2 Timothy 3

2Th 3:1 Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you,

Paul is asking for prayers from his friends, that God would be honored where he carries the gospel.  Remember it was his desire to leave but the Holy Spirit urged him to stay in Corinth.
Unless they prayed the word of the Lord would not penetrate the region.  This is the critical importance of prayer

2Th 3:2 and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.

Paul also has no desire to be at the mercy of evil people. But notice these men are evil and wicked because they are faithless.  Faith and goodness are explicitly linked, we cannot be good without faith, there are no good people roaming the world who are not faithful to Christ.

2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one

A reminder that God is going to keep them, and preserve them from Satan. Men may be faithless but God is always faithful. God is the source of faith, the fount of faithfulness, and He will defend and protect His people.

2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord about you, that you are doing and will do the things that we command.

The working of the Lord is for them to be able to do the things He commands.  He protects His Christians so that they would be able to do what He commands them through the apostle. Augustine prayed “Oh Lord help us to do what you commanded”

2Th 3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.

Paul’s prayer for them is that the Lord will make them to meditate on the love of God and the immovability of Christ.  Love and patience.  We ought therefore, to reflect on the unchanging steadfastness of God as revealed in scriptures as the Lord has commanded us.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Disassociate, cut off contact with Christians who are idle and habitually lazy.  Not merely an event, but a way of life (walking).  In 1 Thess 5 they were to warn these people, now they are to shun them.  Same thought of discipline is 1 Cor 5:4.  This is not merely a suggestion, this is a command from Christ Jesus, to disobey it is a sin. 

2Th 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,

Paul is not making an unreasonable request, but had demonstrated it himself, he was willing to work hard and be oppressed.  He is no hypocrite. 

2Th 3:8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.

Paul was also supported by the Philippians, likely he was using this money to be generous and help out the other brothers in need. He  did not want to see anyone have to pay to help him spread the gospel so long as he was able to do it himself- he did not want to burden the brothers and make it difficult on them.  

2Th 3:9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate.

The worker deserved his wages 1 Tim 5:18, Luke 10:7, 1 Cor 9:9-10.  Paul had a right to support from them but chose to forgo it to be an example to them. He was in this way all things to all men.  

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

The principle is at work in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:9-10. We are to allow charity for people willing to work, but if they refuse to work let them refuse to eat also.  It won’t take long of being hungry to cure a lazy attitude.
God wants to provide for us through the ordinariness of life, of working. He desires to use His providence to make man experience the daily beauty of His care. Man was created as a slave, to work. 

2Th 3:11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.

They didn’t have an ability to contribute to the saints, and they got into each others business.  If you are a perpetual welfare recipient, stop. 
The Greek is a play on the word busy, ‘busy-bodies who do no busy-ness (business)’ the ESV tries to capture this.

2Th 3:12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

This is a direct command from Jesus. Do your work quietly, and provide for yourself. But also notice that they are to be encouraged.  Help them who are weak who want to do the right thing by encouraging them

2Th 3:13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good.

This is also is an encouragement to persevere.  The ones who are already doing good must not be tired or sad, they are not to wear out but are to work even harder at doing good.

2Th 3:14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Not to be destroyed, or to be turned over to Satan, but explicitly to put them to shame. Shame is an emotion that God uses to spur us to do the right thing. It’s a cattle prod God uses to encourage us.
This command is beholden on the whole church, and every member in it.  This is an attempt to drive them back to Christ.

2Th 3:15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

The lazy people who refuse to work, they are still your brothers, they must still be treated in love, although they need a dose of stronger medicine

2Th 3:16 Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all.

God is the Prince of peace Is 9:6. He loves peace, He Himself, personally gives us peace

2Th 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.

Paul has scribes write his letters for him as he verbally dictated them, but signed the last part of it to prove its genuineness

2Th 3:18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

The grace of the Lord be with all of us in everything we do. May He give us grace in our conversations, thoughts, actions. May we find His grace all around us, holding us up.

Non traditional Ordo Salutis?

The traditional Ordo Salutis is a logically based progression, election, effectual call, regeneration, justification, sanctification, but it also tends to eclipse the cross, which is the foundation of our beliefs.
I propose therefore that we re-think the ordo in terms of the centrality of grace.

The cross is the source and fountainhead of all grace, it flows outward from the bleeding Savior as He hangs there.
When this flow of grace reaches your ears it's called the gospel call
When it reaches your heart it's regeneration
When it touches your personal account before God it's justification
When it reaches your identity as a person it's adoption
When it flows through you it's sanctification
and when it knocks you over and submerges you utterly, it's glorification

It takes two to reconcile

Reconciliation is by definition a two person event.
It's hard to understate the force of this statement, or the consequences that must have on our understanding of theology.  Moderate Calvinism, which asserts that God has procured salvation for all men upon condition of belief, is the only workable idea given the nature of reconciliation, a process whereby both God and man come together.

