Father, I am so tired. I'm tired of wanting the best of both worlds. I want to follow You, obey You, trust You, but I also want to follow the desires of the flesh. Jesus said we can't serve two masters, but some days I want to serve two masters so badly, I can't stand it. But Jesus also said that if we love Him, we'll obey His teachings, so I guess what it means is that I don't love Him. Not enough, at least. I'm sorry I don't love Him more, but I want to.
Help me. Help me to love You more, help me to trust You more. Help me to trust that Your ways are better than anything we may find here. Help me to trust You when You promise that You will never allow us to be tempted beyond what we can endure, and that You will always provide a way out. Sometimes I just don't believe You; sometimes I ignore the way out. I'm sorry I don't always believe You. I'm sorry I don't always listen.
But thank You for the Cross. Thank You for dying, and thank You for rising again. Thank You for dying for each and every sin, and thank You for not being caught off-guard when I stumble. But, Lord, I'm so tired of crucifying You. I don't want to be another thorn on the crown. I'm tired of being another hammer blow on the nails. I don't want to be the spear that pierced Your side any longer.
I'm sorry, Lord, but thank You for being patient. You are infinitely more patient than any of us, and, truthfully, Lord, I don't get it, but thank You. Lord, I know Your ways are better than mine, please give me the endurance to live out what I know. Don't lead me into temptation, Father, but deliver me from evil so that I may be part of Your will here on earth, just as Your will is being done in heaven.
Thank You, Lord, for being You.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Piper on Limited Atonement
Like the discussion on Freewill (which I still need to finish - sorry!), this is a touchy subject. I realize that John Piper is extremely popular. I get it. I also realize that Calvinism (of which Limited Atonement is a facet) is rapidly gaining traction, spreading from Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian churches into Baptist and non-denominational churches. I recognize that people like Paul Washer, John Piper, and the late R.C. Sproul are (or, were) champions of this doctrine, and that many, many people have been deceived by these apparent preachers of the Gospel.
But Calvinism is a lie. It is an anti-Biblical farce that makes a mockery of Jesus' death, and undermines the very character and nature of God, and Piper is one of its most vocal proponents.
So in this post, I'm going to look at one of Piper's sermons, one in which he expounds the "Biblical" reason behind Limited Atonement. Then we're going to see why this is so wrong.
Piper begins his sermon by musing on one line from the song, "Crown Him with Many Crowns." Interesting to note that his sermon did not start with Scripture, but a hymn. And not even just a hymn, but his musings on the hymn, and how many people, he wonders, are wrong in their interpretation of its line. Right off the bat, he turns to, not Scripture, but a line from a hymn, and he approaches it with the attitude: "Most people are wrong about this line." Now, in starting with that, in what kind of mindset does that put his listeners? John Piper, spiritual and Biblical guru, has just told you that how you listen to a hymn is probably wrong, and he can provide the remedy. This is called psychological programming, because it sets you up to more readily accept the alternative that you are about to hear. Just throwing that out there.
Piper then moves on, stating that he would suppose that the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States believe that Jesus died for everyone. He then unpacks why this is false (spoiler alert: it isn't).
What the argument boils down to is that Jesus died for a very specific group of people - people He had chosen to save - and He did not die for anyone else . . . because He has chosen not to save them. Let’s see what he says:
Do you see what Piper is doing in all of this? I mean, really look. He is, in essence, telling people who believe what the Scriptures say that they are wrong, because God doesn't mean what He says.
Let's take a look back at Genesis 3 for a second, and see what Satan said to Eve:
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." . . .
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:1-5).
The first thing Satan does is set up a false scenario about God's commands, planting a seed of doubt. Then, he tells Eve that God did not mean what He said, and that there was a deeper truth there for her to know.
Sound familiar?
John Piper is, literally, using the exact same tactic that Satan used in the garden. Please listen: John Piper's argument is Satanic. Literally. His argument hinges on something he "guesses," something he "supposes," and something you may "probably say," and he argues against the Scriptures by undermining what we see with Abraham and Noah, and by contradicting the command of Jesus, a command that Jesus Himself tells us is from God. Piper is teaching a Gospel that is contrary to the Gospel of the Word, and he teaches a Jesus that is contrary to the Jesus whom the Apostles preached.
Paul writes to the church in Corinth, angry that the believers there will easily put up with anyone who comes to them and preaches a different Jesus than the Jesus he preached, someone who gives them a different spirit than the one they received, and someone who delivers a different gospel from the one they accepted (see 2 Corinthians 11:4). How many of you, upon hearing the Gospel, believed in a Jesus who only died for some? How many of you, upon accepting the Gospel, accepted a gospel that said that God so loved some of the world, that He gave His Son, that whoever (out of the ones He has chosen) believes in Him, will not perish, but have eternal life? How many of you came to a saving knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ by believing that when He tasted death, He tasted death for you, but possibly not your neighbor? How many of you believed a Gospel that said that Jesus died for you, because He loves you more than He loves other, ultimately unsaved, people?
