave the people what they wanted–Saul. Saul was a handsome man who stood head-and-shoulders above the people; but inside he was a cowardly, spineless, compromising fool who ultimately was forsaken by the Lord and after consulting a medium for guidance before taking his own life on the field of battle entered into an eternity of conscious torment.

After Saul it was David who, although he was a man after God’s own heart, was a loose cannon with a weakness for women. When he died he was succeeded by his son Solomon. Solomon was granted extraordinary wisdom by the Lord but he was so busy building an ornate temple supposedly for the Lord, that he laid a heavy burden of taxation on the people while at the same time allowing their worship of pagan deities to go unchecked. When he died and was succeeded by his son Rehoboam the people were fed up.

I have been reading about these events today in 1 Kings 12. When Rehoboam came to power the northern ten tribes assembled at Shechem to ask for relief from the heavy burden of taxation. Such a request was not unreasonable given the fact that the temple was completed. Rehoboam’s elderly and more seasoned advisors counseled him to grant the request of the people; but he ignored their advice and listened to his younger circle of friends and told the people: My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins….My father chastised you with cords, but I will chastise you with whips (12:10-11).

What happens when people are squashed under the hand of a heartless despot who will not listen to their cries? They rebel and look, not to God, but for another human ruler who will dance to their drum and offer them a meal ticket. The application to our present situation here in America is obvious. Many feel that we have a president who disregards the constitution, does an end-around the legislative branch with executive orders, and puts political pressure on the judicial branch to get them on board with his agenda. Working class people and business owners are complaining about higher taxes squandered on government handout programs. Illegal aliens are receiving better benefits than military veterans. First and Second Amendment rights are hanging in the balance and people are asked to tighten the belt at a time when the president spends millions to go play golf in Florida with Tiger Woods, and the first Lady opens the envelope and announces the Oscar winner. Of course we are not in a covenant relationship with God as was Israel–the church is God’s holy nation, royal priesthood, and special people (1 Peter 2:8-10).

The ten tribes from the north looked to Jeroboam as their deliverer. They broke away from Judah and Levi to the south–seceded from the union, if you will. But Jereboam, who had been a military superstar under Solomon, adopted golden-calf worship during his exile in Egypt after Solomon started viewing him as a rival and put out a hit on his life. Jereboam didn’t want the people to be tied to the temple in Jerusalem and the Levitical system of worship, as prescribed by God in the Mosaic Covenant. So he created a new centralized place of worship–actually two: one in Bethel, the southernmost extremity of his domain, and one in Dan at the northernmost border. He had two golden calves made and created a whole new caste of priests who were not descendants of Levi or Aaron. This was a completely apostate system, but Jeroboam convinced the people that these golden calves were indeed responsible for their exodus from Egyptian bondage years earlier. How? He offered them freedom from oppression and a better meal ticket. That’s all it took then, and that’s all it would take now.

However, as believers we need to step back from the fervor, take a deep breath, and see one thing very clearly with regard to our current situation. For the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the lord (12:15). What we are seeing in our country has come to pass by the sovereign eternal decree of God–not one speck of it is outside His control. God has given us a godless, wicked, unregenerate, arrogant, autocratic president because we have rejected Him who is the only source of life and have carved out broken cisterns for ourselves that can hold no water. We are getting what we deserve. That smoldering stub, Jeremiah Wright, spoke prophetically after the fashion of Balaam’s ass when he declared that America’s chickens have come home to roost. The evangelical church in America has been slowly rotting from the inside out for decades, having been infected with the spiritual AIDS virus of Arminianism and the puny false god of the Arminian system. There is a famine in the land for the word of God. We have Bibles galore but no one wants to actually teach fearlessly the truths contained in those sacred pages. The remedy for our national ills is revival within the body of Christ. What we do not need is more dispy-Arminianism, psychobabble, and warm fuzzy swooning to narcissistic ditties and pulpit pabulum.

