God is Love

“Doesn’t the Bible say that God is love? Wouldn’t this mean that God must love everybody equally?”

Or so the philosophy of Arminianism would have us believe. The short response is that while God is love (1 John 4:8) this is not His only attribute. God is also a God of justice, holiness and wrath. The Arminian arrives at his conclusion by over-emphasizing the love of God to the exclusion of His other characteristics.

“⁹For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9, NASB). These words really hit home for me when I consider my upbringing in an Arminian and very anti-Calvinistic church environment. Now looking back, I see some of God’s wisdom in allowing me to have that experience. For one thing, I am better able to approach my Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ to help them understand more of God’s truth. Second, I now recognize the Lord’s complete rulership over all things, including salvation, and the great impact this can have on the Christian life. For this reason I believe it is important to address even the concerns raised by our Arminian friends.

Starting off, is God required to love everybody exactly the same? The Scriptures say this, “¹³Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Romans 9:13, NASB). God loved Jacob but hated Esau. My initial question to the Arminian is this: In light of the fact that God loved Jacob but hated Esau how can you say God is required to love everyone equally?

On another level, let’s consider ourselves – God’s creatures – who are made in the image of God. We have the ability to express different kinds of love. For example, I love my wife differently than I love my friends. And I love my parent’s dogs differently than I love my computer. I also love the triune God above everyone and everything else. Are we really to believe that God’s love is less expressive than His own creatures’ ability to love people/things differently? If so, doesn’t this reduce God to a level below His own creatures?

But the Scriptures seem to also express that the Lord is not only a God of love. He is also a God of hate. God hates sin, yes, but the Bible also says that God hates sinners. I’ve already cited the Lord hating Esau, but think on Psalm 5:5, “ ⁵The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.” (NASB). At this point a question naturally arises in the heart of man: is God unjust? Paul actually addresses this subject immediately after stating that God loved Jacob but hated Esau: “¹⁴What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (Romans 9:14, NASB). Even though the Lord loves some and hates others He is not unjust.

I was reminded recently that God is not described as “love, love, love” – three times in a row – in the Scriptures. Rather, He is called “holy, holy, holy” (Isaiah 6:3). The reason this is important is because the author is emphatically making a point about one of the Lord’s attributes: His holiness; His other-ness. God is utterly unique in His divine majesty, and nothing can be compared to Him. This is why when we consider our own sinfulness in light of God’s holiness we are left with despair like the prophet Isaiah, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5, NASB). Our sin and our guilt has offended God infinitely beyond our understanding because we have sinned against an infinite Being, and therefore, our punishment must be terrible indeed.

Therefore, to say that God is required to love everybody the same is altogether the wrong starting point. God is not under any obligation to love anyone, and it is for this reason that we ought to be AMAZED that He has decided to love any at all. We ought not to be distressed that He did not love Esau, but rather our breath should be taken away that He decided to love Jacob! Especially in light of the fact that God’s decision to love one and hate the other was not based on anything in them! “¹⁰And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,” (Romans 9:10-11, NASB). This is a humbling truth, but it also magnifies the triumphant grace of our God who does not depend on the will of man (Romans 9:16).

Thanks for reading,

Case of Base

The Greatest Compliment I Have Ever Received

After two unreturned phone calls from a week ago I decided to leave a final message explaining that this would be my last attempt to get in touch with him. Right as the beep to the voicemail clicked over I began receiving a call. It was Josh … the Jehovah’s Witness I met with three times over the past couple weeks. We said our awkward “hello’s” and I quickly moved on to explain that I wasn’t intending to call for the third time in a row, but first wanted to make sure he was okay, and second to give him a way out in case he didn’t want to continue meeting/talking.

Being the polite guy that he is, he told me he thought it would be best if we stopped meeting because we are both firmly set in our beliefs. I tried to respond graciously and told him that I only want to continue our discussions if he is comfortable. But I couldn’t resist adding how much I appreciated talking with him, and the respect that I have for him for the willingness to examine his beliefs in light of Scripture. I also mentioned that our discussions were the highlight of my week each week, and that he has been the topic of discussion with my family and friends.