So if you now believe such a gospel, if you now follow such a Jesus, if you now receive a spirit that teaches such things, have you not accepted a different gospel than the one in which you first believed? In 11:3, Paul likens such things to Eve's deception by the Serpent.
John Piper's argument is Satanic. I realize that this is extremely unpopular, since he is a well-respected preacher. I know his books sell, his church is packed, and his sermons are among the most downloaded sermons on the internet. But did Piper die for your sins? Was it Piper who was nailed to the cross? Did John create the world? Did he rise from the dead, defeating death?
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task (1 Corinthians 3:1-5).
If attacking the doctrines espoused by Piper offends you, then you are more interested in Piper than you are the Word of God.
The doctrine of Limited Atonement can only be defended by two methods:
1) Ignoring (or redefining) Scripture, and
2) Being mentally manipulative
Again, I understand that Piper is popular. I do. I even understand that he appeals to our intellect, and he gives us the things we want to hear. But perhaps instead of reading Piper, read the Bible. Instead of listening to his sermons, get the Bible on audio, and listen to it. The Apostle John tells us to "test the spirits" (1 John 4), and if a spirit fails the test, we need to eliminate it from our lives.
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Some further Scripture to consider:
-For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Re-written from a Calvinist perspective:
For God so loved some of the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever out of a limited group of people believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.
-He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
Re-written: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, because we are His Chosen, and only for ours, and also some others from the world whom He has also chosen, but not everyone else.
-But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1).
Re-written: But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who didn't buy them, because they were chosen not to believe - bringing swift destruction on themselves.
- . . . and for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10).
Re-written: . . . and for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of some men, having died only for those who believe.
-The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
Re-written: The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting any of you who were already bought and paid for and therefore cannot perish to perish, but everyone out of those for whom He died to come to repentance.
-But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).
Re-written: But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he would certainly taste death only for everyone for whom He actually tasted death.
"But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself" (John 12:32).
Re-written: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw only some men to Myself." or, alternatively, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all, out of the ones that I desire to draw, to Myself."
But Calvinism is a lie. It is an anti-Biblical farce that makes a mockery of Jesus' death, and undermines the very character and nature of God, and Piper is one of its most vocal proponents.
So in this post, I'm going to look at one of Piper's sermons, one in which he expounds the "Biblical" reason behind Limited Atonement. Then we're going to see why this is so wrong.
Piper begins his sermon by musing on one line from the song, "Crown Him with Many Crowns." Interesting to note that his sermon did not start with Scripture, but a hymn. And not even just a hymn, but his musings on the hymn, and how many people, he wonders, are wrong in their interpretation of its line. Right off the bat, he turns to, not Scripture, but a line from a hymn, and he approaches it with the attitude: "Most people are wrong about this line." Now, in starting with that, in what kind of mindset does that put his listeners? John Piper, spiritual and Biblical guru, has just told you that how you listen to a hymn is probably wrong, and he can provide the remedy. This is called psychological programming, because it sets you up to more readily accept the alternative that you are about to hear. Just throwing that out there.
Piper then moves on, stating that he would suppose that the majority of evangelical Christians in the United States believe that Jesus died for everyone. He then unpacks why this is false (spoiler alert: it isn't).
What the argument boils down to is that Jesus died for a very specific group of people - people He had chosen to save - and He did not die for anyone else . . . because He has chosen not to save them. Let’s see what he says:
“There
are lots of reasons why this answer (that Jesus tasted death for everyone) is a sign of spiritual health. One of the most obvious reasons is right here
in our text, Hebrews 2:9:
But
we do see Him Who has been made for a little while lower
than
the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of
death
crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God
He
might taste death for everyone.
The answer that 95% of evangelicals would give is a healthy sign of desire to say what the Bible says.
But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily
The answer that 95% of evangelicals would give is a healthy sign of desire to say what the Bible says.
But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily
the same thing. Which is why I said that there is something
unhealthy about
answering the question, “For whom did Jesus taste death?” by simply saying
“everybody.” What’s unhealthy about it is not, first, that it’s wrong. It might not be
answering the question, “For whom did Jesus taste death?” by simply saying
“everybody.” What’s unhealthy about it is not, first, that it’s wrong. It might not be
wrong. It depends on what you mean by saying that.”
Okay. Let’s stop
here and examine something. Piper calls
believing that the Bible says “everyone” a sign of spiritual health. Why?
