Theology – Page 24

McAtee takes a look at Dr. Ian Hodge on Justification

The author of the article below is Dr. Ian Hodge. I count Dr. Hodge as a friend. We have entertained the Hodges in our home, and Dr. Hodge as filled the pulpit of the Church I serve on more than one occasion. We have had extended discussions on Federal Vision but Dr. Hodge goes further in this article in advocating a Federal Vision type of theology than I ever remember him going before.

Recently, my name was invoked in defense of this material and as such, I find it necessary to interact with this material so that it might be seen what I reject about this theology and what I accept.

The full article can be accessed here. There will be portions that I leave out in my interaction because I do not find it germane to the matter at hand.

http://biblicallandmarks.com/wpl/unbelief-or-disobedience-which-is-it/

Unbelief or Disobedience – Which Is It?
Dr. Ian Hodge

IS SALVATION BASED ON BELIEF OR ACTIONS?

Sometimes, you just have to charge into a controversy, head down, full speed ahead. And taking on a topic that has been debated for 2,000 years and still remains a dividing line among the Christian community, is asking for trouble. But, here goes. . . .

It is suggested that the Reformation “solved” the problem of salvation: faith or works. One or the other. Take your pick, choose sides, and do battle. There is, apparently, no compromise. Luther tried to simplify the problem by suggesting that the book of James did not belong in the canon of Scripture for it went against his idea of salvation by faith alone.

Dr. Hodge begins by subtly admitting that whatever he is going to say is a “asking for trouble.” Thus, he won’t be surprised when trouble is found.

The first thing we want to note here is the necessity to distinguish between salvation and justification. Scripture teaches that we are justified apart from works of the law (hence, Faith alone). Justification is one constituent component in the ordo salutis (order of salvation). It is proper, technically speaking, to say we are “justified by faith alone,” but when salvation as a whole is considered we insist that good works (sanctification) are the necessary consequence of faith alone justification. This is why we can say that justification is by faith alone but never by a faith that is alone. This distinction between justification as one component of the whole complex that is salvation and salvation, considered in toto is a distinction we will have need to keep our eye on as we move through Dr. Hodge’s essay.

“After making the statement that Luther used so effectively from Rom. 3:28, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law”, the writer, Paul goes on to point out that both the circumcised and the uncircumcised are to be justified through faith. But . . . he does not stop there. St. Paul then makes this often neglected statement in Rom. 3:31 (from the Wycliffe NT translation).

Destroy we therefore the law by faith? God forbid [Far be it]; but we stablish the law

Remember the old song, “Love and Marriage”? I forget who sang it. But the punch line said “you can’t have one without the other.” And so it is with faith and works, according to the Apostle Paul AND James.

James says the same thing as Paul when he insists that justification is NOT by faith alone. This is the ONLY time in the Bible when these two words — faith alone — are used together. They are NEVER used by St. Paul this way, even in Rom. 3:28.”

St. Paul does indeed establish the law and St. Paul would agree that faith and works go together like love and marriage. However, for St. Paul and St. James the faith that propels our works presupposes a faith that is alone resting in Christ for all. One might say that faith’s proper work in justification is resting in Christ’s works for us and imputed to us while faith’s proper work in sanctification is to work so as to increasingly become what we have freely been declared to be in Christ Jesus. However, the proper work of faith in sanctification presupposes the a-priori proper work of a justifying faith which rests in Christ alone. (It should be said here that we are speaking of logical a-priori and not a chronological a-priori.)

Dr. Hodge then abstracts James 2:24 from its context to make it suggest that justification is not by faith alone.

24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

The problem with Dr. Hodge’s reasoning here is that St. James appeal to Abraham as his exemplar of the one who is justified by his works is not teaching what Dr. Hodge seems to be suggesting that St. James is teaching. St. James is not teaching that Abraham’s works contributed to his righteousness before God. St. James is not teaching that the works of Jesus for Abraham were not sufficient for Abraham’s status as “just.” St. James is not teaching that Abraham’s works and Jesus’s works combined together for Abraham were the ground of Abraham’s justification. St. James is teaching that the works of Abraham justified his justification.