He responded by giving me similar feedback, and chuckled as he told me he thinks I would make a great Jehovah’s Witness. We both laughed. “Seriously though,” he said, “half of being a Witness is door to door work, and you are already so passionate about your faith that you are precisely the kind of laborer we need.”

Because I didn’t want to keep him I tried to wrap up the convo by leaving an open invitation if he ever wanted to stop by. “You are always welcome in my house,” I told him, “just gimme a call and I will make time for you.” At this point in the phone call I could honestly tell that he did want to continue meeting, which leaves me to wonder what’s going on behind the scenes – there could be any number of factors involved: his wife, friends at church, his church leadership.

Somehow I felt comfortable enough to throw in a quick challenge to him (especially if I may not see him again) to look into some of the examples I showed him in the New Testament that refer to Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah. Specifically I brought up Hebrews 1:10-12, where the author attributes the text from Psalm 102 to Jesus, and also John 12 where John says that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in his Isaiah 6 vision. “Both of these are good points,” Josh said, “and I promise I will research these and all the issues we talked about … you know what, I do want to meet with you at some point in the future.”

And that settled that. Praise be to God. We don’t have a date, but I told him to call me when he is available to meet and we’ll make it happen.

Josh then said something that I really took to heart, “No one has ever explained the Trinity to me like you have. I really appreciate the time we’ve already spent talking about who Jehovah is.” This is by far the greatest compliment I have ever received. I told him that the reason I care so much about the Trinity is the same reason he cares about his perspective that Jehovah is a unipersonal being. I then added, “Like I said when we met, the reason I want to share my faith is primarily because I believe God is honored in the proclamation of His truth, and also because I care about unbelievers. I want you, Josh, to believe the truth because I care about you and want you to come to the true Christ in faith so that you will not pay for your sins in Hell for all eternity.”

Definitely caught him off-guard with that one. But he sincerely told me he appreciated my heartfelt emotions towards him. My wife suggested that we spend extra time praying for Josh, that the triune Lord of majesty might open up his heart to the truth and that He would be granted repentance unto life. My God can save anyone. Please, Lord, show mercy to my friend Josh – if it be Your will.

Thanks for reading,

Casey

Calvinism: An Introduction to an Introduction

I grew up in a church environment where Calvinism was only whispered about. It was a deeply frowned upon doctrine in my circle, and the pastors would quickly pay you too much attention if you even expressed interest in researching the subject. It didn’t take too long before I developed a staunch and fervent attitude against Calvinism. There was only one Calvinistic church that I was aware of, and I honestly hated that people were flocking there in droves once they embraced the teachings of Calvinism. Already in this paragraph there are more mentions of the term “Calvinism” than I had heard unashamedly and openly at church by the time I was 18 =).

For those who knew me between the ages of 16 and 19 must think it is the irony of ironies that I am now a firm believer in the doctrine of Calvinism because I was once utterly opposed to it. Whenever I meet someone who is an Arminian and reacts a little too surprised at my Calvinistic beliefs I am able to sympathize with them because I was once there in their shoes. I know what it is wonder how anyone could believe something so different. I know what questions pop into your mind: “Doesn’t God love the whole world?” … “What about free will?” … “Why would God not choose to save everyone?” … “If God has ordained all things why bother preaching the gospel?” … and other deserving questions. What I want to say to folks when I am asked these kinds of questions is this: These are excellent questions, and there are excellent answers.

One of my favorite things about the Christian faith is the clarity of the truths of Scripture. Predestination, God’s sovereignty, His rulership over all things – including salvation, God’s freedom to do as He pleases, His holiness and justice, and how He always accomplishes His ordained will are many of the subjects that need to be addressed while entering into a study of Calvinism. The idea that there are only “five points” is a bit misleading, and in fact the reason there were five points of Calvinism produced was to respond to the Arminians making their case in the seventeenth century to the churches in England with their five points.