Because that’s what it says. But
he then turns around and says that to believe what the Bible says (i.e.,
“everyone”) is “unhealthy.” In other
words, it’s healthy to want to
believe what the Bible says, but it’s unhealthy to actually believe what the Bible says. This is a grievous contradiction. Piper, in other words, contradicts himself, for it is utterly impossible for this answer to be both healthy and unhealthy. If I have a cold, I am not healthy (I have a virus), but unhealthy. I am not both. To believe what the Bible says is healthy, and cannot be unhealthy at the same time.
So the first thing Piper does here is acknowledge that
the Bible says that Jesus tasted
death for everyone, and he says that believing this plain and clear statement
is a sign of spiritual health. But then
he turns it around and states something quite dangerous. He makes a statement that, on the surface,
seems okay: “But to say what the Bible
says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily the same thing.” We may respond to that with a, "Sure, makes sense. Sometimes the Bible means something a little different than what it is taken as." But that's not actually the case, ever. For if we cannot determine what the Bible means by what it says, then we cannot understand the Bible at all, for how could we ever confirm anyone's interpretation? And what Piper is saying, here, is that the
Bible may say “everyone,” but it
doesn’t mean “everyone.” As a question, Piper might phrase it like
this: “Did God really mean ‘everyone’?”
A similar question has been asked before.
Now the serpent was
more crafty than any of the other wild animals the LORD God had made. And the serpent said to Eve, “Did God really
say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’” (Gen. 3:1-2).
What was Satan’s tactic here? To distort God’s Word and place a seed of
doubt in the mind of Eve. John Piper is
doing the exact same thing. Let’s read a
bit further in his argument, and then we’ll see what I mean by that.
"It depends on what you mean by saying that [everyone]."
In other words, if you define "everyone" as "everyone," you're wrong, but if you define it differently, you might be right. This is more conditioning, because it sets you up to either affirm yourself and your beliefs - confirming that you are in agreement with this "spiritual giant" thus giving you what you want to hear - or it will guilt you into changing your belief so that you can align it with what he teaches, which also cements his status as a man of God. Interesting how, in both of these scenarios, John Piper - rather than Scripture - is the spiritual authority to whom the listeners must align themselves. Right? You either agree with him - go you! - or you're told that you're wrong to disagree ("spiritually unhealthy" are the words he uses). Let's continue:
"It depends on what you mean by saying that. What's unhealthy is that it stops short of
asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died."
Actually, since Piper's the one who asked the initial question, then when he criticizes it ("What's unhealthy is that it stops short of asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died"), it's an argument he set up himself. This is a clever misdirection, because it reveals a flaw in the premise that he can then "solve," but it's only a flaw because he's the one who designed the flaw. The question comes up short because he stopped it where he did, not because the hypothetical believers he is addressing stopped short. It's easy to dismantle something you invented, and Piper is dismantling a purely hypothetical situation, a situation that he "guesses" is held by 95% of Christians who believe "everyone" means "everyone."
I call this process "manufacturing theological inconsistencies," and that is what he is doing. Why? In order to easily dismantle the problem, and, thus, appear to be speaking truth. He's manufacturing theological inconsistencies, and then dismantling them. This should be the second sign that there's something deceptive going on.
It assumes that we all know what he accomplished and that this he accomplished for everybody in the same way. That is not healthy, because it is not true.
In other words, what the Bible says is untrue, according to Piper.
My guess is that most of those 95% who say Jesus died for everybody would have a hard time explaining just what it is that the death of Jesus really, actually accomplished for everybody - especially what it accomplished for those who refuse to believe and go to hell."
Not if you know your Bible.
In other words, it's unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and not to know what Jesus really accomplished by dying. Suppose you say to me, "I believe that Jesus died for everyone," and I respond, "Then why is not everyone saved?" Your answer probably would be, "Because you have to receive the gift of salvation; you have to believe in Christ in order for his death to count for you." I agree, but -
Then that means you don't agree. If you say something positive, and then follow it with a "but," it means you don't actually agree. "I liked the Star Wars prequels, but. . ." It doesn't matter what follows, you just know I'm about to present something I didn't like about them (in this case, it would be followed with "almost everything."). What I'm saying is, I liked aspects of them, but not everything. What Piper is saying is that he only partially agree with the fact that you have to believe in Jesus in order to receive salvation.
I agree, but then I say, "So you believe that Christ died for people who reject him and go to hell in the same way that he died for those who accept him and go to heaven?" You say, "Yes, the difference is the faith of those who go to heaven. Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus."
There are several problems here. I will mention only one.
Let's stop here for a bit. Piper gives the hypothetical discussion in which "you" comment that, "'Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus.'" Piper then asserts that "there are several problems here." Oh, really? "Problems"? Sure about that, John? Let's see what the Scriptures say, then we'll return to Piper's argument. Let's start in the Old Testament.