If we avoid abstracting this James text from its largest Biblical context we learn that in Genesis 15 Abraham, well before the offering of Isaac, to which St. James appeals in chapter 2, was already justified. St. James appeals to the events of Genesis 22 where Abraham reveals his faith through his obedience. In Chapter 2 James is using the word “justified,” in the sense of “demonstration.” In Luke 7:35 Jesus uses the same verb “justified” as James uses in 2:21. In Luke 7 we read, “wisdom is justified by her children.” In the Luke passage the word “justified” is not being used to mean “to be reconciled to God” but rather it is used to demonstrate the truth of a prior claim. Just so in James 2. Just as true wisdom in Luke 7 is demonstrated by its fruit, Abraham’s claim to faith is justified by his obedience in offering up Isaac. If we are careful not to abstract from the James 2 text, we see that this is exactly the point of the text. The James 2 text is dealing with the issue of how justification is demonstrated, not with how a man is reconciled to God. So, we would say that in James what is being dealt with is how a man’s justification is seen as justified – demonstrated (by works) whereas for Paul in Romans 3 what is being dealt with is how a man’s person is justified (by faith alone).

Now combine what Paul says in Romans 4,

“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

And it is only an abstractionism that could find James 2, in contradiction to Romans 4, saying that God only justifies the godly who are working.

It is a mark of abstractionism that pulls things out of its context then misreads the meaning of the words. Paul and James can NEVER be opposed to one another. And here’s the reason why. “For it is not merely the hearers of Torah whom God considers righteous; rather, it is the doers of what Torah says who will be made righteous in God’s sight.” Here’s the ESV version of the same passage: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” Doers of the law justifified! Does that sound familiar? It should, because it’s almost exactly the same words used in James’s letter. Except these words were written by St. Paul in the same book of Romans that people like to quote “faith alone” from. The only problem is that if you read Romans 3:8 as a faith “alone” idea, you’ve abstracted the verse from its context and given it a meaning that Paul could never have intended. Why? Because he’s already laid down the principle that it is doers of the law who will be made righteous.

The problem here with Dr. Hodge’s reasoning is that what the Torah requires above all else is faith alone in Christ.

St. Paul is not saying in Romans 2 that people could possibly be “enough doers of the law” that they could achieve self justification. The fact that those outside the law (and in Romans 2 it is Gentiles who are being referenced) are responsible to be “doers of the law,” does not mean that they are therefore able to be justified by doing the law.

When Dr. Hodge insists that it is doers of the law who will be made righteous, in contradiction of the Biblical principle of justification by faith alone, he abstracts the text from the corpus of all of Scripture. The only way that any of us can be doers of the law is to rest in Christ alone who has done the law for us and imputed to us His law doing righteousness so that we are now reckoned as “doers of the law,” who then as doers of the law increasingly become what we have been freely declared to be.

When Paul says we are justified by faith, an obvious question might be this one. “Does any old faith save us?” James gives us a clear answer. “No. Only the kind of faith which has works attached to it.” As Robert Johnson points out in his Banner of Truth commentary on James,

“To him who asks, ‘Is it faith that justifies. Or works?’ Paul replies, ‘Faith alone (sic) justifies, without works.’ To him who, knowing and believing this, asks further, ‘But does all faith justify?’ James answers, ‘ Faith alone, without works does not justify.’ — for an inoperative faith is dead, powerless, unprofitable. Both statements, looked at in connection with the questions they are respectively meant to answer, are true, and both of vast important. Faith alone justifies, but not the faith which is alone.”

We quite agree here with both Dr. Johnson and Dr. Hodge when they imply that dead faith can not justify. (However, I’ve always thought that dead faith is a bit oxymoronic since a “dead faith,” is a no thing.)

An interesting juxtaposition of unbelief and disobedience is given in Hebrews 3:18-19. “And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.”

That makes it pretty clear. They are interchangeable concepts. Inseparable.

So it is not faith OR works, as both Paul and James are made to say. It is both.

And contemporary Christianity’s emphasis on faith alone at the expense of works indicates how far Christian theology has removed itself from clear biblical teaching.

First, in terms of the Hebrews passage we would say that they were disobedient precisely because of their unbelief. Their disobedience was the natural consequence of their unbelief.

Faith and works are interdependent and certainly imply one another in the way I have spoken of but to say that they are interchangeable concepts so that “faith alone,” could be as easily be made to say “works alone,” is not helpful. If those two words were exactly synonymous there would be no need for one of the words. I quite agree that it is both faith and works but each in their proper place. Faith does its proper work in justification when it rests in Christ alone and faith does its proper work in sanctification when it works out salvation in fear and trembling.

