Q: What is Decisionism? Is it Biblical?

Decisionism is the belief that human beings shape their own destiny ultimately by how they manage the course of their actions / decisions in this life. I emphasize the word "ultimately" to make it clear that you do not become a decisionist simply by believing that humans make decisions. We all believe that humans are capable of making decisions, but we are not all decisionists. Decisionism asserts more than just the fact that we make decisions; it insists that our decisions are inviolable, autonomous, and sovereign.

This philosophy has become very prevalent both in our society and in many "Christian" churches today. How many times have we heard preachers saying: “God has a wonderful plan for your life, but it is up to you to make it happen”? or that “God has done everything He could do to save you; now the rest is up to you to invite Christ in your heart”? The idea is that God has always wanted to break into our lives, but wouldn't do it unless He gets our permission. While “there are many plans in God's mind," yet "it is man's counsel which will stand,”

The Bible, on the contrary, tells us that “there are many plans in a person’s mind, but it is the counsel of the LORD which will stand” (Prov. 19:21). We don't hold our destiny. God does; for “the LORD has made all things for himself: yes, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4).

Even in the economy of Salvation, the Bible says that “it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy” and that, therefore, “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:16, 18). In fact, our very conversion (faith and repentance)—which, as every one must admit, involves our “willing decision” to follow Christ—is itself a gift from God! (Eze. 36:26-27: cf. Acts 16:14).

Every Christian must understand that God's work of Salvation didn't stop at Christ's death and His invitation for sinners to come to Him. God Himself, by His sovereign Spirit, unfailingly converts the heart of whomever He wills! He demands faith and repentance (Mark 1:15), yet He also produces them in the heart of His elect (Jn. 6:29; Acts 13:48; 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Don't me wrong though. I'm not suggesting that we never decided to receive Christ (or that it isn't necessary). Of course we did receive Christ, and we did so freely and willingly (John 1:12). To acknowledge this, however, is not necessarily Decision*ism.* It is one thing to grant that Salvation involves our will, and rightly so; but it's a completely different story to insist that our willing decision to receive Christ is a product of our own inherent ability apart from the sovereign operation of God's grace by His Spirit (Decisionism). God converts hearts, and He converts invincibly (see Eze 36:26-27 & Acts 16:14).

Therefore, if we take the Bible for what it says, we must affirm that the final decisive factor of our eternal destiny lies ultimately on God's Sovereign Decree, and that our decision to follow Christ is just a product of the mighty work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. It's not "up to us" in any way. Our decision to receive Christ (whereby we are forgiven) could never have been possible if it weren't for the grace of the Spirit that first quickened our rebellious, sinful, darkened, spiritually dead hearts (see 1 Cor. 2:14; cf. Jn. 6:44, 63-65). It isn't that God chose us because we chose him, but that we choose God because He has first chosen us (Jn. 15:16; Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Or as Christ puts it:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:44)

Salvation is by God's Sovereign Grace alone from first to last. Decisionism, then, is an affront to the Grace of God. Our churches need to be purged from this dangerous philosophy once and for all.

Ang Tula ng Isang Tupa

O Diyos, puso ko noon ay kasing tigas ng bato;

Walang pag-asa at hindi kayang magbago;

Hinding-hindi lalapit sa Panginoong Jesu-Cristo,

Malibang ang pananalig ay ipagkaloob Mo.

Ngunit ang iyong pagibig ay napaka-dakila;

Sapagkat Kaligtasan ko'y iyo nang itinakda,

Noong bago pa man likhain ang langit at lupa,

Para sa kapurihan ng iyong habag at biyaya.

Kay Cristo Jesus nga ako ay iyong ibinigay;

Sa Pastol na para sa katubusan ko'y namatay.

Pagliligtas Niya'y tiyak na magtatagumpay,

At lahat Niyang tupa ay magtatamo ng buhay.

Panginoon, tinawag mo ako at iyong binago,

Sa pamamagitan ng iyong Espiritu Santo.

Ipinaunawa mo sa akin ang iyong Ebanghelyo,

Upang aking makita ang kagandahan ni Cristo.

Mayroon bang bagay na makapaghihiwalay,

Sa mga hinirang at sa kanilang Diyos na buhay?

Ang mga iniligtas ay patuloy Mong iniingatan,

Upang matamo nila ang lubos na kaluwalhatian.

—Jeph

The Savior that Saves

Though all professing Christians—regardless of religious affiliation—would readily confess Jesus Christ as their Savior, what most of them really have in mind when they say that is that Christ has done certain things to open the gates of heaven for us sinners (like dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins) but the rest is still up to us. This idea is very prominent among the cults of Christianity; e.g. Roman Catholicism, Iglesia ni Cristo (1914), Ang Dating Daan, and many others, each of which has its own version of a redeemer that attempts to save sinners only half-way through the process (if not most of it) then it's all up to the individual sinner to complete his own salvation—either by joining a religious organization, or by dedicating one's full allegiance and loyalty to a self-proclaimed apostle or prophet, or by doing good works, or a combination of all such things and what not.

Sadly, the idea of a halfway accomplished redemption (a heresy, by the way, since it is a blatant denial of Solus Cristus) is rampant among so many evangelical churches, too. God respects our freedom because He is a gentleman and would never save us apart from our willing cooperation; so goes the argument. God is viewed as merely attempting to save sinners by eliciting their cooperation (their final 'Yes') but actually powerless to make their Salvation a reality since He is supposed to "respect" their so-called freewill. Here we have God making good plans for man but it is man's freewill that prevails. Quite the contrary is what we find in Proverbs 19:21 NIV which says:

"Many are the plans in a person’s heart,
but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails."

We possess no freedom of any sort to which the sovereign will of God is bound to concede. God rules over all things (Dan. 4:35). He is the Potter and we are the lump of dirty fallen clay at His disposal (Isa. 68:4; Rom. 9:18-23).  The course of our actions, therefore, does not determine the will of God, but it is the other way around. For "who," asks Paul, "has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:35-36 NASB). 

The truth is, God does not respect our moral freedom because we don't have such freedom in the first place! For "Very truly I tell you," Jesus told the unbelieving Jesus, "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn. 8:34 NIV; see also Rom. 6:20 & 2 Pe. 2:19). If we have any freedom of our own apart from the liberty that comes from Christ (Jn. 8:36), it is but a freedom only from righteousness (Rom. 6:20 KJV). We are void of all righteousness and our minds are hostile to God (Rom. 8:7-8).  Without the quickening power of the Spirit, we would never "accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to [us], and [we are] not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). We are all "dead in the trespasses and sins" and "by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:1-3). Salvation, therefore, cannot be up to us in any way. It's rather all up to Him who says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom. 9:15; cf. Exo. 33:19). 

A low view of Sin gives birth to low view of the gospel and of Christ's redemptive work. Many evangelicals have completely lost sight of how amazing God's grace is due to their shallow understanding of Sin and depravity. They have arrived to an erroneous view of our moral condition based on the presuppositions of various humanistic philosophies which aim to elevate the dignity of human beings beyond and contrary to what the Scripture actually describes us to be—that is, creatures that are fallen, totally depraved, and absolutely in need of a Savior that does not merely render salvation possible, but actually saves certain people to the uttermost by an atonement so powerful and sufficient that even the gift of conversion, together with all other graces necessary toward our final glorification, is guaranteed by it (Rom. 8:32-39, Eph. 1:3, 2:13; Heb. 7:25, 9:12, 12:2).

In this coming Holy Week, we will be commemorating the passion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And as we contemplate on the things that had transpired toward the climax of his redemptive mission here on earth 2000 years ago, always keep in mind that "it is finished" already (Jn. 19:30).  No merit of your own and no works done by your sinful hands would add up to what Christ has already accomplished for the Salvation of those who would put their trust in Him (Rom. 3:23-25).

- Jeph

Calvinism? Ano yun!?