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). That term "walked with God" refers to a deep relationship of trust and obedience on the part of Noah, and - as the ark indicates - salvation from God.
"Abram believed the LORD, and He credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Abram believed, and received the righteousness of God. This is not my interpretation of the text - it's what the text physically says.
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him" (Deut. 30:19-20). God Himself tells the Israelites to choose to follow His law, so that they may love Him, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. In other words, He is urging them to trust Him, in order that they may have a relationship with Him.
Now, let's see what Jesus has to say:
"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On Him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Then they asked Him, "What must we do to do the works that God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent" (John 6:27-29).
Jesus told them to work for that which leads to eternal life, which He will give. They asked him what that work was, and He told them it is to believe in Him. Really straightforward, right? Salvation - eternal life - happens when we believe. So when Piper says there are problems with this view, what he is really saying is that there are problems with what the Scriptures say (which makes sense, I guess, since he can simply tell us that believing what the Bible says isn't necessarily accurate).
And I dwell on this because, if this is what you believe, then you are missing out on the depths of covenant love that God has for you in Christ by understanding it to be same as the love he has for those who reject him. And you are, in one serious way, "neglecting your great salvation," which, we saw in Hebrews 2:3, we must not do. There is a greatness about being loved with Calvary love that you will never know if you believe that those in hell were loved and died-for the same way you were.
Ah. So the meat of this, here, is that if you believe God loves and died for all of the "sinners" in Hell, then you are missing out on how special and loved you are, because God loves you better and more than he does all of the other sinners. Right? If you believe, Piper argues, that Jesus died for all, then you are missing out on a deeper spiritual truth (maybe even neglecting your salvation! Oh no!). In other words, if you believe in Jesus, you should be thanking God that He loves you, and doesn't treat you the way He treats other sinners.
The "great" Calvinist preacher Charles Spurgeon once wrote:
Sometimes when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done ("If God Had Left Me Alone").
The idea, obviously, is that we should be grateful that we are more loved - and as a consequence, more righteous - than those who do not believe. What does the Bible say, though?
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:9-14).
You will never understand God's love for you if you don't believe what Piper is teaching. Those are his words, not mine. This argument is simply Pharisaical self-exaltation, wrapped under the guise of God's grace. Jesus is Lord, and Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I do not deserve it, I cannot work for it, but Jesus does not love me, and He did not die for me, as opposed to my neighbor, whom He does not love and for whom He did not die. I am not more special than my neighbor because Jesus died for me, and not him. We are both created in God's image, and we are both loved, and Jesus died for both of us, even though neither of us deserve it. THAT is true grace.
My neighbor may never accept his need for salvation, and he may never call on the name of Jesus and be saved, but that doesn't mean I am more loved. To believe that Jesus bore my sins, but not his, is the very definition of self-righteous, ego-centric nationalism. There is no scripture to support this, and to believe this doctrine is to feed the ego in a way that appears godly, but denies its power. Piper continues:
Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride. If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same we he died for those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for? Were their sins covered and cancelled by the blood of Jesus or not? We Christians say, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3). And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created. His death removed the wrath of God from me. His death lifted the curse of the law from me. His death purchased heaven for me. It really accomplished those things!
"It depends on what you mean by saying that [everyone]."
In other words, if you define "everyone" as "everyone," you're wrong, but if you define it differently, you might be right. This is more conditioning, because it sets you up to either affirm yourself and your beliefs - confirming that you are in agreement with this "spiritual giant" thus giving you what you want to hear - or it will guilt you into changing your belief so that you can align it with what he teaches, which also cements his status as a man of God. Interesting how, in both of these scenarios, John Piper - rather than Scripture - is the spiritual authority to whom the listeners must align themselves. Right? You either agree with him - go you! - or you're told that you're wrong to disagree ("spiritually unhealthy" are the words he uses). Let's continue:
"It depends on what you mean by saying that. What's unhealthy is that it stops short of
asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died."
Actually, since Piper's the one who asked the initial question, then when he criticizes it ("What's unhealthy is that it stops short of asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died"), it's an argument he set up himself. This is a clever misdirection, because it reveals a flaw in the premise that he can then "solve," but it's only a flaw because he's the one who designed the flaw. The question comes up short because he stopped it where he did, not because the hypothetical believers he is addressing stopped short. It's easy to dismantle something you invented, and Piper is dismantling a purely hypothetical situation, a situation that he "guesses" is held by 95% of Christians who believe "everyone" means "everyone."
I call this process "manufacturing theological inconsistencies," and that is what he is doing. Why? In order to easily dismantle the problem, and, thus, appear to be speaking truth. He's manufacturing theological inconsistencies, and then dismantling them. This should be the second sign that there's something deceptive going on.
It assumes that we all know what he accomplished and that this he accomplished for everybody in the same way. That is not healthy, because it is not true.