Consider this: The Greek philosophers debated over whether ultimate reality was mind or matter. Rationalism (mind) or empiricism (the senses) is how this played out in the post-Reformation period. As a result, the common understanding of the word “faith” in Scripture is that it is a cognitive activity. Thus, if you can give mental and verbal assent to a series of verbal propositions, you can consider yourself a Christian because that is all that is needed to be justified. Respond to the alter call, repeat the Sinner’s Prayer, say ‘amen’ to a series of propositions, and you are saved. Living a godly life, good works they are called, are not necessary for justification. These come after justification but have no meritorious effect in justification.

With this statement Dr. Hodge seemingly overthrows the whole Reformation and insists that we are not saved by faith alone but are only saved by Christ’s work for us combined with our works. This is most unfortunate.

Dr. Hodge seems to misunderstand the nature of mental assent. If someone genuinely mentally assents to the truth of the Gospel the consequence is the beginning of living a godly life. Where there is no godly life there is either no understanding of the truth or no mental assent and the course of action that one must take with such a person is to take them back to the truth of the Gospel in search of a mental assent that demonstrates its genuineness.

Faith is a cognitive activity though it always more than a cognitive activity. Orthodoxy (right faith) drives orthopraxy (right practice). There can be no right practice where there is no right faith.

Now, I agree with Dr. Hodge that mechanistic approaches to faith are suspect, however, having said that the problem isn’t with faith as being cognitive, but rather the problem is the mechanistic approach to securing faith.

That’s not quite how St. Paul puts it in his letter to the Romans. And for good reason. Because if you start in the Old Testament, you never get the idea that justification is merely a mental activity exercise. St. Paul, raised in the Old Testament tradition, knowing this, is not about to let a Greek neopolatonic concept of mind/matter become the controlling principle for understanding biblical faith. And this is the basis of his statements, first in Romans 2:3 and then in Romans 3:31. And in between those two statements you have his words in 3:28. So do not take his words there out of context. The law is not an add-on to faith alone. It is an integrated component, which is why “disobedience” and “belief” are interchangeable for the writer of Hebrews.

There is nothing neo-platonic in faith alone. Paul supports it Romans 3-5. Faith alone is a Scriptural principle that is supported in the book of Galatians. Paul appeals to faith alone by appealing to the Old Testament saints who were justified by faith alone. It looks to me that Dr. Hodge is either departing from the Reformed faith in this article or else he is seeking to redefine the Reformed faith.

And, the idea that justification is our mental activity is something that no knowledgeable person in the Reformed faith has ever advocated. Justification is not what we think or do. Justification is not about our mental activity nor about our combing our works with Christ’s works in order to be reconciled to God. Justification is God’s work whereby He imputes the righteousness of Christ to sinners who have not the righteousness required in order to be God’s friend. Further, a full orbed understanding of justification requires more than a consideration of subjective justification (which seems to be Dr. Hodge’s only consideration) but only requires a consideration of objective justification. When we consider that we, as God’s people, were objectively justified when Christ was crucified and resurrected we realize that subjective justification can’t include our performative works in any way.

Faith means action — not just intellectual assent. That’s the biblical version of faith, not the Greek version superimposed over Scripture.

Faith does mean action. But action does not result without thought. Orthopraxy presupposes orthodoxy.

In other words, Luther introduced a Greek concept of faith when he added the word “alone” to St. Paul’s words in Romans. And that neoplatonic concept has played absolute havoc with Christianity ever since.

A Trentian Roman Catholic could not have said it better.

Of course such a statement is Baloney.

“It is in this context that we need to understand R.J. Rushdoony’s call back to the law of God — the Torah — as the way of necessary godly living. It is not an option. It is the mark of the Christian without which, he will not be saved.”

Godly living is most certainly necessary but necessary in it’s proper place. The full blown Pelagian would agree that Godly living is necessary. So, nobody but the antinomian denies that Godly living is necessary. But the answer to the antinomian is not neonomianism or semi-pelagianism or covenantal moralism or legalism. The answer to anti-nomianism is a proper understanding of the third use of the law in the Christian’s life.