The Tea Party is a joke. Too many believers have mistaken the right wing of the Republican Party for the Kingdom of God. That is a mistake with disastrous consequences. Why? Because if you seek relief from oppression but refuse to repent of your false system of theology and the false god of that system, ultimately you will be swapping one godless leader for another. You will reject Rehoboam and replace him with Jeroboam. If you don’t understand where I’m going I strongly urge you to read my book: Breaking the Box: Rebuilding Faith in the God of the Bible.

I’m sorry, but this is no time to mince words. Time for all of us as God’s elect to get off our ass and on our knees. Time to pull our heads out of our derrieres and get that nose into the Word of God instead of the TV or computer screen. There is no guarantee of a best life now. Things may likely get worse before they get better. You may get cold, tired and hungry waging the good fight–but do not trade your birthright for a bowl of soup, thereby proving that like Esau you are a reprobate hated by God and headed for damnation.

Repent. And realize that God’s eternal purpose can never be confounded. Remember too, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism reminds us, that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. There is a joy and peace in serving the true God of Scripture and the real Jesus that transcends all description and comprehension.

Time to wake up and smell the spiritual coffee. Straight up, strong, and steaming hot.

Here is a scene from the movie Hardcore where the famous actor George C. Scott summarizes the biblical doctrines of grace. He is either rejoicing in glory now or gnawing his tongue in agony. His personality fits the stereotype of the typical Calvinist, does it not?

Of course you should read and study your Bible regularly. But if you are looking for a good Christian book to read let me make a suggestion. Read Pink’s The Sovereignty of God. It is very readable and very edifying. Written 60 years ago, it is as pertinent today as ever. We live in a day when the true God of the Bible is replaced with watered down fakes. This little book serves as an uplifting corrective and source of devotional blessing. And it won’t cost an arm and a leg. Buy it on Amazon and funnel no money to the local trinket and junk emporiums otherwise known as Christian book stores.

For those of you who don’t know it, common grace is the two-bit expression used to describe the blessings God showers on all people–believer and unbeliever. Sunshine, rain, the ability to look at the blue sky, green trees, golden fields, and appreciate their beauty. The capacity to enjoy the smell of flowers and the taste of good food. The love and closeness which result from relationships with friends and family. Jobs, money, and homes. All these good and perfect gifts come to us from the Fasther of lights with whom there is no shadow of variation.

This does not mean everyone enjoys all these good things at once, or to the same degree. It might be raining at my house while it is shining at yours. The beauty of nature is everywhere, but it looks different on the Kansas Plains than in the hills of Kentucky or red sandstone formations of Utah.

Then there is the bad stuff: sickness, death, crime, poverty, and natural disaster. For example, I went to a workshop yesterday where several teenage girls told their stories. They had all come from homes in which they had been neglected and physically, verbally, sexually, and emotionally abused. By the time they were in their early teens they were on the street, addicted to drugs, and sexually active. Most of them had been raped and gang raped. They gave testimonials to how they got clean and sober and back into school with the help of caring people.

When I heard the stories of these young ladies I immediately thanked God for the great family I was raised in. But I also thought about how we are quick to attribute the blessings in life to God but then act and think as if He has nothing to do with the bad stuff that comes our way. But if God is in control of the blessings in our lives, who calls the shots when it comes to the curveballs and beanballs life throws our way? To put the question a little differently, why were those girls raised in abusive homes while I enjoyed a loving family? Why have I been spared from the devastation of tsunamis, earthquakes, famines, etc., that have ripped the lives of others apart?

Several answers have been offered. Some would say bad things happen to bad people. That God sent the tsunami to Asia as a judgment against generations of Buddhism and Shintoism. Idiots like Pat Robertson claimed God sent the 911 destruction as punishment for America’s toleration of homosexuality. Others would slightly depersonalize this argument and say that we live in a fallen world. Sin has infected all of creation and suffering goes with the territory of living on this planet. Some would go so far as to suggest a kind of dualism in which God has literally no involvment with anything bad in the world. According to this kind of thinking it is as if Satan and mother nature work independently of God. This is a Christian kind of semi-deism. At the far fringe is pure deism, which I assume needs no explanation for my theologically astute swordroom readers.