In other words, what the Bible says is untrue, according to Piper.
My guess is that most of those 95% who say Jesus died for everybody would have a hard time explaining just what it is that the death of Jesus really, actually accomplished for everybody - especially what it accomplished for those who refuse to believe and go to hell."
Not if you know your Bible.
In other words, it's unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and not to know what Jesus really accomplished by dying. Suppose you say to me, "I believe that Jesus died for everyone," and I respond, "Then why is not everyone saved?" Your answer probably would be, "Because you have to receive the gift of salvation; you have to believe in Christ in order for his death to count for you." I agree, but -
Then that means you don't agree. If you say something positive, and then follow it with a "but," it means you don't actually agree. "I liked the Star Wars prequels, but. . ." It doesn't matter what follows, you just know I'm about to present something I didn't like about them (in this case, it would be followed with "almost everything."). What I'm saying is, I liked aspects of them, but not everything. What Piper is saying is that he only partially agree with the fact that you have to believe in Jesus in order to receive salvation.
I agree, but then I say, "So you believe that Christ died for people who reject him and go to hell in the same way that he died for those who accept him and go to heaven?" You say, "Yes, the difference is the faith of those who go to heaven. Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus."
There are several problems here. I will mention only one.
Let's stop here for a bit. Piper gives the hypothetical discussion in which "you" comment that, "'Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus.'" Piper then asserts that "there are several problems here." Oh, really? "Problems"? Sure about that, John? Let's see what the Scriptures say, then we'll return to Piper's argument. Let's start in the Old Testament.
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). That term "walked with God" refers to a deep relationship of trust and obedience on the part of Noah, and - as the ark indicates - salvation from God.
"Abram believed the LORD, and He credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Abram believed, and received the righteousness of God. This is not my interpretation of the text - it's what the text physically says.
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him" (Deut. 30:19-20). God Himself tells the Israelites to choose to follow His law, so that they may love Him, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him. In other words, He is urging them to trust Him, in order that they may have a relationship with Him.
Now, let's see what Jesus has to say:
"Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On Him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Then they asked Him, "What must we do to do the works that God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one He has sent" (John 6:27-29).
Jesus told them to work for that which leads to eternal life, which He will give. They asked him what that work was, and He told them it is to believe in Him. Really straightforward, right? Salvation - eternal life - happens when we believe. So when Piper says there are problems with this view, what he is really saying is that there are problems with what the Scriptures say (which makes sense, I guess, since he can simply tell us that believing what the Bible says isn't necessarily accurate).
And I dwell on this because, if this is what you believe, then you are missing out on the depths of covenant love that God has for you in Christ by understanding it to be same as the love he has for those who reject him. And you are, in one serious way, "neglecting your great salvation," which, we saw in Hebrews 2:3, we must not do. There is a greatness about being loved with Calvary love that you will never know if you believe that those in hell were loved and died-for the same way you were.
Ah. So the meat of this, here, is that if you believe God loves and died for all of the "sinners" in Hell, then you are missing out on how special and loved you are, because God loves you better and more than he does all of the other sinners. Right? If you believe, Piper argues, that Jesus died for all, then you are missing out on a deeper spiritual truth (maybe even neglecting your salvation! Oh no!). In other words, if you believe in Jesus, you should be thanking God that He loves you, and doesn't treat you the way He treats other sinners.
The "great" Calvinist preacher Charles Spurgeon once wrote:
Sometimes when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done ("If God Had Left Me Alone").
The idea, obviously, is that we should be grateful that we are more loved - and as a consequence, more righteous - than those who do not believe. What does the Bible say, though?
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:9-14).
You will never understand God's love for you if you don't believe what Piper is teaching. Those are his words, not mine. This argument is simply Pharisaical self-exaltation, wrapped under the guise of God's grace. Jesus is Lord, and Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I do not deserve it, I cannot work for it, but Jesus does not love me, and He did not die for me, as opposed to my neighbor, whom He does not love and for whom He did not die. I am not more special than my neighbor because Jesus died for me, and not him. We are both created in God's image, and we are both loved, and Jesus died for both of us, even though neither of us deserve it. THAT is true grace.
My neighbor may never accept his need for salvation, and he may never call on the name of Jesus and be saved, but that doesn't mean I am more loved. To believe that Jesus bore my sins, but not his, is the very definition of self-righteous, ego-centric nationalism. There is no scripture to support this, and to believe this doctrine is to feed the ego in a way that appears godly, but denies its power. Piper continues:
Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride. If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same we he died for those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for? Were their sins covered and cancelled by the blood of Jesus or not? We Christians say, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3). And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created. His death removed the wrath of God from me. His death lifted the curse of the law from me. His death purchased heaven for me. It really accomplished those things!