This entry will not attempt to respond to key verses believed to teach Arminianism (some of which include: John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37). You can bet that I will write a lil’ somethin on these in the near future =). What I will attempt to do is briefly introduce what Calvinism is accompanied by some Scriptural support. This will not be exhaustive and will not respond to all questions that may arise. But please ask if you have a particular question and I’d be happy to address it.

Even though it is overly simplistic, but because this is really an introduction I will utilize the “TULIP” acronym to summarize Calvinism, followed by a compare/contrast with Arminianism which will include some Scriptural support.

T – Total Depravity. Man is so affected by sin that he is unable to make positive advancements towards God in faith. This does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, because God’s common grace restrains the evil that we want to do. However, sin reaches to all aspects of man, even touching his will. In fact, Scripture refers to men as being “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), and their “mind set on the flesh [being] hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” (Romans 8:7). Our Lord Christ also says of man’s will, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Men are dead in sin, unable to subject themselves to the law of God, and unable to come to Christ in faith.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that men have libertarian free will. Sin has not affected men to the extent that they are unable to come to Christ in faith. Men are born with an inherent ability to accept or reject God’s truth.

U – Unconditional Election. God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rests solely on His sovereign will. This was not based on anything within men, including any foreseen response or act on their part. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation (Steele and Thomas). The Apostle Paul wrote, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). Jesus also says, ”All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27). God choice of the elect before the foundation of the world is solely based upon the Father’s choosing. There is no mention of God responding to foreseen knowledge of men choosing Him.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that God’s choice was based upon God’s foreseeing who would freely respond to the gospel in faith.

L – Limited Atonement (also referred to as “Definite Atonement” and “Particular Redemption”). Christ’s redeeming work was meant to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary atonement for all their sins in which he paid for particular sins and particular sinners on the cross (Steele and Thomas). Peter says that Christ actually “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24). The angel said to Joseph, “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus ,for He will save His people from their sins.” Jesus actually bore the sins of His people on the cross. They were paid for in full, and therefore will save His people from their sins.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that Christ’s redeeming work was meant to save every individual, but did not actually save anyone. His death was not a substitutionary atonement but is theoretical, being applied only when men choose to receive it.

I – Irresistible Grace (also called “Efficacious grace”). In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to all men individually, the Holy Spirit extends to God’s elect a special inward call that will result in their coming to Christ in faith. When the Holy Spirit draws someone to the Lord he always comes. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended (Steele and Thomas). Paul in Ephesians writes this, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-6). Earlier in this chapter the Apostle calls them dead sinners, but here explains why it is that some come to Christ in faith: God made us alive with Christ. We were dead, but God made us alive.

By contrast, Arminianism teaches that God’s inward call is given to all who outwardly hear the gospel. The Spirit’s call can be resisted by the will of man. Therefore, the Spirit’s call is often overpowered by man, and is not invincible (Steele and Thomas).

P – Perseverance of the Saints (also referred to as “Preservation of the Saints”). All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end (Steele and Thomas). God began the work of salvation and He is the one that finishes it. Sometimes called the Golden Chain of Redemption, the beautiful text of Romans 8:28-30 shows the work of God in the life of the believer linked together in an unbroken chain of events, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called; He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” Those whom He foreknew (which, throughout the Bible, the verb ‘to know’ always refers to God’s special love directed towards His people) He predestined, called, justified and … glorified. It is an unbroken chain of events that will take place. As you continue to the end of the chapter, Paul says we are more than conquerors because of God’s power in salvation. What a great God we have to provide such a secure salvation! Truly, salvation is of the Lord!