Then there is the biblical doctrine of  divine providence. We see this concept in the stories of Joseph and Job. Both had been blessed by the Lord, and both had suffered horrifically through no fault of their own. In both stories we see that Satan and the brothers of Joseph meant it for bad, but God meant it for good. Good according to His definition and in His time. We trust God because He is in control of all which comes to pass in the universe because it is His universe. Everything in it belongs to Him, including us. Ultimately He is responsible for the thorns as well as the roses, for the pits as well as the cherries.

This bitter pill does not always go down easy. But without belief in the biblical teachings of common grace and divine providence, how could we trust God?

———————————————————————————————————————

Now for the rest of the story. No sooner had I finished this entry when my son informed me he had been in a fender bender last night about 11 pm, after I was in bed. Fortunately neither party was hurt and the accident was not his fault. Still, for a young man who has never had a ticket or an accident it was a bit stressful. He was able to drive the truck home, and the other lady’s car had to be towed (she ran a stop sign). It might take more than the truck is worth for repairs, so with the gray clouds God allows into our lives often there is a silver lining.

People often ask me how I explain verses which seem to contradict my biblical belief in unconditional election. Ezekiel 33:1 says God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked might turn from his ways and live. John 3:16 says God loved the world and gave his Son that they might believe and be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4 says God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Peter 3:9 says God is patient and wishes for none to perish but for all to come to repentance. 1 John 2:2 tells us Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and for the sins of the whole world. How do I explain these verses.

Before I even try to explain them I affirm them and believe them. If after that I am unable to reconcile them rationally or logically with the concept of God’s absolute sovereignty, then so be it. Still it is not easy to harmonize God’s hatred for Esau with His love for the world.

My belief is that God saw that the world (Greek Kosmos) was good. He loved it. I love my house but that doesn’t mean I love every individual part of it. In the Old Testament the Jews were the recipients of the covenants and promises, whereas today the gospel goes out to the whole world without ethnic distinction. Not only that, but Christ’s sacrifice does preserve the world in some sense. How else do you explain the fact that God doesn’t strike all sinners dead immediately and destroy the earth? So again, I have no problem with any of this. Christ’s death can in some sense benefit those individuals God has no intention of saving.

It is God’s nature to hate sin and love righteousness. He always desires these things and delights in them. Nothing would please God more than for sinners to repent and come to Him. But because of total depravity this will never happen without divine intervention. I don’t see the problem. Why can’t God make a choice but at the same time be grieved? If a wife makes an irrevocable choice to divorce and disown her husband, does that mean she can’t grieve over his unfaithfulness even though her decision is a done deal? If mortal finite humans can do this why can’t God?

The bottom line is that you must accept what God’s Word teaches even if you can’t understand it. No sense to go to extremes, as Calvinists and Arminians have been known to do and resort to intellectual gymnastics to avoid the obvious. It is what it is whether it makes perfect sense to you or not.

Spurgeon said that when he preached he acted as it it all depended on him, and when he prayed he acted as if it all depended on God. Not a bad perspective from a practical standpoint. Beyond that I’m sorry, but this just isn’t a brain-teaser for me. I take the lazy man’s way out and plead ignorance. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Perseverance of the Saints. This doctrine quite simply states that every sinner chosen for salvation from all eternity will in fact be drawn, regenerated, justified, and kept by the power of God: John 6:37-40; 10:27-29; Rom. 8:29-30, 35-39; Phil. 1:6; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Jude 24-25. Because the sinner did not save himself, neither is he able to cause his own spiritual ruin. Arminians generally leave the possibility open for a true child of God to lose his salvation, but a few hold to a view similar to the Reformed position known as eternal security. This is the doctrine of once-saved-always-saved. It is accurate in what it affirms but deficient in what it omits. The biblical doctrine of perseverance is comprehensive: the believer will not lose his salvation because he will never lose his faith. The same God who regenerated the sinner will fan the flame of faith throughout the life of the believer, and nothing will be able to extinguish it. A truly elect and regenerate believer may experience seasons of doubt and failure, but he will not walk in an ongoing pattern of habitual unrepentant sin, but will endeavor to make full proof of his calling and election (2 Peter 1:10-11).