"What are the lost being punished for?" Their sins. See, this is only a problem if you deny that faith is what connects you to Jesus' atonement on the cross. If you deny that Biblical truth, which Piper does, in a veiled sort of way, then this is a problem. But if you accept the Scriptures, and try not to reason your way out of them in order to sound smart, then this is a non-issue. It's interesting, too, that Piper offers no Biblical answer to his "problem." That's because there isn't one. Take four months and read through the Bible, and you will not find it.
Do you see what Piper is doing in all of this? I mean, really look. He is, in essence, telling people who believe what the Scriptures say that they are wrong, because God doesn't mean what He says.
Let's take a look back at Genesis 3 for a second, and see what Satan said to Eve:
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." . . .
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:1-5).
The first thing Satan does is set up a false scenario about God's commands, planting a seed of doubt. Then, he tells Eve that God did not mean what He said, and that there was a deeper truth there for her to know.
Sound familiar?
John Piper is, literally, using the exact same tactic that Satan used in the garden. Please listen: John Piper's argument is Satanic. Literally. His argument hinges on something he "guesses," something he "supposes," and something you may "probably say," and he argues against the Scriptures by undermining what we see with Abraham and Noah, and by contradicting the command of Jesus, a command that Jesus Himself tells us is from God. Piper is teaching a Gospel that is contrary to the Gospel of the Word, and he teaches a Jesus that is contrary to the Jesus whom the Apostles preached.
Paul writes to the church in Corinth, angry that the believers there will easily put up with anyone who comes to them and preaches a different Jesus than the Jesus he preached, someone who gives them a different spirit than the one they received, and someone who delivers a different gospel from the one they accepted (see 2 Corinthians 11:4). How many of you, upon hearing the Gospel, believed in a Jesus who only died for some? How many of you, upon accepting the Gospel, accepted a gospel that said that God so loved some of the world, that He gave His Son, that whoever (out of the ones He has chosen) believes in Him, will not perish, but have eternal life? How many of you came to a saving knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ by believing that when He tasted death, He tasted death for you, but possibly not your neighbor? How many of you believed a Gospel that said that Jesus died for you, because He loves you more than He loves other, ultimately unsaved, people?
So if you now believe such a gospel, if you now follow such a Jesus, if you now receive a spirit that teaches such things, have you not accepted a different gospel than the one in which you first believed? In 11:3, Paul likens such things to Eve's deception by the Serpent.
John Piper's argument is Satanic. I realize that this is extremely unpopular, since he is a well-respected preacher. I know his books sell, his church is packed, and his sermons are among the most downloaded sermons on the internet. But did Piper die for your sins? Was it Piper who was nailed to the cross? Did John create the world? Did he rise from the dead, defeating death?
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task (1 Corinthians 3:1-5).
If attacking the doctrines espoused by Piper offends you, then you are more interested in Piper than you are the Word of God.
The doctrine of Limited Atonement can only be defended by two methods:
1) Ignoring (or redefining) Scripture, and
2) Being mentally manipulative
Again, I understand that Piper is popular. I do. I even understand that he appeals to our intellect, and he gives us the things we want to hear. But perhaps instead of reading Piper, read the Bible. Instead of listening to his sermons, get the Bible on audio, and listen to it. The Apostle John tells us to "test the spirits" (1 John 4), and if a spirit fails the test, we need to eliminate it from our lives.
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Some further Scripture to consider:
-For God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Re-written from a Calvinist perspective:
For God so loved some of the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever out of a limited group of people believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.
-He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
Re-written: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sin, because we are His Chosen, and only for ours, and also some others from the world whom He has also chosen, but not everyone else.
-But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1).
Re-written: But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who didn't buy them, because they were chosen not to believe - bringing swift destruction on themselves.
- . . . and for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10).
Re-written: . . . and for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of some men, having died only for those who believe.
-The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
Re-written: The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting any of you who were already bought and paid for and therefore cannot perish to perish, but everyone out of those for whom He died to come to repentance.
-But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).
Re-written: But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he would certainly taste death only for everyone for whom He actually tasted death.
"But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself" (John 12:32).
Re-written: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw only some men to Myself." or, alternatively, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all, out of the ones that I desire to draw, to Myself."
Friday, April 14, 2017
The Stoning of Stephen
Now Stephen, a
man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs
among the people. Opposition arose, however, from members of the
Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and
Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to
argue with Stephen. But they could not stand up against the wisdom the
Spirit gave him as he spoke.
Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”
So
they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law.
They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced
false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking
against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say
that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the
customs Moses handed down to us.”
All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?”
To
this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory
appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before
he lived in Harran. ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said,
‘and go to the land I will show you.’