Sa tuwing napaguusapan o nababanggit ang "Calvinism" sa facebook group na BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS, marami ang napapakamot ng ulo at napapatanong: Ano ba ang Calvinism? Sekta ba yan? Kulto ba yan? Ano ba ang tinuturo ng Calvinism na pinaniniwalaan ng mga Calvinists?

Kung isa ka sa mga nagnanais magkaroon ng kaalaman tungkol sa Calvinism, nasa tamang lugar ka ngayon sapagkat isang Calvinist ang nagsusulat nitong artikulong ito. Hayaan mong tulungan kitang naunawaan ang mga basic tenets (o payak na paniniwala) ng mga Calvinists na katulad ko, at kung ano-ano ang mga maling-akala na karaniwang ibinabato laban sa aming pinaniniwalaan.

Ang sekta ng Calvinism

Eeeengk! Mali. Hindi po sekta (o relihiyon) ang Calvinism. Ito ay isang "school of thought" lamang na naglalayong ipaliwanag ang kaugnayan sa pagitan ng pagiging soberenya (sovereignty) ng Diyos at ng ating kaligtasan. Bagamat may mga sekta na lubusang niyayakap ang mga prinsipyo ng Calvinism, may mga Calvinists na myembro rin sa ibat-ibang denominasyon. Sa madaling salita, hindi po sekta, denominasyon, relihiyon, o kulto ang Calvinism sapagkat hindi po ito naka-kahon sa iisang ispesipikong organisasyon o grupo. (Ikaw nga mismo eh, maaaring Calvinist ka; hindi mo lang alam!)

Sino ang may pakana?

Ang salitang "Calvinism" ay hango sa pangalan ng isang repormistang Pranses na si John Calvin noong ika-17 siglo. Gayunpaman, hindi po si John Calvin ang talagang may pakana ng mga doktrina ng Calvinism. Ipinangalan lamang ito kay Calvin sapagkat siya ang pinaka-prominenteng theologian na nagtanggol sa mga prinsipyo nito. Ang totoo nyan, bago pa naging tao si Calvin ay marami nang nauna sa kasaysayan ng Kristyanismo ang nanindigan para sa mga payak na prinsipyong nakapaloob sa Calvinism; gaya nina St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430), St. Prosper of Aquitaine (390 - 455), St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (462 - 527), St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 - 1153), Gottschalk of Orbais (808 - 867), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), John Wycliffe (1320 - 1384), at iba pa.

Pero teka lang! Bago mo isipin na hango lamang ang Calvinism sa pilosopiya ng mga taong nabanggit, alalahanin din natin na silang lahat ay nanindigan na ang kanilang mga aral ay batay mismo sa banal na Kasulatan (makikita natin yan sa ilang saglit lang). Samakatuwid, ang Calvinism ay hindi pakana ni John Calvin o pakana ng sinumang tao. Ito ay hango sa Salita ng Diyos.

Anong pinaglalaban ng Calvinism?

Simple lang naman ang pinaglalaban ng Calvinism. Ito ay ang katotohanan na ang kabuuan (100%) ng ating pagkaligtas---mula simula hanggang katapusan---ay nakasalalay lamang sa kapangyarihan at biyaya ng Diyos upang walang maipagmapuri ang sinuman. Ito ang pinaka-premis ng buong sistema ng Calvinism, at ibinuod pa ito ni San Pablo sa 1 Cor. 4:7,

"Sapagka't sino ang gumawa na ikaw ay matangi? at anong nasa iyo na hindi mo tinanggap? nguni't kung tinanggap mo, ay bakit mo ipinagmamapuri na tulad sa hindi mo tinanggap?" (TAB)

Ang pagmamapuri (o pagiging mayabang) ay nag-uugat sa maling akala na mayroon kang taglay na anumang mabuting bagay na hindi galing sa Diyos. Yan ang naging problema ng mga mananampalataya sa Corinto na sinulatan ng apostol. Nagkabaha-bahagi sila dahil inakala nilang utang na loob nila sa mga mangangaral (ng ebanghelyo) ang kanilang pananalig; ang iba ay nagtayo ng fans-club para kay Pablo, ang iba naman ay para kay Apollos, at ang iba ay kay Cefas, etc (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:4-5). Dahil dyan, ipinakita sa kanila ng apostol (mula kabanata 1 hanggang 3) na ang mismong pananalig nila ay kaloob (regalo) na galing sa Diyos at hindi galing sa ibang tao o sa mga sarili nila kaya dapat na nilang itigil ang pakikipag-pataasan ng ere (1 Cor. 1:30-31, 2:4-5, 12-14, 3:6-9).

Maraming Cristiano ngayon ang may parehong maling akala gaya ng sa mga taga-Corinto. Inaakala nilang inalok lamang sa kanila ng Diyos ang kaligtasan ngunit ang mismong pagtanggap nila ay nakasalalay na sa sarili nilang pasiya. Kung tama ang ideyang ito, lalabas na ang sarili nating merito (i.e. merito ng pagtanggap kay Cristo) ang siyang  nagtangi sa atin tungo sa kaligtasan, at kung gayon nga ay hindi na ito maaaring ituring na "ayon sa biyaya" (Rom. 11:6).

"Ngunit ngayon, Oh Panginoon, ikaw ay aming Ama; kami ang malagkit na putik, at ikaw ay magpapalyok namin; at kaming lahat ay gawa ng iyong mga kamay." (Isa. 64:8)

Totoong ang pananalig natin ang siyang naghihiwalay sa atin mula sa mga taong napapahamak, ngunit ang pananalig bang ito'y bunga lamang ng ating sariling desisyon? o ipinagkaloob lamang din sa atin ng Diyos? Kung ito'y galing lamang sa ating mga sarili, mayroon nga tayong maipagmamapuri - at mali ang Calvinism. Ngunit"sino," tanong ni San Pablo, "ang gumagawa na ikaw ay matangi?" Obyusli, ang sagot sa katanungang yan ay walang iba kundi ang Dios. Ayon nga kay Jesus: "Ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ibinigay sa akin ng aking Ama. Walang nakakakilala sa Anak kundi ang Ama; at walang nakakakilala sa Ama, kundi ang Anak, at sinumang piliin ng Anak na pagpahayagan niya. " (Mat. 11:27, MBB); at minsan pa, "walang taong makalalapit sa akin, maliban na ipagkaloob sa kaniya ng Ama" (Jn. 6:65, TAB). Sumatotal, tayo ay natangi dahil sa ating pananalig kay Cristo---hindi lamang dahil sa sarili nating pasya---kundi unang-una sa lahat ay dahil ipinagkaloob ito sa atin ng Diyos na siyang unang pumili sa atin (Ac. 13:48) at kumilos sa puso natin (Ac. 16:14). Kung gayon, wala talaga tayong dapat ipagmapuri at sa Diyos lamang nauukol ang lahat ng kapurihan! Sabi nga ni San Pablo, "at anong nasa iyo na hindi mo tinanggap? nguni't kung tinanggap mo, ay bakit mo ipinagmamapuri na tulad sa hindi mo tinanggap?" (1 Cor. 4:7b-c).

Marahil ay iniisip mo kung bakit kailangan pang ipagkaloob ng Diyos sa tao ang pagtalima kay Cristo. Hindi ba't binigyan tayo ng Panginoon ng "freewill"? Wala ba tayong sapat na kakayahang magpasya na lumapit at sumunod sa ebanghelyo?

Ang Alamat ng Freewill

Ang karaniwang depinisyon ng maraming tao sa salitang "freewill" ay ang pagkakaroon ng kakayahang pumili o magpasya, kung saan ang kalooban ng isang tao ay hindi nakakiling (o hindi "inclined" / "bias") sa anumang direksyon sa pagitan ng mabuti o masama. Ngunit may ganitong uri nga ba ng kalayaan ang tao bilang makasalanan? Ang sagot ng Calvinism ay wala.