Before our relationship can be restored, God, as the injured party, must first be willing (or in this case, able) to forgive. Because He is a just God Ps 111:7, and His justice demands punishment upon sinful men, Is 13:11, His wrath must first be appeased.
The word ἱλασμός rendered propitiation most nearly speaks to this, that the only way God could be finally appeased was by the perfect sacrifice of Christ.  It's the word in 1 John 2:2- Jesus has made a propitiation not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. 
The hyper-calvinist take this verse to speak exclusively of the elect, that is, Jesus atones for the sins of the elect, and not only the elect, but the elect as well, but it's not conceivable that this sin offering to God would be good for only the elect, because it satisfies the justice of God, and in a sense moves God from unwilling to forgive, to willing. It is not to man, but to God that propitiation speaks.  God's wrath is satisfied, not mans sinfulness, for if that were the case we would be saved apart from faith.
That the Bible speaks about the forgiving disposition of God indicates this principle as well, Eze 18:23, Eze 33:11, Jer 27:17, Luke 13:34 speak of God as pleading for men to come back, which indicate that His fierce wrath has been in some way appeased. Therefore God can earnestly desire the salvation of all men, 1 Tim 2:4 not merely the elect, because He invites all, having removed the debt against them as long as they draw breath. The offering Jesus makes on the cross being toward God, as a man, is therefore to the benefit of all men.

For their part men must want to come back before they can be reconciled, which is why God urges men to take freely of the water of life, to come and experience the free gift, Rev 3:20, to turn and be saved.  Men demonstrate their return to God by possessing faith, by putting their trust in Christ, by doing what He has demanded of them John 6:29, and since all men have the natural ability to do this, all men may be benefited and saved by the death of Christ. In other words, God invites all to return because all men can return, and when they do both they, and God, have come together for reconciliation.

Once both sides have been brought together, they have between themselves reconciliation, the word in Romans 5:11, or 2 Cor 5:18 καταλλαγή, which speaks to a final, ultimate, peace between God and the saved.
It is here only that we may make the distinction between elect and non-elect, and we can say whether or not Christ's blood is of ultimate benefit or not. The elect are the ones who by God's secret council and power come back because they desire God, the reprobate are the ones who don't. 
Which leads me to the bottom line of the post: although there is reconciliation only between the elect and God, we must be careful that we don't assert the atonement, which is part of the equation, is only for the elect.

Praying in sovereignty

A quick thought on the idea of "what's the use in praying if God is completely sovereign and is going to do it anyway?" Or "why bother if He knows everything?"
But this is to turn it upside down, it's only because of God's sovereignty over all things that we have a reason to request anything. For example, if God wasn't in control over our health, and didn't have the power, or authority to affect us in this matter, then there would be no reason to pray to Him about our well being.  It's because He is over all things that our prayers get answered in the first place.  And because He knows everything, He knows our thoughts, allowing us to ask in the first place.  If He didn't know our thoughts then He could never hear us, and thus never answer our prayers. 
Logical traps are often resolved when we give God great glory.

The Negative Inference Fallacy

The argument of the high Calvinist on limited atonement in John 10:15 is thus:
Those for whom the Son died, the Holy Spirit regenerates and grants saving faith. Christ died for the sheep. We know there are sheep and goats. By not stating "Christ died for the sheep and goats" we know that Christ only died for the sheep. Therefore, He did not die for the goats. Therefore, the sins of the goats were not expiated for.

This argument is based on a faulty premise (the sentence in pink), and results in a false conclusion (red). Their mistake is that a disjunctive syllogism (either P or Q, P, therefore Not Q) is only valid for the exclusive case (either P or Q, but not both).  For example, the following exclusive case is valid: he's either dead or alive. The inclusive case however, is not valid: it's either raining or it's warm outside, it's warm, therefore it cannot be raining.
This presumption of the exclusive case may look strong at first, but a closer examination shows this assumption doesn't hold up. Of course the hyper-calvinist will answer this charge by saying that Q is the case NOT P- Christ dies for the elect, therefore His work is not for the not-elect.
But this is a false dichotomy, it's to assume that election is the mirror opposite to reprobation. Reprobation and election are not in the same class, they are not symmetric; scriptures speak of the reprobate being given a fair trial and of condemning themselves, "You lazy and wicked servant, from your own words will you be judged etc" while the elect, being justified, have their case dismissed before God. The categories remain distinct.  So unfortunately, given we know God elects all we can conclude is that He elects. P isn't non Q, it's just P.