“So
he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Harran. After the
death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now
living. He gave him no inheritance here, not even enough ground to set
his foot on. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him
would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no
child. God spoke to him in this way: ‘For four hundred years your
descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will
be enslaved and mistreated. But I will punish the nation they serve as
slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and
worship me in this place.’ Then he gave Abraham the covenant of
circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him
eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and
Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs.
“Because
the patriarchs were jealous of Joseph, they sold him as a slave into
Egypt. But God was with him and rescued him from all his troubles. He
gave Joseph wisdom and enabled him to gain the goodwill of Pharaoh king
of Egypt. So Pharaoh made him ruler over Egypt and all his palace.
“Then
a famine struck all Egypt and Canaan, bringing great suffering, and our
ancestors could not find food. When Jacob heard that there was grain
in Egypt, he sent our forefathers on their first visit. On their second
visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was, and Pharaoh learned about
Joseph’s family. After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his
whole family, seventy-five in all. Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where
he and our ancestors died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem
and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at
Shechem for a certain sum of money.
“As
the time drew near for God to fulfill his promise to Abraham, the
number of our people in Egypt had greatly increased. Then ‘a new king,
to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt.’ He dealt
treacherously with our people and oppressed our ancestors by forcing
them to throw out their newborn babies so that they would die.
“At
that time Moses was born, and he was no ordinary child. For three
months he was cared for by his family. When he was placed outside,
Pharaoh’s daughter took him and brought him up as her own son. Moses
was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in
speech and action. “When Moses was forty years old, he decided to visit
his own people, the Israelites. He saw one of them being mistreated by
an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the
Egyptian. Moses thought that his own people would realize that God was
using him to rescue them, but they did not. The next day Moses came
upon two Israelites who were fighting. He tried to reconcile them by
saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why do you want to hurt each other?’
“But
the man who was mistreating the other pushed Moses aside and said, ‘Who
made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as
you killed the Egyptian yesterday?’ When Moses heard this, he fled to
Midian, where he settled as a foreigner and had two sons.
“After
forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a
burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. When he saw this, he was
amazed at the sight. As he went over to get a closer look, he heard the
Lord say: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob.’ Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look.
“Then
the Lord said to him, ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you
are standing is holy ground. I have indeed seen the oppression of my
people in Egypt. I have heard their groaning and have come down to set
them free. Now come, I will send you back to Egypt.’
“This
is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ‘Who made you ruler
and judge?’ He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself,
through the angel who appeared to him in the bush. He led them out of
Egypt and performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for
forty years in the wilderness.
“This
is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a
prophet like me from your own people.’ He was in the assembly in the
wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our
ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us.
“But
our ancestors refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in
their hearts turned back to Egypt. They told Aaron, ‘Make us gods who
will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we
don’t know what has happened to him!’ That
was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought
sacrifices to it and reveled in what their own hands had made. But God
turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon
and stars. This agrees with what is written in the book of the
prophets:
“‘Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?
forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?
You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek
and the star of your god Rephan,
the idols you made to worship.
Therefore I will send you into exile’ beyond Babylon.
and the star of your god Rephan,
the idols you made to worship.
Therefore I will send you into exile’ beyond Babylon.
“Our
ancestors had the tabernacle of the covenant law with them in the
wilderness. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the
pattern he had seen. After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors
under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the
nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the
time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a
dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a
house for him.
“However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:
“‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me?
says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
Has not my hand made all these things?’
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me?
says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
Has not my hand made all these things?’
“You
stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You
are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was
there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed
those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have
betrayed and murdered him — you who have received the law that was given
through angels but have not obeyed it.”
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
At
this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices,
they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone
him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young
man named Saul.
While
they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold
this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
And Saul approved of their killing him.
-Acts 6:8 - 8:1, NIV Translation
Studying mythology is a daunting task, particularly if we study it with the intent of determining its validity. Obviously, none of us were there when the ancient stories took place, so how can we know for certain that they happened (or didn't happen)? We cannot. What we can do is determine how feasible they are.
My first approach to studying any story is to dismiss whether or not I think it could have occurred. If we start with an inherent bias, then we are far more likely to cling to that original opinion, regardless of the evidence. I try to approach every story, no matter how remarkable, with the idea that its accuracy is possible, period. Apollo and his chariot? Possible. David and Goliath? Possible. It is only after study that I begin to solidify an opinion.
The next step is to determine any anachronisms or known false information. This can often be tricky, and we have to always maintain the initial start point of possibility. In this week's myth, however, we see a few reasonable details that place the story well within its context. We know that the story is purported to take place in the early part of the first century, somewhere between 30 and 40 A.D. At that point in time, the Sanhedrin (a ruling class of the Temple sect) were still around, the Temple was still in existence, and stoning was still a form of execution for blaspheming. While none of these details proves the story, they do support its historicity.