Kaya nga tayo tinatawag na "makasalanan" eh. Hindi lamang tayo tinatawag na "nagkasala" na para bang aksidente lamang ang ating mga nagagawang kasalanan, bagkus tayo'y maka - salanan. Mayroon tayong inklinasyon o pagkiling tungo sa paggawa ng Kasalanan. At hindi lamang ito basta inklinasyon o pagkiling, kundi ito mismo ang katutubo (o likas) na disposisyon ng ating buong pagkatao.

Ayon kay apostol Pablo:

"Kayo noo'y mga patay sa inyong mga  pagsalangsang at mga kasalanan, na dati ninyong nilakaran, ayon sa lakad ng sanlibutang ito, ayon sa pinuno ng kapangyarihan ng himpapawid, ng espiritu na ngayon ay gumagawa sa mga anak ng pagsuway. Tayong lahat ay dating nabuhay sa gitna ng mga ito, sa mga pagnanasa ng laman, na ating ginagawa ang mga nais ng laman at ng pag-iisip, at tayo noo'y katutubong mga anak ng kapootan, gaya naman ng mga iba." (Eph. 2:1-3, ABAB)

"Sapagkat nang kayo ay mga alipin pa ng kasalanan,
kayo'y malalaya tungkol sa pagiging matuwid." (Rom. 6:20) 

Samakatuwid, maliwanag na hindi lamang tayo makasalanan sapagkat tayo'y nagkakasala, bagkus tayo'y nagkakasala sapagkat tayo'y likas na makasalanan (o alipin ng Kasalanan). Dahil sa Kasalanan ng unang tao (Rom. 5:12) tayong lahat ay naging patay sa ating mga espirituwal na kalagayan at napa-alipin sa kalooban ni Satanas (2 Tim. 2:26) at samakatuwid ay walang likas na kagustuhan o inklinasyon na tumalima sa Diyos malibang unang kumilos ang Diyos sa puso natin (tingnan ang mga sumusunod na talata: Eze. 36:26; Ac. 16:14, cf. Mat. 13:11-16, Jn. 6:44, 65, Rom. 3:9-12, 8:7-8, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4-5, Eph. 2:1-3, 2 Tim. 2:25-26).

Dito natin makikita na sa magkaibang sentido, tayo'y malaya ngunit alipin. Malaya nating sinusunod ang anumang nais o hangarin ng ating mga puso. Gayunpaman, ang ating mga puso ay alipin ng anumang bagay na pinagkukunan nito ng kaligayahan: "Sapagkat kung nasaan ang iyong kayamanan, naroon din naman ang iyong puso" (Mat. 6:21, ABAB). Habang tayo'y bulag patungkol sa kagandahan at kaluwalhatian ni Cristo (na kung tutuusin ay siyang pinaka-mahalagang Kayamanan sa lahat), mas nanaisin pa ng ating mga puso na magpakalunod sa mga "kayamanan" na ipinapangako ng mga tukso. Kung gayon, ang tanging paraan para mabasag ang sumpang ito ay walang iba kundi ang pagkilos ng makapangyarihang Espiritu ng Diyos sa puso ng isang makasalanan nang sa gayon ay makita niya ang walang kapares na kagandahan ng ebanghelyo na magdudulot ng malayang pagtalima kay Cristo (Eze. 36:26-27).

Sa madaling salita, itinuturo ng Calvinism na kung mayroon mang tumatalima (at walang pagtatalo na tayo nga ay tumalima kay Cristo ayon sa sarili nating pasya - Mat. 11:28), ang kapurihan ay ukol lamang sa Diyos na siyang unang pumili sa atin upang tayo'y pagkalooban ng kalayaan, kakayahan, espirituwal na pangunawa, at positibong inklinasyon at pagnanasa na lumapit kay Cristo tungo sa lubos na kaligtasan (Psa. 65:4, Mat. 11:27, Eph. 1:3-5, 11). Sa bandang huli, ang Panginoon ang siyang tanging may-akda at siyang tagapagpaging-ganap ng ating pananalig (Heb. 12:2). Siya ang ating soberenyang Tagapagligtas na nagliligtas ng lubusan mula simula hanggang katapusan (Rom. 8:30) upang walang maipagmapuri ang sinuman. Yan ang puso ng Calvinism.

Baka Calvinist ka rin!

Oo, maaaring Calvinist ka rin pero di mo lang pala alam. Paano mo malalaman? Simple lang. Tanungin mo ang iyong sarili:

1. Naniniwala ka bang wala kang magagawang anumang mabuti na kalugod-lugod sa Diyos malibang unang kumilos ang Diyos sa puso mo? (Jn. 15:5; Rom. 8:7-8)
2. Nananalangin ka ba para sa kaligtasan ng iyong mga mahal sa buhay? (cf. Rom. 10:1)
3. Ipinapanalangin mo ba na nawa'y kumilos ang Diyos sa puso nila upang kanilang tanggapin si Cristo? (cf. Eze. 36:26, Ac. 16:14)
4. Ipinagpapasalamat mo ba sa Diyos ang sarili mong pagkakaligtas at ang pagkakilala mo sa kaniya? (cf. Mat. 11:27, 13:11, Jn. 6:44, 65; Php. 1:29)
5. Nagtitiwala ka ba na tiyak na tatapusin ng Diyos ang pagliligtas na sinimulan niya sayo, at iingatan ka niya sa pananalig hanggang wakas? (cf. Jn. 10:27-29, Rom. 8:29-39, Php. 1:6)
6. Naniniwala ka bang ang lahat ng biyayang tinatamasa mo ngayon (na may kinalaman sa iyong kaligtasan), maging ang iyong pananalig, ay pawang kaloob na galing sa Diyos na binili ni Cristo ng kanyang dugo? (cf. Rom. 8:32, Eph. 2:13)

Kung Oo ang sagot mo sa mga katanungang ito, malamang ay isa ka ring Calvinista.

-Jeph

Dr. James White vs. Dr. Michael Brown on Calvinism

Here's a peaceful and definitely God-honoring three-part discussion between Dr. James White (5-point Calvinist and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries) and Dr. White Brown (staunch proponent of Libertarianism and host of the Line of Fire radio program) concerning one of the most controversial topics in Christian theology - God's Sovereignty in Salvation.

Part I (audio only)
Part II (audio only)

Part III (audio only)

Source: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com

I commend both Dr. White and Dr. Brown for being consistently gracious in all their exchanges. May God use this debate to enrich many of His children with the knowledge of His truth. To God be the Glory!

- Jeph

The Faith of our Founding Fathers

If you're a Southern Baptist and you are interested to learn about the real traditional / historic Southern Baptist understanding of God's plan of Salvation, you might want to investigate through the writings of our founding fathers which are compiled on the link below:

http://www.founders.org/library/founders.html

Be informed. Be reformed. Be a Foundersist!

-Jeph

A Suggested Interpretation of the Traditionalist Statement

"No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him..." (John 10:26)

Before anything else, I want to extend my sincere apologies to those who were or might have been offended with my strongly sarcastic remarks against the Traditionalist statement during some of the discussions over at SBCvoices and SBCtoday. I'm deeply sorry for the way I behaved, and please know that it was never my intention to dishonor, disrespect, or degrade anybody. Mr. Miller was right, however erroneous the Traditionalist statement may be, throwing around the "h"-word will not bring any help in resolving the controversy at hand. From the bottom of my heart I sincerely admit my mistake.

However, I am still of the opinion that if taken at face-value, the Traditionalist statement on human sinfulness (article 2) and freewill (article 8) is nothing but outright semi-Pelagianism[1]. But since I don't want to believe that those who drafted and signed the document are all staunch heretics, I'll be giving them the benefit of the doubt that they never had any intention to make their position appear as it now appears to be, i.e. semi-Pelagianistic—it just so happen that the document was poorly worded. Hence, though the letter of the document seems to promote semi-Pelagianism, the spirit of the document is nonetheless orthodox. Particular statements within the document which seems to side with semi-Pelagianism, therefore, can be interpreted in such wise that it does not cross the line of orthodoxy. Of course this has already been the attempt of many who defend the statement from the charge of semi-Pelagianism, but I have yet to see any convincing explanation/argument that really vindicates the statement from such charge. The common strategy of most of them[2] looks like this:

1. Number one, overlook the historical background of the semi-Pelagian controversy in the early Church, 
2. Number two, ignore the most essential mark that makes up the semi-Pelagian position (i.e. affirmation of the fall + denial total depravity) and limit its definition to the logical implications attached to it by the early Church (i.e. that it promotes works salvation; that faith is a meritorious work; that salvation begins with man, etc.), 
3. And lastly, proclaim to all the world: "See? We are not semi-Pelagians!"