The doctrine of eternal security is rooted in a flawed view of regeneration. Often those who hold to this view maintain that when a person is saved they are pronounced righteous in a positional sense, with no real spiritual change in their life. You hear this idea reflected when people say that the only difference between a saved sinner and an unsaved sinner is that the saved sinner is forgiven. But the Bible teaches that when a person is born again they receive a new heart that wants to serve God (Heb. 10:8-12). God’s Spirit enables them to resist temptation at every point (1 Cor. 10:13). While it is true that we often do not resist sin even though we are able to do so, it is equally true that a genuinely born again child of God cannot continue in sin that grace might abound (Rom. 6:1; 1 John 2:3-6; 3:6, 9).

Effectual Calling (Irresistible Grace). Because man is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) he must be made alive before he is able to exercise faith, so that when he believes he has already passed out of death into life (John 5:24). He must be born again (John 3:3), inasmuch as a dead man is incapable of responding to stimuli of any kind. This process of regeneration is described as a drawing (John 6:44) and an opening of the heart (Acts 16:14). It is nothing less than a spiritual rebirth (John 1:13; James 1:18). Total depravity renders faith in Jesus Christ impossible apart from the quickening ministry of the Holy Spirit. Calvinists believe that all who are called in this way will be saved (Rom. 8:29-30). This is why some refer to God’s regenerating grace as irresistible. But in fact no one who is made alive by the Spirit wants to resist God’s saving grace because his heart has been made willing.

Arminians will agree that God draws sinners to Himself. They part company with their Calvinist brothers in two details. First, they believe that even after being drawn and having his heart opened the sinner can resist the gospel call. For the Arminian the drawing and calling ministry are not synonymous with the new birth, which occurs after the sinner believes. In other words, for the Arminian regeneration is the result of saving faith and for the Calvinist it is the prerequisite cause. Calvinists argue that if a sinner was able to believe before being born again, then his faith would be a product of his dead unregenerate flesh.

In practice there is often little difference in how Calvinists and Arminians preach the gospel; but Calvinists are less prone to resort to gimmicks and psychological ploys to “woo” sinners to Christ. The Calvinist preaches the gospel confidently because he knows it is God who saves sinners and that the true power is in the message, not the messenger. Calvinists are less likely to resort to decisional evangelism where the new birth is reduced to the walking of aisles, repeating of prayers, raising of hands, or filling out of decision cards. For the Calvinist the issue is not whether you made a decision for Christ, but whether He made one for you. For the Calvinist the motive for evangelism is obedience born of love for the Lord rather than an obligation to “get people saved.” One man may plant and another may water, but God alone gives the increase.

Particular Redemption (Limited Atonement). For the purposes of this discussion we will consider three aspects of Christ’s atonement: its sufficiency, design, and effect. For liberals who deny the vicarious nature of the atonement the issues of sufficiency and effect are largely beside the point, and the design is reduced to the level of a moral example. On the other extreme, universalists teach an atonement that is unlimited in all three aspects: God wants all to be saved, and all shall be saved. For Arminians the atonement is unlimited in its sufficiency and design but limited in its effect. Christ died for all with the intention of saving all, but all will not be saved. The limiting factor is not God but man, who thwarts the plan of God by the exercise of his free will in rejecting Christ. The Calvinist believes Christ’s sacrificial death would be sufficient to save just one or an infinite number of sinners. But the design of the atonement is limited to the elect, as is the effect. However the effect is not limited by man’s free will, but rather by the eternal decree of God. God designed to save a specific number of sinners by means of Christ’s death, and all these shall be saved—no more and no less. At the end of the day the Calvinist’s atonement actually accomplishes what is was designed to accomplish. The Arminian’s atonement makes salvation possible for all but in fact guarantees salvation for no one.