By contract, Arminianism teaches that since salvation is contingent upon man choosing or rejecting salvation he may lose his salvation. I should say that not all present-day Arminians believe this – I didn’t when I was one. But the question needs to be asked of the Arminian: if you enter salvation by your choice, why would you not have the choice to abandon that salvation?

Because this is a lot of information to get started in a study on the subject of Calvinism, I’ll try to wrap this up. For further study, I would highly recommend The Five Points of Calvinism by Steele and Thomas, and The Sovereign Grace of God by Dr. James R. White. Both are excellent reads and are simple enough to understand and work through.

If you are wondering if the study of Calvinism versus Arminianism is a worthwhile endeavor, please allow me to offer a few thoughts. I believe that while it is not essential to salvation, it is nevertheless extremely important to the believer. What is at stake is a theocentric (God-centered) gospel versus a anthropocentric (man-centered) gospel. Is God able to save? Or does God require the cooperation of man? And to the Arminian who may challenge my line of questioning by asking me: “Well, why can’t God choose to give man free will?” I would respond by pointing out that were that the case God’s ordained will is not accomplished as the Bible declares that it is and will be.

The Lord is a mighty God, and He accomplishes His purpose. And again I point to that beautiful text in Romans 8, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God. All things. What things? Paul later mentions those powers who are against Christians, and then concludes the chapter by including literally everything. The gospel is good news because sinners are so corrupted by sin that we will not and cannot choose to believe in Christ. But He has mercy on some and chose them before the foundation of the world – not based on anything in them – it is by grace alone. Christ secured their salvation by accomplishing salvation on the cross. The Lord draws His people unto Himself at the appointed time, and then He continues to work within them so that they will not fall away from the truth.

From beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord. He is the author and finisher of our faith. Praise be to such a triune God as ours!

Thanks for reading,

Casey

Should you believe in the Trinity?

There are moments that forever stand out in your mind. For me, they are a bunch of “firsts.” I remember the first time I saw my wife, the first time I went swing dancing, and my first real cup of coffee – courtesy of Eli. Last night was another one of these stand-alone moments as I read the Watchtower publication Should You Believe in the Trinity?, given to me by the Jehovah’s Witness I’m talking with.

I had just finished doing up my usual cup of coffee – a tall, half inch of non-fat milk, one equal, well stirred – and claimed a comfy seat outside Starbucks. I managed to complete the magazine in that sitting, and I’m certain I scared the little old ladies sitting nearby as I furiously annotated in the margins with a look of concern on my face. What I discovered within the brief 31 page magazine were a series of poorly constructed arguments, misrepresentations and falsehoods in an attempt to disprove the Trinity.

“Why should a subject like this be of any more than passing interest? Because Jesus himself said: “Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy. Therefore, why not examine it for yourself?” (Page 3). My annotation here summarizes exactly what I was thinking as I finished this: “Amen!” Truly, there is no greater subject of difference between Christianity and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Oddly enough, the Watchtower publication attempts to unravel the foundation of the Trinity by claiming it is too confusing to understand, and since God is not a God of confusion it must be untrue. “However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”” (Page 5). Aside from the fact that the citation of 1 Corinthians 14:33 is about proper use of spiritual gifts in the church, the doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible. Josh (my Jehovah’s witness friend) has argued that he thinks it is confusing because he can’t imagine what it is like to exist as a trinity. My response to him was that simply because we can’t relate to God in all of His attributes – especially about His very nature – does not disprove that this is how God actually exists. There are many attributes about God that we cannot fully relate to: his omnipresence, omniscience, and his complete power. Nevertheless, these unrelatable attributes are true of God. So then, if the Lord has revealed that He is only one Being, shared by three distinct coequal and coeternal Persons, then the Trinity is true … even though we can’t relate to God in this way.