This just doesn't work. It won't. The only solution I can suggest for the Traditionalists is to (1) embrace the historical orthodox position (held by both classical Arminians and Calvinists) that all men are totally depraved in Sin and are not able to have a positive saving response to the Gospel apart from a prevenient, internal, divine enablement; and (2) interpret the Traditionalist statement within its bounds. How? Here's my suggested interpretation (which in my opinion can save the document from its apparent semi-Pelagian tendency):

• The statement "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will" in article 2 should not be taken to mean that fallen sinners aren't totally depraved in Sin, but merely that they always make voluntary/uncoerced choices. Man never lost  his capacity to choose between options (article 8), though by his Fall he lost all inclination of will towards all saving good, i.e. repentance and faith (cf. Gen. 6:5; Ec. 9:3; Rom. 3:9-12; 1 Cor. 2:14). In other words, it's not that sinners have no capacity to believe, but that they will never be inclined to exercise that capacity[3] apart from a prevenient, liberating work of grace in their hearts (Jn. 6:44, 65; Ac. 16:14; Php. 2:13).

• What is this prevenient work of grace? Article 4 reads: "We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit..." This means that when the Gospel is preached to totally depraved sinners, the Holy Spirit automatically neutralizes the effects of Sin in their hearts, thereby giving them sufficient freedom to positively respond to the Gospel by faith and repentance. However, this work of the Spirit does not guarantee conversion; it just makes it possible. This idea is already presupposed in the last clause in the denial portion of article 2 which says "we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel."

• The statement "We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel..." in article 8 should be understood in the same sense as explained in the first bullet. 

There you have it. An interpretation acceptable within the bounds of orthodoxy, yet very non-Calvinistic. It may certainly sound Arminian; but man, it's definitely way better than semi-Pelagianism! I'm not saying it is the correct view, but for sure it is a position that keeps its feet within the fence of orthodoxy however opposed it is to Calvinism. All Southern Baptists, whether Calvinist or not, should keep themselves within that fence, and the purpose of this suggestion is to help the Traditionalist do just that. Take it or leave it. If they shall refuse, fine; but they must face the fact that plain-reading of the Traditionalist statement is nothing but outright semi-Pelagianism in light of overwhelming historical evidences[4]. On the other hand, if the Traditionalists will accept this suggestion, they must prepare themselves to do a lot of explaining each and every time the same charge is thrown at them. Until they revise the statement and remove all its ambiguities, they are bound to do so. 

In the final analysis, all these clearly show how problematic and completely unhelpful the Traditionalist document is. Therefore, why support it at all?

-Jeph

-------------
[1] Semi-Pelagianism is a theological system which affirms the fall of mankind but denies total depravity.
[2] See some of their denials here, here, and here. 
[3] A good parallel illustration is this: "I have the capacity to massacre all my children, but I will never be inclined to do so."
[4] St. Augustine's letter 217 to Vitalis of Carthage; Council of Orange (529); Rev. Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, Ch. III, p. 328

Eternal Security and Licentiousness

Paul told the believers in Rome that there's now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Aside from having been freely acquitted and counted righteous in God's sight through faith in His Son (Rom. 3:24-28, 4:4-6, 5:1), Paul wrote that they have also received the life-giving Spirit of Christ by whom "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5), leading them to walk in the newness of life God has prepared from them beforehand (Rom. 8:2-27; cf. Eph. 2:10). There's no way Sin can take hold of them once more because they're no longer under its power (Rom. 6:1-2). God, who is greater than all, makes everything to work together for the good of His children (Rom. 8:28), and this is in accordance to His good pleasure and eternal purpose in predestination (Rom. 8:29; cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Thus, all whom God has chosen for Himself in eternity past will be finally glorified (Rom. 8:30). Nothing can totally overcome them because their sovereign Father is in control (Rom. 8:31; cf. Jn. 10:27-39). Because God didn't spare His Son but gave Him up for their own sake, surely He will also grant them whatever grace they need unto the fullness of Salvation (Rom. 8:31-34).

Having said all the above, the conclusion is inevitable:

"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,  nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:37-39)

This conclusive declaration of Paul concerning the assurance of salvation for those whom God has called according to His purpose (i.e. the elect) echoes that of Christ in John 10:27-29 which says:

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (Jn. 10:27-29)

Baptists call this doctrine as Eternal Security[1] in Christ; a glorious display of the greatness of God's grace and sovereignty in the whole process of redemption, yet also one of the most controversial and often misunderstood. The main objection thrown at this biblical teaching is that it seems to entice the Christian to be slothful and licentious. Critics of eternal security argue that if one cannot lose his salvation, it follows that it won't matter if Christians would just sit around the corner and neglect all that God has commanded them to do. Never mind going to church (Heb. 10:25). Never mind going out for evangelism (Mat. 28:19-20). Never mind reading the Bible (Josh. 1:8) or making every effort to become more like Christ (2 Pe. 1:5-10). Why bother if in the first place being holy or not won't make any difference to one's eternal destiny? Seems legit.

On the contrary, however, the glorious truth of our salvation being not in any way dependent on human performance should serve as a motivation for true Christians to be all the more eager to glorify their Lord and Savior with their lives. This is clearly seen in Titus 3:5-8. After stressing the complete gratuitousness of our salvation in verses 5-7, the apostle Paul went on to say:

"The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people." (Tit. 3:8)

Paul advised Titus to insist on the glorious doctrine of our gratuitous salvation in order to compel "those who have believed in God" to be "careful to devote themselves to good works"! This worked for me personally. When I learned from my study of God's Word that my Lord and Savior remains faithful even when I'm not (2 Tim. 2:13); that He will carry into completion at the day of Jesus Christ the work of salvation that He has begun in me (Php. 1:6; cf. Rom. 8:30); and that no one can ever pluck my soul out of His sovereign hand (Jn. 10:27-29), great joy, peace, and deep gratitude filled my innermost soul. All worldly fear and insecurity that once troubled my heart vanished altogether (Rom. 8:15), and I was left energized and ablaze to do more for Christ. Definitely, the doctrine of eternal security didn't make me slothful and licentious. Quite the opposite; it made me a better person!

Now I don't deny the potential danger in over-emphasizing the statement: "we are still saved even if we sin." While it is true that God never ceases to be our Father despite our shortcomings (see Heb. 12:5-11), this is just a portion of the whole truth concerning our eternal security in Christ, and a portion of truth is no better than a lie if not united with the other portions of the whole truth. The whole truth—and this must always be stressed—is that since God mightily preserves and sanctifies His children by His grace, all true believers will surely persevere in faith and holiness[2] unto the end (1 Sam. 2:9). The apostle John wrote:

"We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them." (1 Jn. 5:18)

A child of God may sometimes fall into sin through neglect and temptation, but God would never permit him to totally return to his old sinful lifestyle or finally repudiate his saving relationship with Christ (1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pe. 1:5). Our Father, being infinitely wise and sovereign (Rom. 10:32-36), can use even our downfalls to benefit us at the end of the day (Rom. 8:28). Yet it should also be emphasized that all professing Christians have the responsibility to evince their salvation by their works (Php. 2:12; Jas. 2:14-24; 2 Pe. 1:5-7). Doing so doesn't make one eternally secure, but it further confirms the genuineness of one's profession of faith (Mat. 7:16; Jn. 8:31; 2 Cor. 13:5; 2 Pe. 1:10).

In the final analysis, Eternal security is not a teaching that promotes idleness and licentious living. Far from it. It is a biblical doctrine that brings glory to God's grace and mobilizes true Christians to unceasingly worship God by pursuing Christ-likness.