And in terms of Rushdoony we should listen to what RJR had to say on justification,

“In any court of law, to be transferred from legal guilt to legal righteousness is a tremendous fact of life. It is totally so in God’s supreme court of law and life. Justification by faith is thus a fact of life because it is an act of God’s absolute law court.”

Note that RJR — the man who properly emphasized the necessity for Christians to honor God’s Law-Word — disagrees with Hodge here when he observes that justification is an act of God’s absolute law court. RJR disagrees with Hodge when RJR writes about being transferred from legal guilt to legal righteousness. RJR never taught that we are justified by faith plus our works though he did teach that salvation includes our grace given and Spirit driven obedience — an obedience that is the consequence of justification and not causative of justification.

Not sure? Listen to the Second Person of the Trinity speak with authority:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”[1]

And this passage proves what? Does Dr. Hodge really believe that those who affirm justification by faith alone don’t also affirm Jesus words here?

Now in the process of understanding salvation, it is tempting to argue that faith and works are opposites rather than complementaries. In the former view, works are essential and meritorious. In the latter view, works are essential, but they are not meritorious, unless they are the works produced by trusting God (faith).

Faith and works are complementaries but not in the way that Dr. Hodge advances in this article.

In my estimation this last paragraph reveals that there is some kind of contradictory thinking going on here. I would note here that R. L. Dabney taught that even our good works must be imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to be acceptable. If that is true I’m not sure how our works could ever be meritorious in the sense that they contribute to our justification.

Finally in terms of abstractionism, I would recommend reading Dabney on his chapter title “Abstractionists,” in his Vol. IV of his works. One can find it online.

Theonomy & The Tiber Stroke

There have been more than a few people pulling into the outdoor theater drive in that is Iron Ink to complain about my connecting the dots between Mr. Stellman’s R2K and his departure from the Reformed faith. Typically what the screams have been are something like, “Yeah, but how many Theonomists have gone to Rome bub?”

Which is like asking how many Reformed people have gone to Rome since Theonomy is nothing but the Reformed faith in its clearest expression. Jesus was theonomic. Paul was theonomic. Augustine was theonomic. Centuries later the Magisterial Reformers were theonomic (look at all the quotes on Iron Ink from them on theonomy), the Puritans were theonomic (look at all the quotes on Iron Ink from them on theonomy). Some R2K defenders have pointed out theonomy in the Kuyperian tradition accusing our Kuyperian brethren as being “soft theonomists.” (Oh the horror of it all.) Hence my pedestrian contention that the Reformed faith is indeed theonomic. Now, naturally, different theonomic men interpreting God’s law-word had different wrinkles regarding their theonomy and it is doubtful that the Church will ever be universal in how it understands that God’s law should be applied, but the Church throughout history — and especially the Reformed Church — has always been theonomic, and that is simply because that is what Biblical (i.e. — Reformed) Christianity is.

Even Dr. Meredith Kline understood that the Westminster Confession was a theonomic document.

“At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. It is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith – at least in the Confession’s original formulations….Chalcedon can justly claim historical precedence for its position on this matter in the original formulations of the Confession.”

And so the idea that some theonomist may have, in the past, swam the Tiber, only proves that their swimming the Tiber was due to something in their theology which failed in being properly Theonomic. In other words they went to Rome not because of their theology had too much of Rome in it but they went to Rome because their theology did not have enough Theonomy in it, for “theonomy” is just another word, like “Calvinism,” for Biblical (Reformed) Christianity.

Of course the contention is that R2K folks who head to Rome do so because there is to much Rome in their theology.

And keep in mind that Federal Vision is a whole different beast from theonomy. Federal Vision is more James Jordan’s creation (the James Jordan who disavowed theonomy) than it is theonomy’s creation.

Mark Chambers Challenges John Piper’s “Two Wills In God.”

Every so often I will post articles on ironink written by friends. This article is written by Mark Chambers. Mark is a member of the Church I serve and is a very close friend. He is also one of the sharper theological minds that you will come across in or out of the Reformed pulpit. In the article below Mark exposes Dr. John Piper’s inadequate thinking of John Piper’s “two wills in God” theory. It is a theory that has been advanced by other Reformed men besides John Piper and so it is important to consider the reasoning here.

Like all articles I post from other folks, my posting isn’t a blanket endorsement on every point or phrase but it is a insistence that what the author is saying, on the whole, needs to be heard.