When and how the doctrine of the Trinity developed becomes the next focus. In a nut shell, it is argued that early Christians borrowed from pagan religious sources to shape their understanding of God. Examples include the Egyptian gods Horus, Osiris and Isis and the Babylonian gods Ishtar, Sin and Shamash. It was at this point that I set the magazine down on the table and had to try not to look as angry as I felt. The reason I was so bothered is because the idea that the polytheistic world was adopted by Christians flies in the face of the absolute monotheism of the Bible. The most essential truth of Judaism and Christianity is the firm belief in the existence of one true God. If I may add one further point, because other polytheistic religions had a “set” of three gods does not even begin to compare with the absolute monotheism of Christianity.

“When Jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place.” To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his father, God, whose will was superior and could be different from his own, the only One able to “remove this cup.” (Page 18). Words like this sound entirely strange to Trinitarian ears because we recognize that the Father and the Son are different persons. What is surprising is that here the Watchtower does not seem to understand that Trinitarians do believe that. When I read the question, “To whom was he praying? To a part of himself?” I thought to myself: this is either a dishonest question or one made out of ignorance. One or the other.

Dishonesty or ignorance? The entire magazine could be easily refuted by a Trinitarian familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity. The simple understanding that difference in function does not mean inferiority in nature. In other words, because the Father and the Son have some distinct roles does not mean one has an inferior nature. All three of the divine Persons share the one Being of God.

If you have could use some help in further understanding and explaining the Trinity I would highly recommend Dr. James R. White’s The Forgotten Trinity, purchasable through http://www.aomin.org. Speaking of “firsts,” the first time I read James’ book I remember thinking to myself, “Oh that’s what the Trinity is…”

=)

Thanks for reading,

Casey

My God can save anybody

“It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.” (1 Timothy 1:15, NASB).

I’m still getting used to the fact that on Tuesday nights the Lord has brought some close friends back into my life. These are guys that I spent years with studying the Scriptures, praying, worshipping at church, evangelizing the lost, and having a good time. I spent (and still spend) a lot of time praying for them on my own, and thinking about their spiritual well-being. Which is why I was delighted the night I received a text from Brett inviting me to a Bible study they were having, and I’ve been joining them ever since.

We’re now working through 1 Timothy, and this verse in chapter one seems especially relevant to me in light of the week-long Easter Pageant put on by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in Mesa, AZ. Not only is the pageant Monday through Friday the week of Easter, but also in Spanish the week prior! While I don’t have current statistics about how many Latter-day Saints will attend during Easter week, in years past it was estimated to be around 80,000. That’s a lot of folks each night at the Pageant!

If you’ve spent more than a few years witnessing to the LDS people you have noticed some not so subtle changes in their knowledge (rather, their lack of knowledge) of their own Church’s theology and doctrine. Many people have become apathetic in their approach towards non-Mormons, even to the point where they have no desire to engage in a discussion of our differences.

By God’s grace, the King James Onlyist sign-holders haven’t made a huge appearance for the past two or three years, probably because it isn’t as “exciting” for them. I see this as a direct answer to prayer because frankly, they were nothing but a horrible distraction – even though they opened up many opportunities with the Latter-day Saints along the lines of: “I’m not one of the hateful sign-holders yelling at you…”

… lol …

Around this time of year I usually re-read my elder James’ book Is the Mormon My Brother? If you have not had a chance to read it, please do. Also, his Letters to a Mormon Elder is another must-read – please take this as my official recommendation to the reader. I have read many of the prolific authors about Mormonism, but these two works by Dr. James White offers one of the most succinct and balanced presentations I have come across thus far. “Letters” is a compilation of fictitious letters between James and two Mormon elders, and is most useful to use as a reference for specific topics that will come up in conversations with the Latter-day Saints. Is the Mormon My Brother? is a systematic presentation meant to fairly explain Mormon theology using their own sources. What I love about this book is the explanation about how Mormons prioritize their sources of authority.