"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 24-25)

Praise God for His unfailing grace!

-Jeph

----------

[1] Early Baptist documents with strong Calvinistic leaning such as the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) call this doctrine as Perseverance of the Saints, emphasizing the need for professing Christians to persevere in faith and holiness as an outward evidence of their being truly born-again. Some Baptists, however, didn't like the term Perseverance as it can give wrong impression that we maintain our salvation by our works, so they prefer to call it Preservation of the Saints—emphasizing God's active role in keeping his saints secure. Both are valid designations and refer to the same concept, but in this paper we will use Eternal Security for the sake of brevity. 
[2] This doesn't mean we can no longer sin. Christians do sin (1 Jn. 1:8), but they don't deliberately live in Sin (1 Jn. 5:18), nor can they return to their old sinful lifestyle (Rom. 6:1-2) because they are now a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17)

Calvinism at work

The "Watchdog" Donnie Manuel, owner of one of my favorite blog-sites, is celebrating his 8th spiritual birthday today and recalls how "Calvinism" (not the concept itself, but the reality of the concept at work in the world) "drastically" changed his life since he got saved. Check out his latest post here and be blessed.

Praise God for His grace! Praise God for Calvinism!

-Jeph

My Response to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

John Calvin and Jacobos Arminius

Much has been said about the controversial document that has been drafted recently and used by non-Calvinist Southern Baptists for their campaign against the rise of the "New Calvinism" within the SBC. The strategy is simple: Ignore the historical facts and condition the minds of the people by making Calvinism appear strange and alien to the SBC tradition. Of course this would mean painting caricatures (gross misrepresentations) about the reformed soteriology. For example, in the "denial" portion of the ninth article of the document, it states (emphasis mine):

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

Interesting. Now I want to know where on earth did these people get the idea that Calvinists teach that faith is not a human response but solely an act of God as if it is God who does the believing in our stead? I have yet to meet a Calvinist who believes so. What Calvinists believe, on the contrary, is that faith is both a human act and a divine gift. To borrow St. Augustine's words: "It is we that act when we act, but it is [God] who causes us to act." This is clearly taught in John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." The coming is our own act, but it is God's drawing that causes sinners to come.

I can quote many other portions in the TSBUGP-document in which the Calvinist position is grossly misrepresented, but that's not my main intention here. Their rejection of Calvinism and their divisive campaigns against its rise in the SBC is not what really alarms me. What concerns me, however, is the document's apparent crossing over the bounds of doctrinal orthodoxy. Specifically speaking, I believe the document is heading towards a heresy known as semi-Pelagianism, and this is quite dangerous.

First I want to define what I mean by semi-Pelagianism. When I asserted elsewhere that those who signed the document are not Arminians but semi-Pelagians, a supporter of the document responded by insisting that they do not hold to works-salvation, and for this reason, should not be reckoned as semi-Pelagians. Certainly, this is not what I meant when I labeled their position as such. In the first place, explicit adherence to works-salvation is not what essentially makes up a semi-Pelagian. It is the denial of the absolute necessity of the internal, enabling work of God's grace for the execution any saving good (i.e. faith & repentance) which makes one either a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. Let me explain further.

Pelagianism maintains that Adam's sin did not affect his moral liberty in any way. The consequences and guilt of his sin is his alone. All men are born with the same nature as that of Adam when he was created, so there's no need for any internal working of God's grace for the execution of godly virtues (i.e. faith, repentance, good works, etc). The only "grace" necessary for us to fulfill our duty is the knowledge of the Gospel / law.  

Semi-Pelagianism, on the other hand, affirms that Adam's sin has brought corruption of nature to himself and his posterity, but it did not totally destroy his moral liberty. Man's fallen nature, although corruptly bias towards sin, still has the moral capacity to seek God on his own and make the first step of faith apart from the divine enablement. All humanity shares this condition.

These ideas were condemned by the early Church as heresy, aberrant, and beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Even classical (orthodox) Arminians would treat these doctrines as serious errors that should be guarded against by the faithful. However, the TSBUGP-document has apparently taken the road towards the second error; namely, that of heresy of semi-Pelagianism (if not pure Pelagianism). This is clearly seen in the second article of the document which reads:

Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man 

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. 

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel. (emphasis added)

This denial of original sin and total depravity is tantamount to saying that conversion isn't a gift from God (Jn. 3:27, 6:65; Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:30, 4:7; Php. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25-26); an idea that is devilishly opposed to what the Bible says concerning the vast effects of the fall (Gen. 6:5; Jn. 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12, 5:12, 18, 6:20, 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:4) and the necessity of a prevenient enabling work of God's grace for conversion (Jn. 6:44, 15:5). The document claims this is the "traditional" Southern Baptist position, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The real traditional Southern Baptist view of biblical anthropology is found in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858) which states:

VI. The Fall of Man. 

God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors. (emphasis added)

Notice it doesn't just say we have a corrupt nature, but that we have inherited a nature "corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law" and are "under condemnation." This is another way of saying that we are born condemned / under God's wrath (Psa. 51:5; Eph. 2:3) and dead in our trespasses and Sin (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1), that whatever good thing we have which pertains to our relationship with God does not have its origin from ourselves, but from God as a gift (1 Cor. 4:7; Jas. 1:17). In other words, Southern Baptists have always held that the divine enabling work of grace is absolutely necessary for the execution of all godly virtues (Deut. 30:6; Eze. 36:26-27; Php. 2:13). This is one article of our Christian faith—along with the doctrine of justification by grace, the holy Trinity, hypostatic union, the virgin birth, sinless perfection, death and ressurection of Christ, etc.—to which the Church stands or falls. It is plain heresy to say that Adam's fall did not result in the incapacitaton of his and his posterity's moral liberty (indicating that we can make the first step of faith towards Christ without being first moved or enabled by God from within).

Again, I wouldn't have any problem with any anti-Calvinistic campaigns within the SBC so long as there is no deliberate move to drive us out of the convention, and that no heretical teachings are advanced by those who oppose our soteriological convictions (and this must go both ways). Unfortunately, we've clearly seen how the divisive, recently-drafted document of the non-Calvinist Southern Baptists had crossed the line. Thus, I believe the campaign should be denied of any support by every discerning Southern Baptists, not simply because it is against Calvinism, but because it is outrightly heretical and certainly not Southern Baptist.

-Jeph

Divine Predestination: A Southern Baptist Teaching

The first SBTS classroom, formerly the Greenville First
Baptist Church. (Photo courtesy: SBTS official website)

It's really sad when self-professed "Bible-believing" Christians reject God's truth revealed in Scripture in exchange for man-made ideas that the world would deem more logical and palatable. About a week ago, I had a nice intellectual discussion with a good friend concerning the doctrine of predestination. This godly lady, a fellow Southern Baptist whom I have known for quite some time now, claimed that if my interpretation of Romans 9 is correct, then it is pointless to go and preach the gospel to all nation. If God "has mercy on whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18) and in fact chooses to show mercy only to some with regard to salvation (Rom. 9:18-24; i.e. Matt. 13:11; Luk. 10:22; Jn. 6:63-65) and that none of those whom God has chosen will finally perish (Jn. 6:39-40, 44-45), whatever change would it make whether or not we fulfill Christ's Great Commission? I had anticipated this kind of objection from her, and I have responded by saying that as far as my personal experience is concerned, this glorious doctrine of election never killed my passion for reaching the lost, but instead rekindled it. The doctrine of predestination should not be regarded as a strange doctrine that Christians should fear or avoid. Aside from its being clearly taught in Scripture, it has been in fact a Southern Baptist teaching ever since (though neglected by many Southern Baptists today). Unfortunately very few Southern Baptists are aware of their theological heritage that used to be "reformed." Even for the most part of today's Christianity, the humanistic (and erroneous) notions of Pelagianism (i.e. that man should first turn to God before God can do any move) is widely embraced.