I first encountered this article by Piper seven years ago in a book titled “The Grace of God-The Bondage of the Will”. It is a collection of writings from various Calvinists edited by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware and published as a response to the book edited by Clark Pinnock titled “The Grace of God and the Will of Man”. That Schreiner and Ware are Baptists goes a long way in explaining why the confused muddle headedness of Piper’s article was included.

“On to the Two Wills of God

My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for “all persons to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”

Several things here.

1. There is no doubt that God shows compassion to all men. The sun rises on the righteous and unrighteous alike. But this doesn’t translate to an earnest desire for their salvation when in fact God has no intention, and never had any intention of saving the reprobate.

2. The possibility for one who is not elect to accept a free offer of the Gospel does not exist and cannot exist, for God has determined from eternity who will and will not accept.

3. It remains then to be asked exactly what is meant when it is suggested that God “wills for all persons to be saved”? If He willed that all persons be saved then all persons would be saved. Piper equivocates on the word will, suggesting that there are two wills when in fact he means something entirely different when speaking of the two. Will is determinative of action. God wills to save and consequently those whom He wills to save are saved. But in what sense then can it be said that God “wills” the salvation of the reprobate? An exercise of the divine will results in the accomplishment of the thing willed and the reprobate are not saved. Does Piper imagine that the reprobate would still be reprobate if God did not will it?

“1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 might be called the Arminian pillar texts concerning the universal saving will of God………….Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk.”

Here Piper introduces a point that is both irrelevant and inane. Positive reprobation does not require divine enjoyment or rejoicing in the death of the wicked nor does it mean that He lacks compassion. It is one thing to reprobate and will the destruction of the wicked (to make some vessels for dishonor) and another thing altogether to say that this entails some emotional pleasure for God. Non sequitur—it simply does not follow. Is God not glorified in the reprobation of the non elect?

“Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least “two wills” in God, or two ways of willing.”

Actually what it implies is a confused mind equivocating on the word will. Is God as confused as Piper? God wills, Piper suggests, that the non elect unbeliever accept the “sincere offer”, while also willing their reprobation, the very thing that makes that acceptance impossible. But to suggest that there are two ways of willing requires one to redefine the word will for one of those instances. The result for Piper is that God wills what does not come to pass. Worse. He wills the very thing that He has determined (by His will), cannot come to pass. God wills what he does not will. Piper ought to spend some time reviewing the Law of Contradiction.

“It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass.”

It implies that God is confused, decreeing one thing but wanting something else. Piper’s suggestion divorces God’s will from His decree. He decrees one state of affairs, but wills another. This is absurd. Are there conflicting interests in the divine mind? Can God decree a state of affairs without willing it? Does he bring to pass things against his own will? Can God deny Himself? If we approach the word will unequivocally then the only thing God wills is that which comes to pass, i.e. in this instance, the salvation of the elect and the destruction of those whom He reprobates. God works all things after the counsel of his will. How in the world can Piper suggest that God wills what does not come to pass?

“This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.”

All of these are attempts to relieve the equivocation and resolve the imagined paradox between particularism and hypothetical universalism. The preceptive will, moral will, will of command et al are not volition. His will is expressed not by what is commanded, but by what is accomplished. God commands all men everywhere to repent, but he does not will that they do. God’s will is found only in God’s decree.

“Clark Pinnock refers disapprovingly to “the exceedingly paradoxical notion of two divine wills regarding salvation.” In Pinnock’s more recent volume (A Case for Arminianism) Randall Basinger argues that, “if God has decreed all events, then it must be that things cannot and should not be any different from what they are.” In other words he rejects the notion that God could decree that a thing be one way and yet teach that we should act to make it another way. He says that it is too hard “to coherently conceive of a God in which this distinction really exists”

Basinger and Pinnock are absolutely right. Open thiests are heretics, but they are logically consistent heretics. Basinger rightly notes that the decree of an omniscient God requires that things be exactly as they are. A consistent Calvinist has no problem with this. A logically consistent Arminian rejects traditional Arminianism for open theism. But Piper is left with no argument that he can offer against them.