Verses used to support the Calvinist view are: Matt. 1:21; 20:28; 26:28; John 6:35-40; 10:11, 14-18; Acts 20:28. Not a few Calvinists will admit that the doctrine of limited atonement has the least direct biblical support of all the five points and is strongly inferred by the other four points. Also, there are several verses which seem to teach that the atonement is unlimited in its design: John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:1-2. For this reason many “four-point” Calvinists reject the doctrine of limited atonement. Five pointers argue that terms like “all” and “world” are restrictive—that is, they refer to the world without ethnic distinction and to broad classes of people, rather than all people exhaustively.

Unconditional Election.Calvinism teaches that God chooses sinners based solely on the good pleasure of His will and not upon any foreseen faith or merit on the part of the sinner. In this sense election and predestination are said to be unconditional. The Arminian counters that God looked down the corridors of time to see who would believe on His Son of their own free will and chose them on the basis of that foreknowledge. The Calvinist responds by saying that the biblical concept of foreknowledge does not mean God knew information about individuals—although that was certainly the case—but that He actually knew the individuals themselves. When understood in this way foreknowledge is really foreordination. Another line of reasoning advanced by Calvinists is that for God to know future choices of men with absolute certainty from all eternity they would necessarily be fixed or predetermined. Since no one but God existed in eternity, He was the only one who could have rendered these future events certain, since He was the first cause of all things.

Arminians do not like anything that smacks of determinism because to them a predetermined choice is not a free choice. The Calvinist defines free will as the ability to make choices according to the desires of one’s inherent nature with no sense of outside coercion. To the Calvinist a choice can be predetermined but free. In the attempt to preserve the concept of libertarian free will and avoid determinism, some Arminians have argued that God has chosen to limit his knowledge of the choices of man relative to salvation. This way the decision for or against Christ is determined completely by the sinner himself at the moment he makes his choice. Most Arminians are shocked at this extreme position, but it is actually a very logical necessity if your goal is to preserve so-called free will at all costs.

Bible verses commonly used to support the idea of unconditional election are as follows: John 1:12-13; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; 9:11-16; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; James 2:5.

The Calvinistic idea of unconditional election is criticized for depicting God as a capricious and unjust ogre who punishes sinners for choices they never made and were in fact unable to make. Another objection is that a deterministic view of election and predestination reduces man to the level of a mere robot or puppet. In his discussion of election in Romans Nine Paul quite bluntly refutes these objections (vv. 14-21).

AW Tozer, in his classic book, The Knowledge of the Holy claims to believe in the sovereignty of God. He says he is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. His supposedly mediating position is explained in the following way:

Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination  has been determined by proper authorities.On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with man’s freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God’s sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfillment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being. We know that God will fulfill every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that God’s perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is omnipotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.

The alert reader will recognize Tozer’s position stated here to be standard Arminianism. Tozer in fact does not believe in the sovereignty of God. Notice that the ocean liner is headed for a predetermined port, but the choices of the passengers and crew have not been predetermined. They are free to do as they please with no coercion. Tozer bats two for three here. Like all Arminians he wants to say God’s purposes will always be accomplished in the end without fail. He also is careful to say no one is forced to make choices. So far so good–no Calvinist would disagree with either point.

But Arminians can’t have it both ways. Tozer wants sovereignty without determinism. But consider this question: how can the final outcome be determined if the individual choices of man are not? If they are truly “free” in this sense, what’s to stop the passengers of the liner choose to mutiny and steer the course in another direction?  What if some crazy chooses to knock the captain in the head and takes the helm? What if a terrorist freely chooses to blow the ship to pieces and sink it? Or what if some idiot mechanic forgets to check the oil and the engine fries? See the fallacy of the Arminian position?

AW Tozer was a sincere godly man, and his book on the attributes of God is one of the best ever written. But in it he pays mere lip service to the sovereignty of God. He saved the chapter on sovereignty for last. Like all Arminians, he pushes the sovereignty of God to the back of the bus in order to protect man’s libertarian free will.