If that were not enough there is a second problem with the statement in the modus ponens: "All whom Christ expiates sins for are saved, the goats end up in hell, therefore the goats didn't have their sins expiated on the cross" in that it commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent (A implies B and B is false, therefore A is false). An example of this fallacy might help to show the problem with it: all good math students can do calculus, Sam can't do calculus, therefore Sam is a bad math student.  The faulty premise of the High Calvinist is that expiation from the cross automatically saves regardless of faith, but the Bible teaches us that to get to Heaven we must have both an expiation of sins and faith, (A implies {B AND C}) and unless both conditions are met a person goes to hell.  So even if we know a reprobate is in hell we can only conclude that they failed to have both {faith AND expiation}. We cannot conclude that because they go to hell they had no expiation.

What the hyper-calvinist needs is a negative statement that Christ did not atone for the non-elect.  It would look something like: my death serves no purpose to the non-elect. But in fact the scriptures never give a negative on the nature of expiation. We see an affirmation that Christ dies for all, and we certainly clearly see His death is for the elect, but we are never given the denial that would prove the hypers assertion.  In the final analysis of this verse we know that Christ dies for the sheep, therefore the sheep will be saved.  P, therefore P.

The two witnesses

Revelation 11:3-5 "And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.And if anyone would harm them, fire pours from their mouth and consumes their foes. If anyone would harm them, this is how he is doomed to be killed."

Jeremiah 5:14 "Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of hosts: "Because you have spoken this word, behold, I am making my words in your mouth a fire, and this people wood, and the fire shall consume them."

Credo-Baptism: The Inductive Argument

I began with the Dispensationalist Argument for credo-baptism because I think it’s the easiest to understand, and if you can grasp it then you’re most of the way to understanding the Inductive Argument for credo-baptism. These two arguments are so similar in fact that if you’re a dispensationalist this one appears to be nothing more than the Scriptural evidences for your position.

But the two arguments aren't identical. The Dispensationalist Argument requires the reader to put together the whole redemptive sweep of history, but the Inductive Argument only requires the New Testament to make its own case for who should be baptized. Additionally the inductive argument can be used by credo-baptists who are not dispensationalists since it doesn’t reach back into the Old Testament to make any conclusions, making it more broadly applicable. Lastly, this argument rests on the parallels of the text—rather than the differences in them—to make the case that baptism requires belief. It goes like this.

Baptism is a New Testament idea first introduced in Matthew 3:1-6, (or Luke 3:3) where a great multitude are coming out to hear John preach and adults from Judah and Jerusalem are being invited to repent and be baptized. This establishes a pattern that anytime baptism is mentioned it’s followed by either repentance or belief. Consider the testimony of Acts.

Acts 2:38 – Peter commanded the multitude to repent, believe, and be baptized.
Acts 2:41 – The multitude accepts Christ and are baptized.
Acts 8:12 – The Samarians believed, then were baptized.
Acts 8:13 – Simon first believed, and then was baptized.
Acts 8:37 – The Eunuch believed, then was baptized. Note that v37 seems to be an early scribal addition to the text, and fits the same pattern. "If you believe you may. And the Eunuch replied, I believe Jesus is the Son of God."
Acts 9:18 – Paul believed, and then was baptized. See also Acts 22:16.
Acts 10:47 – Cornelius believes, then receives the Holy Spirit, then is baptized.
Acts 16:14 – Lydia believes (because God opens her heart), then is baptized.
Acts 16:31 – The jailer believed and then is baptized.
Acts 18:8 – Both Crispus and the Corinthians believed, and then were baptized.

Since faith and baptism are always seen together, it must be the case that the credo-baptist is correct; for credo-baptism alone recognizes that a personal, living faith is the central aspect of baptism. To baptize a baby who can’t profess faith and shows no fruit of belief is to break the link so clearly presented by Scripture, to be unfaithful to the New Testament understanding of baptism. Scripture is clear that baptism belongs behind faith. Infants do not possess the ability to understand right or wrong (Is 7:16), or even know their right hands from their left (Jonah 4:11), therefore baptism is not for them. If we were to turn the argument into a syllogism it might look like the following:

P1: Only people who have faith or profess repentance are valid candidates for Baptism.
P2: Infants can neither have faith nor profess repentance.
C: Infants are not valid candidates for baptism.

To think that children may (or should) be baptized apart from a personal, living, repenting, faith is to miss the whole purpose of baptism. It's to denigrate the greatness of faith and the centrality of its place in the New Covenant. Baptism is a participation in Christ's death (Rom 6:3), the celebration of a new life and body (1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27). It follows after faith. It's the mark of faith, the uniform of faith, the evidence of faith. It should by no means be divorced from an active, living, confessional faith. Salvation is by faith alone, and from faith comes the obedience of baptism. If you accept the centrality of faith in salvation and the example of baptism in Scripture then you come to the conclusion that credo-baptism is correct. Particularly when paired with the text from Jeremiah 31, the third argument for credo-baptism. 