In this paper I will try by the help of God's grace to provide a brief presentation of the fact that the doctrine of Predestination is indeed a Southern Baptist teaching. May God use this simple work for His own purposes.

Predestination in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858)

I won't be citing very long references here, but would focus only on a single old document from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary archive. The name of the document is Abstract of Principles formulated in 1858 before the official founding of the SBTS a year later. The intent of the document was to maintain doctrinal purity among the teachers and leaders of the seminary, and to oppose all kinds of false teaching and doctrines. Affirming all the doctrines stated in the document was mandatory to all Southern Baptist scholars who would want to assume professorship in the seminary. In its introduction, we read (emphasis mine):

Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees, to wit:

So, what's so special about the Abstract of Principles? It is the fact that the document is essentially Calvinistic in its anthropology and soteriology. For example, concerning the fall of man it states (emphasis mine):

VI. THE FALL OF MAN

God originally created Man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

This is perfectly in agreement with what the Scripture says about the man's fallen nature being "hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8; see also Rom. 3:9-12, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, & Eph. 2:1-3). Being spiritually dead in Sin, the fallen man is not able to fulfill any spiritual duty accompanying salvation (i.e. faith & repentance) unless he is first quickened by God monergisitcally. This means we are spiritually regenerated by God, not in response to our faith, but in order that we may be drawn to saving faith in Christ. The Abstract of Principles agrees with this teaching, and I quote (emphasis mine):

VIII. REGENERATION 

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

Again, this is in total agreement with Scripture which says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pe. 1:3). Note the verse didn't say, "we first had our living hope (saving faith) and then God made us born again," but rather, "he has caused us to be born again *TO* a living hope." Thus, our conversion (i.e. saving faith & repentance) is not our own doing. It is God's gift of grace, and this humbling truth is affirmed in the next two articles in the Abstract of Principles (emphasis mine):

IX. REPENTANCE 

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being led by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things. 

X. FAITH 

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority, of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

The Bible says, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (Jn. 6:29). Again, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Php. 1:26). Again, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Mat. 13:11). Again, "And they glorified God, saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life'" (Ac. 11:18). And again, "...correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:25-26). Clearly, we have nothing to boast of our own conversion because it was God who has granted us this gift according to His gracious predestination (1 Cor. 1:28-31; Eph. 1:3-5, 11). The Abstract of Principles states clearly (emphasis mine),

V. ELECTION 

Election is God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life-not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ-in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

By "foreseen merits," the AoP refers to all kinds of human worth. Merits always means worth, and anything given according to worth cannot be properly called grace (Rom. 4:4, 11:5-6). Thus, when the Bible says God predestined us "for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph. 1:5-6), it actually denies all kinds of human worth as basis for its attainment. In other words, it is unconditional. "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16). Moreover, this choice is not merely a divine initiative in an attempt to save sinners, but it is the basis upon which the saving benefits of Christ's work is communicated effectually to those chosen of God:

[29]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30]And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [31]What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? [32]He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Rom. 8:29-32)

Hence, none of those whom God has chosen for Salvation will totally fall away and perish. All true Christians, being chosen of God from eternity past and preserved by God through His grace, will persevere in the faith unto the end and finally attain to final glorification (Jud. 1:24). The 13th article of the Abstract of Principles reads,

XIII. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 

Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Paul expressed the same confidence in his words: "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Php. 1:6). And again, "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38-39).

Does this mean men have no freedom of choice? Nope. Back in the third (3rd) article of the Abstract of Principles, we read (emphasis mine):

IV. PROVIDENCE 

God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.

In other words, God's sovereign kingship over all His creation is perfectly compatible with man's free agency and responsibility (Prov. 19:21). When a sinner is drawn by God to saving faith in Christ (according to His eternal decree of predestination), the sinner freely chooses Christ and attains salvation (Psa. 65:4; Jn. 6:37, 44-45; Ac. 16:14). But when a sinner is passed over by God to be left on his own sinful nature (i.e. not by infusing evil in his heart, but by permitting him to do just whatever he pleases according to the inmost desires of his naturally sinful heart - Jer. 13:23, 17:9; Mat. 12:33), the sinner freely rebels against God and deservedly ends up in hell because of his own sins (Rom. 1:21-26, 3:9-12, 8:7-8). All of these come to pass "according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11; cf. Rom. 11:35).

Predestination and Evangelism

Now let's turn to the question whether the doctrine of predestination kills the Christian's passion for evangelism. Does it? Perhaps, if you malign or pervert the doctrine. Misinformed people often think of predestination as God's decreeing all the end (outcome) without also decreeing the means to accomplish those end. Thus, they conclude that predestination makes evangelism (and all Christian virtues) completely superfluous. Such is a perverted view of the biblical doctrine of predestination and must be clarified by those who know the truth. The Baptist Faith & Message, Southern Baptist Convention's official statement of beliefs, is clear enough concerning this matter:

V. GOD'S PURPOSE OF GRACE 

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. 

God's decree of election (i.e. predestination unto Salvation), according to the BF&M, "comprehends all the means in connection with the end." Evangelism is one of the means through which God calls His elect unto salvation (Ac. 13:48l Jas. 1:18), hence the necessity for preaching the Gospel to all men since we don't know who the elect are (Mat. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). In his book Christian Theology, the basic textbook we used back when I was still studying at the Southern Baptist School of Theology (Makati), Dr. Millard J. Erickson stated:

Predestination does not nullify incentive for evangelism and missions. We do not know who the elect and the nonelect are, so we must continue to spread the Word. Our evangelistic efforts are God's means to bring the elect to salvation. God's ordaining of the end includes the ordaining of the means to that end as well. The knowledge that missions are God's means is a strong motive for the endeavor and gives us confidence that it will prove successful. (Christian Theology, Unabridged one-volume edition, pp. 927-928 under Chapter 43)

The thought that God never fails to bring His elect unto Salvation (when He calls them inwardly by His Word) should be, to a Christian, a ground for motivation to go out into the world to preach the Gospel to the lost, not a license to be idle and unproductive. The doctrine of predestination comforts us whenever our message is rejected by sinners because we are reminded that it isn't our job to convert them; it is God's, and so when we have done our best, we can leave the matter to Him. Jesus Himself didn't win all His hearers (Jn. 6:64), but He found comfort in the fact that all those whom the Father gives Him will surely come to Him (Jn. 6:37, 44-45, 10:3-5, 26-29).

Conclusion: 

The biblical doctrine of predestination held by Calvinists, as shown in the SBTS Abstract of Principles (1858), is a Southern Baptist teaching. In fact, even before the founding of the SBC, it has already been a Baptist teaching tracing back to the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and ultimately, to Scriptures. This doctrine does not kill evangelism but mobilizes it. Many godly men thorough the history of Christendom held to the glorious doctrine of predestination, and are proved to be ardent preachers of God's Word to the lost. I am talking about men like Martin Luther, C.H. Spurgeon, Adrew Fuller, William Carey, John Gill, John Piper, and John Calvin himself, just to name a few.

Again, the main purpose of this paper is not for any Calvinistic triumphalism, but to present a historical truth, namely, that the Southern Baptist Convention is Calvinistic in its theological roots. I'm not saying that one cannot be Southern Baptist if he/she refuses to subscribe to the tenets of Calvinism. The SBC allows for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists to remain in the convention, and neither any of them should pass condemnation to another. My point here is that Calvinism should not be considered heresy by Southern Baptist people. Otherwise, we should be willing to accept that the SBC was born of heretical roots (since it can be proven from history that most of its founding fathers are outspoken Calvinists).

To God alone be the glory!

-Jeph

Romans 9 and God's Sovereignty in Salvation (Part 2)

(Read Part 1 here)

The objection Paul was responding to in Romans 9 is two-fold:

1. If none of God's elect will finally perish (as stated by Paul in Romans 8:29-39) and there are countless Israelites that deliberately reject the Savior and die in their unbelief, it seems God has already turned His back on His chosen nation, Israel. If that's the case, how can we have assurance that God will not also abandon us? 
2. But if God never abandoned Israel, therefore God has failed in preserving the Israelites who die in their unbelief. If that's the case, how can we have assurance that God will not also fail in preserving us? 