This time was also, according to Roman documents and historians of that time period, the beginning of a great attempt to stamp out the movement of The Way (as it was called). This attempted destruction began with the leading Jewish authorities at the time, until the movement spread and grew enough to alarm the Roman governments, at which point the Roman military got involved. Placing this first story within the context of the 30's, then, fits within known history.
The next thing I look at is the work itself. This story fits into a book commonly called Acts. The author (assumed to be a physician named Luke) was meticulous in detail, and the book itself has often been used by historians to study first-century history. Luke goes to great pains to name cities and regions, describe customs of various people groups, and give as much accurate detail as possible. Most of his book, according to estimates, has been verified as accurate. None of it has been verified as false.
Condensing this, then, we have a few observations:
1) The book within which this story takes place is deemed accurate by most historians.
2) The people involved in the story (Sanhedrin) are known to have existed.
3) The location of the story (The Temple and Jerusalem) is known to have existed.
4) The very events of the story (Execution of religious criminals by stoning) were commonplace during the time in which this story is supposed to have taken place.
Therefore, as a student of mythology, I can really only come to one conclusion. While none of these things proves that The Stoning of Stephen took place, what we can reasonably assume is that the story itself probably happened.
Once we begin approaching all of mythology this way, we find the discipline far less frustrating. We also find ourselves removing literary study from the ethereal realm of symbolism and archetypes, and bringing it down into a realistic and more approachable sphere.
Studying mythology is a daunting task, particularly if we study it with the intent of determining its validity. Obviously, none of us were there when the ancient stories took place, so how can we know for certain that they happened (or didn't happen)? We cannot. What we can do is determine how feasible they are.
My first approach to studying any story is to dismiss whether or not I think it could have occurred. If we start with an inherent bias, then we are far more likely to cling to that original opinion, regardless of the evidence. I try to approach every story, no matter how remarkable, with the idea that its accuracy is possible, period. Apollo and his chariot? Possible. David and Goliath? Possible. It is only after study that I begin to solidify an opinion.
The next step is to determine any anachronisms or known false information. This can often be tricky, and we have to always maintain the initial start point of possibility. In this week's myth, however, we see a few reasonable details that place the story well within its context. We know that the story is purported to take place in the early part of the first century, somewhere between 30 and 40 A.D. At that point in time, the Sanhedrin (a ruling class of the Temple sect) were still around, the Temple was still in existence, and stoning was still a form of execution for blaspheming. While none of these details proves the story, they do support its historicity.
This time was also, according to Roman documents and historians of that time period, the beginning of a great attempt to stamp out the movement of The Way (as it was called). This attempted destruction began with the leading Jewish authorities at the time, until the movement spread and grew enough to alarm the Roman governments, at which point the Roman military got involved. Placing this first story within the context of the 30's, then, fits within known history.
The next thing I look at is the work itself. This story fits into a book commonly called Acts. The author (assumed to be a physician named Luke) was meticulous in detail, and the book itself has often been used by historians to study first-century history. Luke goes to great pains to name cities and regions, describe customs of various people groups, and give as much accurate detail as possible. Most of his book, according to estimates, has been verified as accurate. None of it has been verified as false.
Condensing this, then, we have a few observations:
1) The book within which this story takes place is deemed accurate by most historians.
2) The people involved in the story (Sanhedrin) are known to have existed.
3) The location of the story (The Temple and Jerusalem) is known to have existed.
4) The very events of the story (Execution of religious criminals by stoning) were commonplace during the time in which this story is supposed to have taken place.
Therefore, as a student of mythology, I can really only come to one conclusion. While none of these things proves that The Stoning of Stephen took place, what we can reasonably assume is that the story itself probably happened.
Once we begin approaching all of mythology this way, we find the discipline far less frustrating. We also find ourselves removing literary study from the ethereal realm of symbolism and archetypes, and bringing it down into a realistic and more approachable sphere.
Friday, April 7, 2017
New Post Coming NEXT Week!
Hey, all! Sorry for the delay in posts as of late, but if all goes according to plan, there will be a new post next week! I am currently working on five different posts (including the next two in our study on the End Times), as well as working on a very early development of a Youtube channel. So between all of these projects, I plan on having at least one of them done for next week. :-) But, then again, if God has something different, I'm going to have to roll with it. But that's the plan, at least. Until then, thanks, as always, for reading (visitor traffic has more than tripled over the last month!).
Charles
Don't forget, you can always contact me at charlesmartinjrauthor@gmail.com.
You can also follow me on Twitter @cdmartinjr_jr, like me on Facebook, or click the link below to add me to your circle!
Charles
Don't forget, you can always contact me at charlesmartinjrauthor@gmail.com.
You can also follow me on Twitter @cdmartinjr_jr, like me on Facebook, or click the link below to add me to your circle!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)