Why do I spend time each year at the Mormon Easter pageant trying to talk with the Latter-day Saints? When I was in high school one of my pastors said to me, “I don’t know why you bother witnessing to Mormons when there are so many people who are ready and willing to believe in Jesus…” This bothered me. This bothered me a lot. I remember replying to him, “My God can save anybody.” At the root of my thinking was theology. I know that at the core of man he is unwilling and unable to believe in the gospel: “⁴⁴No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44, NASB). No one can come; no one is able to come. Man actually lacks the ability to come to Christ in faith. It takes the drawing of the Father for one’s heart to be changed. To those who might argue that Christ draws everyone equally, I will point out to you the result of the drawing of the father: they are raised up on the last day. In other words, no one can come unless they are drawn; and those who are drawn will be raised on the last day.

Keeping this text in mind, how does this apply to the Latter-day Saints? Straightforwardly (is that even a word? It is now! LOL), since no one is able to come to Christ because of their deadness in sin, and salvation is a result of the Father’s drawing to Christ, I preach the gospel trusting that God will save whom He wills to save.

The ruler of all universe can even save those who happen to agree with Joseph Smith: “Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” 

My God can save anybody. He does not just save those who appear to be more likely to convert to the truth. He can even deliver polytheists like the Latter-day Saints. The Spirit goes where He wills, and no one knows who the Lord will choose to save. This is why I preach the gospel to all men. And so we will proclaim the gospel to the Mormon people, with love and respect, and pray that while we plant and water seeds, it is God who makes it grow – if He wills to do so.

Alpha and Omega Ministries would appreciate your prayers as we go out there Easter week. Thanks for reading,

Rusty

God desires all men to be saved

All faithful Christians agree with this. The question then becomes: who is the “all men” that God desires to be saved? Is it every person who ever lived or ever will live individually, or is it God’s elect people? The answer is an important difference between Calvinists and Arminians. I recently had the opportunity to teach through this passage at a Bible study and decided it would be worthwhile to address this issue. But first, here is the text:

“¹First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ²for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” (1 Timothy 2:1-6, NASB).

Starting off, I think it is important to notice that the purpose of this passage was not to respond to the Calvinism versus Arminianism controversy. However, clarification is needed because of the oft-misunderstood verse 4. The Arminian understanding of the text goes something like this: “God desires all men individually to be saved. What else could be meant by ‘all men’?” Honestly, I know exactly where the Arminian is coming from, having once held this belief myself.

Taking a closer look at the context, the “all men” of verse 4 is previously defined for us when Paul urges that prayers be made on behalf of “all men” in verses 1-2. But as Dr. James White points out in his book, The Potter’s Freedom, it wasn’t the Apostle’s point to have the Christians open up the phone book and begin praying for each individual listed. For as you continue reading in the very next clause he defines who the “all men” refers to: “for kings and all who are in authority.” Not only is God a Savior of the slave, the poor and destitute, but also of rulers. The point of Paul is that God saves all classes of men, which is precisely what kings and those in authority are.

Now wait just a minute … couldn’t Paul be referring to two separate groups here? The “all men” could refer to every individual, and then a second group made up of kings and those in authority. Is this a possibility? Well, apart from the fact that Paul defines who the “all men” are in the following clause, he then provides us with the reason for offering up prayers for this group: “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” Remember that the Christians at that time were living under intense persecution from the Jews and Roman authorities. For one thing, they needed urging to pray for those who were persecuting them so they might be saved, but also so they might be able to live peacefully.

Paul continues his discussion in verse 4: “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Who are the “all men” of verse 4? The same group in verses 1-2: different kinds and classes of men. This also makes perfect sense with the theology of Paul as we finish up this section where Christ’s mediatorship is connected to the “all men” along with Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Along the same lines, John writes in Revelation that Christ purchased with His blood “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

The question needs to be asked of the Arminian: if the “all men” of verse 4 refers to all men individually, does this mean that Christ’s ransom and mediatorship are only theoretical in nature, or did Christ accomplish His work on the cross? In other words, was Christ’s work on the cross a substitutionary atonement for all kinds and classes of men – whereby He actually bore the sins of His people in His body on the cross – or was it only a theoretical atonement?