Both objections have been answered by Paul in Romans 9:1-16 by proving that not all of Israel according to natural descent are actually among those whom God has chosen in eternity past to be saved (i.e. the spiritual Israel - v. 6). While Israel, as a nation, is truly chosen of God to be a channel of His revelations to mankind (v. 4-5), His eternal election for Salvation is not confined in this race alone (v. 7-8). God elects freely and gratuitously according to His sovereign pleasure and undeserved mercy (v. 9-16). Therefore, Israel's massive unbelief didn't and will never thwart what God has purposed to occur, namely, the salvation of all His elect (Php. 1:6). This conclusion is further defended by Paul in Romans 9:17-24, in which he emphasized God's sovereignty in reprobation.

IV. God's Sovereignty in Reprobation (v. 17-24)

What is reprobation? By reprobation, we mean "God's sovereign decree to leave a sinner in his natural sinful state of rebellion so that he may never attain to salvation." Essentially, reprobation is just a passive consequence of God's electing certain people to Salvation. By electing only some, He in effect has rejected or reprobated the rest. In Romans 9:17-18 we read (and keep in mind that divine predestination is still the main theme of this passage in connection to Romans 8:29-39 down to Romans 9:1-16):

[17]For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." [18]So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Rom. 9:17-18)

As we read the book of Exodus, we know that Pharaoh was blessed by God (though undeserving) with immense wealth and power. He was set up as king by God, but it was for the purpose of making him all the more prideful (hardened) so that God may display His power by sending different plagues in Egypt every time he (Pharaoh) rejects Moses's plea to free the Hebrews (see Exo. 4:21, 7:3). The reason why Pharaoh's case is mentioned by Paul is to provide a clear evidence that receiving material blessings from God does not make one automatically elect. Thus, just because the Israelites were blessed with many different privileges (mentioned in verses 4-5), doesn't mean all of them are "elect" unto Salvation. God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." 

By adding "he hardens whomever he wills", Paul seems to suggest that Israel's massive rejection to the Gospel didn't confront God by surprise or finally defeat His purposes, because it is He himself who brought them to rebellion against the Gospel. Sounds harsh, but this interpretation is supported in chapter 11 where Paul says concerning Israel's hardening,

[7]What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, [8]as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." (Rom. 11:7-8)

It is God who hardened the Israelites, but not in order to destroy Israel completely, but in order that "through their trespass salvation [may] come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous" (Rom. 11:11). Israel's massive rebellion against Christ is God's own doing for the sake of making the Gospel available to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:25). This is proven in the first eleven chapters of the book of Acts where we see how the disciples began preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles due to the hostility of the Jews. In the final analysis, God is never defeated because everything falls perfectly as He planned. 

At this point, Paul's critics may say: "Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom. 9:19). Or in other words, how can God justly blame us on account of our sins if we can't help but sin in accordance to His plan? To this, Paul responds:

[19]You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" [20]But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom. 9:19-20)

Notice that Paul didn't right away give any direct explanation as to how God can justly make us accountable for the things which He Himself has foreordained we would do. Instead, Paul's initial response was to rebuke the spirit of the question, saying: "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" We can't argue with our Maker just because we can't fully comprehend His ways. As mere creatures, our prime business should be to glorify God and submit ourselves to Him in everything. This includes believing in everything He says in His Word, even when it teaches things which doesn't seem to make sense to our limited minds. For example, the Bible says we make uncoerced choices and we are fully responsible for the things that we do (cf. Lev. 22:18-23; Ezr. 3:4-5; 2 Cor. 9:7; Rev. 20:12). But the same Bible also teaches that God is fully in control of everything - human choices included (Prov. 16:33, 21:11; Ac. 4:26-28; Rom. 11:35; Eph. 1:11; Php. 2:13). So, is it "either/or" or both? We must affirm both, because both are truths taught in the holy Scriptures.

In Romans 9:21, Paul somehow advanced his solution to the question on how God can justly mold us according to His good pelasure while making us responsible for our choices at the same time. The text reads:

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Rom. 9:21)

The "lump" of clay, out of which God molds the elect and the reprobate, signifies the sinful mass of fallen mankind. This means that both the elect and the reprobate are by nature sinners and spiritually dead in their trespasses and sin (Rom. 3:9; Eph. 2:1). We are "by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:3), having born with a depraved heart that would not seek after God (Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-12). This being said, God has full right to execute judgment on all of us, which includes recompensing our sins with even more greater sins in order to increase our guilt. "But it sounds completely strange that a holy God would punish sin with sin," some will say. Yet the Bible says:

[21]For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22]Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23]and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [24]Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25]because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. [26]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature... (Rom. 1:21-24)

In the above passage, we see how God recompenses rebellion with a more sinful rebellion. How is this done by God? First, by giving sinners temporal benefits (by His providence) out of His goodness, and then by leaving them in their depraved condition so that they would willfully abuse what God gave them. This is clearly seen in the life of Pharaoh whom God has raised to be king over Egypt, endowing him with great political power and wealth, which in turn made his heart all the more prideful. Note that it wasn't God who infused pride in Pharaoh's heart (otherwise, God would be the author of sin). Instead, pride was in Pharaoh's heart by birth (Psa. 58:3), but it was greatly aggravated when he was made king under God's providence. God could have taken away Pharaoh's pride from the beginning, but He didn't do anything in order that He may display His power through his (Pharaoh's) persistent hostility. Therefore, when we encounter biblical passages saying that God hardens people, we should understand them to mean as God doing nothing to convert their naturally prideful hearts. The Bible says it is in God's power to convert sinners according to His mercy (2 Tim. 2:25-26), but when He refuses to grant this great gift to certain people as a recompense for their sins/sinfulness, it is said that He hardens them. The clay hardens when left to its own devices.

Here we see God's justice in molding us the way He intends us to be. As sinful humans, illustrated as a "lump" of dirty clay in Romans 9:21, our destiny lies in God's hands alone. He is the Potter, we are the clay (Isa. 64:8). If, out of His great mercy and love, He has chosen some unworthy sinners to be converted and be saved, He is proven to be gracious (Eph. 1:4-5, 11). If, on the other hand, He hardens some as recompense for their sinfulness, He is proven to be just (Rom. 1:21-26). Thus, Paul wrote in Romans 9:21-24:

[21]Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? [22]What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23]in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—[24]even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom. 9:21-24)

Notice the apostle didn't say that the Potter asks the permission/consent of the clay before He can mold it by His hands. Such is the height of absurdity. What Paul taught concerning God's sovereignty in determining the destinies of His creatures agrees perfectly with Psalms 139:16 which says, "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." So, what was God's purpose in reprobating sinners? Paul says it is because God desires "to show his wrath and make known his power" (i.e., in order to display His justice towards Sin, as it is written in Proverbs 16:4: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble"). But why didn't He consume them right away? It is because God wants to "make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (just like Pharaoh who had been used by God as an instrument to display His glorious power before the eyes of the Hebrews). 

Conclusion: 

Predestination is a biblical doctrine. Biblical doctrines must not be feared or avoided by the Christian, but he should believe and cherish them with all his heart. The Bible says left to ourselves, we will never believe the Gospel of Christ for Salvation. Imagine if God didn't predestine anyone, all of us would have shared this common misery:

[9]What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 

[10]as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; [11]

no one understands; no one seeks for God. [12]All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom. 3:9-12) 

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7).  

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

Our rebellion against God is so deep that we all merit His wrath and condemnation (Eph. 2:1-3). But instead of throwing us all in hell (which is indeed most righteous), In love He has predestined certain people "for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will" (Eph. 1:5), not according to anything foreseen in them (Rom. 9:16), but according to His mere mercy in Christ.

Romans 9:1-24, I believe, is the clearest presentation in the Bible concerning God's gratuitous election and just reprobation. People may deny that this text refers to these glorious doctrines, but its clear connection with Romans 8:29-39 (which talks about God's sovereignty in preserving those whom He has predestined to Salvation) is simply irrefutable.