“Fritz Guy argues that the revelation of God in Christ has brought about a “paradigm shift” in the way we should think about the love of God — namely as “more fundamental than, and prior to, justice and power.” This shift, he says, makes it possible to think about the “will of God” as “delighting more than deciding.” God’s will is not his sovereign purpose which he infallibly establishes, but rather “the desire of the lover for the beloved.” The will of God is his general intention and longing, not his effective purpose. Dr. Guy goes so far as to say, “Apart from a predestinarian presupposition, it becomes apparent that God’s ‘will’ is always (sic) to be understood in terms of intention and desire as opposed to efficacious, sovereign purpose.”

Open theists are heretics of the first degree. But what does Piper offer instead? Fritz Guy suggests that God does not always ‘get’ what he wants. But Piper is worse. He suggests that God wants one thing and does another! His is desire is contrary to his decree. I’m not sure which is worse, the finite impotency of the open theist or divine confusion.

“These criticisms are not new. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, “The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another.”

Edwards is right on the button with this. The issue is not one of two wills but of law (precept) and decree. And he is clear that the two are not contradictory. Why? Because they look to different things. The law is a standard; a demand. It is not volition but an expression of command. God has not willed that his precepts be obeyed, but He did will to command.

“To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.”

Unbelievable. God wishes? Does He also toss lucky pennies in the fountain while making his wish? Here is a perfect example of equivocation and why Piper is confused. God’s will is indeed expressed in what is accomplished; he wills the salvation of the elect and the elect are saved. It is the doing, the accomplishing that expresses volition. Piper sounds Arminian. Saying that God willing does not imply the accomplishment of what is willed is just astounding. More incredible he says that God does what he does not want to do and wills what he also does not will. Even the Arminian argument makes more sense than this. At least the Arminian has a sound reason for saying that God doesn’t get what He genuinely wills i.e. the libertarian will of the creature. Here Piper posits a confused God who wills contradictory propositions. And what of the astounding statement that God’s wish [wish?] that all would be saved does not guarantee that all will respond? After all, it is God Himself who calls and enables the elect. One wonders exactly what Piper is thinking?

“The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.”

Whom God knows will believe? Just how does Piper think God knows such things? It’s hard to believe a 5 pointer could write this. How can a 5 pointer say “provided they believe” when he himself has made it clear that those who will believe were determined before the foundation of the world? One can utter the hypothetical and say “well if they did believe they would be saved” but it can also be said with equal veracity that if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow morning it will be a dark day. It is true, but also inane. And exactly what is “potential scope”? There is no such thing, at least as Piper would have us think. The potential in the work of Christ, or in anything that God does, is identical to what is accomplished. There is no potentiality in God, no maybes, no ifs, only actuality and full realization. He does what He intends. Potential is the figment of a temporal imagination. Piper is committing an error of category here in what I believe to be a feeble attempt at protecting the infinite value of the cross. But value and application are categorically distinct.

“In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall’s point that “we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.””

Would like to see happen? Piper is daft. The whole problem is that in Piper’s argument will is defined in several different ways—the most common one being desire. But one cannot do that. He clearly recognizes the difference between decree and command but calls them both “will” and then fails to see the confusion caused by such an equivocation. He needs to correct his language. Additionally it is utterly absurd to suggest that God wills one thing but would rather have something else. Frankly I’d be afraid to say such a thing.

“The most compelling example of God’s willing for sin to come to pass while at the same time disapproving the sin is his willing the death of his perfect, divine Son. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas was a morally evil act inspired immediately by Satan (Luke 22:3). Yet in Acts 2:23 Luke says, “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God.” The betrayal was sin, and it involved the instrumentality of Satan; but it was part of God’s ordained plan. That is, there is a sense in which God willed the delivering up of his Son, even though the act was sin.”

SOME SENSE IN WHICH HE WILLED IT? Decreeing the death of Christ and abhorring the evil in it does not constitute a duplicitous will. The will is reflected only in the decree. Finally how can any 5 point Calvinist say that there is “a sense” in which God willed the death of His Son “even though” the act was sin? I’m flabbergasted. GOD WILLED THE DEATH OF HIS SON PERIOD. He was delivered up ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITE PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO WORKS ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL. There is a sense in which He did it all right. It was exactly what He intended and that from eternity. Piper appears to be afraid to say that GOD IS THE ULTIMATE CAUSE OF ALL THINGS. If it happens it happens by decree. The only logically sound alternative is the finite god of open theism.