Right off the bat, two key passages come to mind that address the purpose and accomplishment of Christ’s atoning work. 1 Peter 2:24, “²⁴and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” Did Christ really bear sins in His body on the cross, or was this theoretical depending on the future acceptance or rejection of Him? Next, Matthew 1:21, “²¹"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."” Will Jesus save His people from their sins, or is His work dependent upon the will of the creature? Or again, will or won’t Jesus save His people from their sins? I would submit to the Arminian that Christ really did bear particular sins in His body on the cross, that those sins were atoned for, and that there is no doubt that Christ will accomplish the mission He set out to do – as is plainly taught here in the Scriptures.

Someone might be wondering to himself if it is beneficial to spend time over a controversial interpretation of Scripture like 1 Timothy 2:4. The reason I do believe this is vital is because the real issue is over God’s freedom in salvation over against a man-centered perspective of the gospel with God’s work being dependent on the will of the creature. Said another way, Jesus Christ is either a powerful Savior who accomplishes His will, or one who tries but fails to save and is left eternally disappointed with the outcome.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty

An Unexpected Turn of Events

Eleven o’clock came and went. Eleven fifteen. By eleven thirty I was beginning to think they weren’t coming. Scott and I made plans to meet up with the ladies and head out to lunch, but first I decided to give Josh, the Jehovah’s Witness, a call. Turns out he was on his way to a funeral and forgot to give me a call, which was a relief because rather than purposefully blowing us off he apologized for forgetting to call me to reschedule. He’ll be following up with me sometime in the next few days for our rescheduled third meeting.

My plan is still relatively the same: again go over Hebrews 1:10-12 (and hopefully hear some sort of response), a verse they will present that allegedly shows the “inferiority” of Christ to the Father – and our response, and if there’s time I’d like to visit John 12:34-41.

This is another important text because a citation from Isaiah 6 is provided by John followed by an apostolic interpretation that the glory of the one Isaiah saw in his vision was Christ’s glory: “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of him” (John 12:41, NASB). The other reason this is a great verse to show these two JW’s is because they will likely not have a prepared response to it, which is an added bonus in dealing with anyone a part of a religious system bent on controlling what information is reaching her membership.

What I am aiming for in all this is that while they are not allowed to take and read anything I give to them (though it is the irony of ironies that they go door to door distributing the Watchtower’s literature) they will have with them always one or two texts that clearly refer to Jesus as Yahweh (Jehovah). I pray that this troubles their hearts often until they find rest in the triune Lord found in the Scriptures.

May the true and living God be pleased to grant to them saving grace,

Rusty

Everything I have seen confirms my worst fears

So reads the back cover of Sean Williams’ Star Wars: The Old Republic – Fatal Alliance … I’ll let the reader discover by whom this was said and when =). This is the first in a book series meant to lead up to the highly anticipated mmorpg, Star Wars: The Old Republic, being developed by BioWare. I believe it was back in 2008 sometime while looking around the Interwebz’ landscape that I stumbled across an announcement for a new Star Wars mmo. There was no release date, but I immediately told my best bud, along with some other buddies. Well, we are presently in 2011 and while we don’t have a precise release date we have been told it will be sometime in the year.

To make things even more exciting, this year has seen the release of the game trailer and a whole host of actual gameplay videos. Check out the site if you’re interested: http://www.swtor.com.

Getting back to Fatal Alliance it really was an enjoyable read. As I usually do, I switch it up between fiction and non-fiction to keep things interesting. This was a typical Star Wars novel filled with some decent character development involving Jedi, Sith, Smugglers, troopers, space battles, ground assaults and everything else you’d come to expect in a galaxy a long time ago, far, far away. Already on order is the sequel in this series titled, Deceived, and will bring me one step closer to the storyline of SWTOR. Cannot wait. Simply cannot wait.

Thanks for reading,

Rusty