To God alone be the glory! Amen!

-Jeph

Romans 9 and God's Sovereignty In Salvation (Part 1)

"...what is man that you are mindful of him...?" (Psalms 8:4)

I had a discussion with a good friend just recently concerning the relation of Romans 9:10-21 with the doctrine of predestination. This friend denies that the text refers to God's choice of people unto salvation, and asserted that I am somewhat misusing the passage out of its context. I've already explained my case to her in person, but I thought it'd be a good a idea to put my thoughts on paper as well. So here it is.

I. The Contextual Necessity of Romans 9:6-16

Romans 9 is basically a response to an anticipated objection related to Paul's assertions in the previous chapter. Remember his last statements in Romans 8:

[29]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30]And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [31]What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? [32]He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? [33]Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. [34]  Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. [35]Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? [36]As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." [37]No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. [38]For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, [39]nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:28-39)

In the above passage, Paul is presenting a case for our eternal security in Christ. In a nutshell, he is saying that since every detail of our Salvation finds its cause in God's eternal purpose in predestination (v. 29-30; cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Php. 1:6), it follows that nothing will be able to snatch us from God's loving hand (v. 38-39; Jn. 10:28-29). In other words, all of God's elect will attain to faith and final glorification. Now this might have been a lovely music in the ears of the Gentile believer, but not so for a devout Jew.

A Jewish believer might wonder: If all of God's elect will be effectually called and be saved (v. 8:30), what about the countless Israelites that reject Christ and die in their unbelief every day? Certainly these people are also "elect"! Why then doesn't God convert all of them? Doesn't God have any business with Israel---his "elect" nation---anymore? Did His promises fail?

This objection raises a seeming dillema on the part of Paul that could strike at the very character of God and the integrity of the Christian gospel. It seems that it's either God's power to save Israel has failed, or God has simply chosen to abandon His elect nation and is therefore unfaithful to His words. In any case, how can we, Christians, make sure that God will certainly succeed in keeping us safe, or that God will not arbitrarily abandon us along the way?

Obviously, God is omnipotent and faithful to His words, and to say otherwise is not a valid option to resolve the issue. The problem, therefore, doesn't seem to lie on the character of God after all but on the truthfulness of Paul's teachings in Romans 8:29-39! Was Paul telling the truth when he claimed that nothing can separate the elect from Christ? If he was indeed telling the truth, what of Israel? Was Paul trying to blot Israel out of the picture?

II. Paul defends himself (v. 9:1-5)

Paul didn't just make up what he said in Romans 8:30-39. It is an inspired teaching from the Holy Spirit of God Himself. Paul's statement in v. 1 is emphatic: "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 9:1). Paul knows what he's saying, and his words are trustworthy.

Paul had no intention to keep Israel from God's plan of redemption. In fact, he is so concerned about them that he is willing to be "accursed and cut of from Christ" for their sake (i.e. for them to be converted); "...that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:2-3).

Israel is indeed a peculiar nation chosen by God for a particular purpose, and Paul acknowledged this very fact when he wrote: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Rom. 9:4-5). God has chosen Israel to be a channel of his blessings and revelations, reaching its full climax in the coming of His Son in the flesh (i.e. Israelite flesh - Jn. 1:1, 14).

Now, does Israel's blessedness (in terms of being a channel of the divine revelations) necessitates individual election for each and every child of Abraham according to natural descent? Paul answers the question in the following verses.

III. God's Sovereignty in Election (v. 9:6-16)

[6]But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, [7]and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." [8]This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. [9]For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son. (Rom. 9:6-9)

The Jews assume that all Israelites, being Abraham's children (by natural descent), are chosen by God for Salvation in virtue of their ethnic affiliation. Paul disagrees. For Paul, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." There is Israel within Israel! There is a chosen remnant (cf. Rom. 11:2-7) in the midst of a rebellious nation.

The point Paul has been trying to make is that being a child of Abraham according to the flesh (an Israelite, in other words) doesn't make you an object of God's eternal blessings. To prove this, Paul cited the Torah in v. 7 and 9 to show how God has chosen Isaac over Ishmael when technically speaking both of them are truly Abraham's sons (in the flesh).

At this point, some of Paul's critics might say:

"Well, perhaps the reason why Isaac was chosen and Ishmael was rejected is that God foresaw that the former will be righteous, and the latter unrighteous. Thus, God's choice may not be according to race, but it is according to his foreknowledge of how men will lead their lives." 

According to this objection, God chooses people according to foreseen merits. In the next couple of verses, Paul emphatically rejected this idea and provided another clear evidence from the OT Scripture that God's choice of people unto Salvation is not based on worth. In verses 10-12 we read:

[10]And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11]though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—[12]she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13]As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Rom. 9:10-12)

Jacob and Esau are twin brothers born of Isaac's blood. They both came directly from Abraham's linage, yet before they were "born and had done nothing either good or bad" God has already chosen Jacob over Esau to show that His choice of people unto Salvation is eternal and completely undeserved (i.e. not according to race or foreseen worth)!

Again, you would imagine Paul's critics raging up against him saying: 

"Are you completely out of your mind, Paul? If God chooses people unto Salvation irrespective of their future choices, then God would be unfair/unjust! Who with a sane mind would ever believe such a devilish doctrine!?" 

To this Paul responds:

[14]What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15]For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16]So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom. 9:14-16)

If Paul was an Arminian (i.e. one who holds that God's predestination is based on foreseen faith), he would have answered the objection above by simply saying that while God's choice is not according to works, it is nonetheless based on foreseen faith. But notice how Paul excludes all human worth (including faith) as basis of the divine election when he concluded: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (v. 16). Paul knew that if God would base His election on foreseen human worth, none will be elected and be saved because "we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: '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. 3:9-12). Saving faith, from which all good works flow, is itself a gift from God (Mat. 13:11; Jn. 6:29; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 4:7; Php. 1:29), so both faith and good works cannot be the cause of God's eternal predestination. In Paul's own words: "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

Paul's point is that God's justice in graciously choosing certain people unto Salvation is safeguarded by the mere fact that He is sovereign. The apostle proves this by quoting Exodus 33:19 which says: "And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." It's like another way of saying, "[The Lord] does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Dan. 4:35); and again, "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?" (Mat. 20:15). In other words, God has unrestricted freedom to dispense special favor on whomever He wills and is perfectly just in doing so.

Think about it. If all there in God is mere justice, what good reward do you think we all deserve? If God's dealing is all about justice, minus the mercy and grace, all of us should be in one place by now, and that place is HELL (Psa. 130:3, 143:2; Rom. 6:23). The Bible says left on our own sinful nature, we will never EVER seek after God (Rom. 3:9-12; Jn. 6:44, 65; 1 Cor. 2:14). In and of ourselves, we hate him (Rom. 8:7-8). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3; cf. Psa. 51:5). There's no one who deserves eternal life, no, not even one. Hence, even if ever God has refused to save anyone from this sinful mass of fallen mankind, He would remain perfectly holy and just! In the first place, God is absolutely not under any moral obligation to save us (Psa. 8:4). As far as justice is concerned, God doesn't owe us anything, except punishment for our sins (Rom. 11:35). Thus, it is a matter of God's great mercy and unconditional love in predestination that anyone is in Christ Jesus and enjoys eternal life in Him (1 Cor. 1:28-31; Eph. 1:4-5, 11). It is God who first chose us so that we should choose Him (Jn. 15:16; Ac. 13:48), not the other way around. So instead of ingratiatingly accusing God of injustice, shouldn't we praise and worship Him all the more for His great mercy and love which He lavished on unworthy sinners like us (1 Th. 1:2-5; 2 Th. 2:13)?

"Oh God, thank you for choosing me,

To be your child and bear You name,

O Jesus, I will never cease to sing Your praise!"

(from the song, "Thank you for loving me")

(To be continued in Part 2)

-Jeph