Bites On Holy Week

In the cleansing of the Temple Jesus is communicating that the Spiritual core of a people (in the Jew’s case, dead in their sins) is more important than their temporal corporeal condition (slavery under Rome) but notice that in order to cleanse the cult (Spiritual) Jesus takes a very corporeal whip and kicks their very corporeal backsides. The Spiritual is more important but where the importance of the Spiritual is rightly placed it will have corporeal (physical) instantiations. Jesus did not drive the Banksters out of the Temple with Spiritual whips.

It is a good insight to note that Jesus shows us with the cleansing of the Temple that in order for a culture (corporeal instantiation of the cult) to be set aright it is the cult (spiritual) that must first be cleansed. That He cleanses first the Spiritual realm by means of corporeal tools teaches us the good insight that lauding the priority of the Spiritual apart from physical action is incongruent.

Jesus drives the Banksters out of the Temple because they were sullying God’s honor and reputation in God’s own house. God’s house was to be a “house of prayer” but they had turned into a “den of thieves.” In the Banksters iniquity they had replaced the Spirituality that was required of God’s people with a Spirituality of greed, avarice and envy and the Bankster spirituality, and how their spirituality was incarnated in their legal thievery in God’s house, is exactly what Jesus opposed with His spirituality as it was incarnated in whips, overturned tables, and righteous indignation that God’s house of prayer was being turned into one of the earlier versions of the Federal Reserve.

The Weaknesses of New-Calvinism, Sonship Theology, New Covenant Theology

Any theology that teaches you that growth in sanctification is accomplished by meditation alone on Gospel realities such as one finds in “Sonship Theology,” New Covenant Theology, and in New-Calvinism circles is reductionist foolishness.

First, such a theology completely eliminates the historic Calvinist teaching regarding the third use of the law. The third use of the law teaches that God gives us His law as a guide to life to inform us how we might live in such a way that we might meet our aspiration of pleasing Him. The teaching of the third use of the law is not accomplished by telling people just to contemplate on the Gospel, but rather by teaching people what the path of godliness looks, though it is gladly admitted that gratitude for all Christ accomplished for us is the motivation for people to take seriously God’s law as it comes to us in its third use.

Second, such a theology eviscerates the idea that sanctification requires the work of putting to death the old man and bringing to life the new man. Putting off the sin that doth so easily beset us may be aided by contemplation but it still requires man’s concursive work of sanctification where man works out his salvation in fear and trembling.

Third, meditation or contemplation in New Calvinism becomes the new law that must be obeyed. All other Biblical law, the Neo-Calvinists tell us, is hypocritically embraced when it is pursued in obedience but the law of the New Calvinists of contemplation is a law that can be pursued in obedience that is not hypocritically embraced. How is it that if one believer pursues obedience to God’s revealed law that is hypocrisy according the Sonship theology but if another believer pursues the obedience of Gospel contemplation that is automatically noble?

Fourth, by the New Calvinists own standard, if contemplation is something that is pursued then it becomes a fruit that is stapled on instead of organically developed. This is true because it is still the subjective self who must do the contemplating and so their complaint about pursuing obedience not being valid because it is subjective boomerangs back on them since the subjective self is required to do the contemplating.

Fifth, as said earlier, certainly our pursuit of obedience to God’s concrete revealed law is animated by being filled with the Spirit of Christ, and by being mindful that Christ was put to death for our sins and raised to life because of our justification, but, as said earlier, it is reductionist to insist that sanctification is only a matter of Gospel contemplation.

Sixth, Gospel contemplation reminds us that we are forgiven for the sake of our beloved Christ when we see our failure of meeting God’s righteous requirements but that reminder is not the same as telling ourselves that we need not be concerned about the work required on our part to walk in newness of life. Contemporary expressions of Calvinism as found among some prominent Calvinists have seemingly brought us to the antinomian point where we need not preach on what righteousness looks like, thus answering the question, “How Shall We Then Live,” simply because we have been declared righteous. Such preaching completely forgets the Apostle Paul’s constant technique of telling people to “become what you have been freely declared to be.” Such preaching is long on “what you have been freely declared to be,” and is short on, “increasingly becoming what what has been freely declared to be.”

The Worldview embraced by New Calvinism, R2K, Sonship Theology, New Covenant Theology, is perfect theology for the triumph of Talmudism since such “Christian Theologies,” leaves a vacuum created by their implicit antinomianism that Talmudic law is more than happy to fill. The result is a Talmudic law defined social order that ends up defining Christianity.