Next: the Particular Baptist Argument for Credo-Baptism


(Return to the index) 

2 Kings 25:26

2 Kings 25:26- "Then all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the forces arose and went to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chaldeans"

Is there a passage with greater force on the total rejection of God than this?  Is it any wonder this is how the book wraps up?  Considering the promised land of God, Lev 25:38 the slavery they experienced in Egypt, Lev 26:13 the miracles Num 8:17 still they reject the covenant, and the covenant land.
As a dog returns to it's own vomit...

The limitations of man

What analogy can I use to adequately convey the problem mankind has with the Secret Will of God?  I do not mean the lazy tendency to say "I don't know it now so it's impossible to know" I mean the class of knowledge God has not revealed to us.  The genuine secret will.
It's like an airplane runway- ignore the one track to set down on and you will end up breaking the plane.  It's like driving in the Fresno fog- you have to roll down the window and look at the line closest to you to keep going straight and avoid being lost and crashing. It's like Le-Guins book Wizard of Earthsea when the fictional character Ged talks with dragon- everything the dragon says whether lie or truth, sounds like truth, and so unless he is careful to remember what he knows he will lose his wits as every lie gets reflected as truth.  It's like a train conductor able to see the landscape but unable to leave the tracks without ruin. It's like an infant on the beach who can walk on the sand of revealed will, or into the waters of the secret will a little so long as their feet are on the sand and the water isn't deep, but go further and drown.  
Luther warns us of trying to build our conclusions, lives, and actions on the secret will when he says things like "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." Similarly Alistair Begg is always saying "the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things."
It seems to me by experience and observation that man is a limited creature fundamentally incapable of making sense of the secret will of God, even when he knows what it is.  We must at all times tethered to the revealed will of God because He has not equipped us to make sense of the secret will.  He wasn't made with the facility for it.  Ever have someone ask you how could it be God's plan to take away their child, and have no response for it?  How can you, it would require you to understand the secret will.  Most people daring enough to answer this will use the Revealed will in the Bible to bring the grieving person comfort.
But my intention is to apply this more abstractly.  Take as proof these three ideas.

1. The Trinity
We know from as far back as Genesis 1:26 that God is three persons, but we don't know why or how Christ can be the eternally generated Son. Or how they can be one, unity, and eternally distinct.  Speculation is futile at best, and harmful at worst because God has simply not told us.  We simply have no basis for evaluating the darkness before us.

2. God's love for the non-elect
Is it the will of God that all men be saved?  Yes, (1 Tim 2:4) this is a rule for our own life- we should we evangelize, be kind to our brothers and neighbors and love them because God has told us He loves men.  But now consider how false conclusions appear true when working from the secret will.  Since God has the power to accomplish all His desires (Isa 46:10), and everyone is not saved, we know it's the secret will of God that some people are fitted as vessels for wrath. Therefore we must be careful not to evangelize, not to love them, or pray for their salvation lest we run afoul of Gods will, but we should instead trick them into committing more sins to make them a fitter vessel for wrath. Incidentally the hyper-calvinist certainly would agree with this conclusion: with unmixed fury God hates the non-elect.  It's only the moderate Calvinist who is careful not to trespass this boundary who is spared from this dilemma.

3. The Extent of the Atonement
Did Christ die for sinful men on the cross?  Yes, the revealed will tells us He dies for sins (1 Peter 3:18), of the unrighteous (Rom 5:8).  We can therefore infer that He died for all sinners, or all men, since He died as our representative, in our place.  Did He die only for the elect?  Here we are left with no answer but the secret will, which is unusable to us, because the conclusions it demands are intolerable. It would mean that we must first figure out if we were one He died for before putting faith in Him.  The hyper-calvinists will once again assert it is good only for the elect, but how do they know this without an appeal to the hidden things? I don't mean to say that Christ does not love His sheep with a special and profound love, I mean to say how can you be certain to know Christ has no value your whole life and cannot have value to you? 

Man was created with an utter and total dependence on the revealed word. In light of our weakness God has given us only what we need, in the Bible, that is to say, the revealed will- it's therefore critical to be very circumspect on making conclusions based on the secret will.  The division seems not just between two types of knowledge, but on the difference between food and poison.  It ought to drive us to humility.

PS: I recognize that the thoughtful reader will demand that my entire post be based on the revealed will, or I will have run afoul of the very thing I speak against, thus invalidating my own argument.  Therefore, see Deut 29:29.

God as the author of sin

How can God be the author of sin and not be the cause of it?

Think of a man writing symphony. He pens the notes for the instruments he wants to hear from, when he wants, as he wants, because he is sovereign over the piece. He pens the duration of each note, the volume, the thematic elements in it. But there is something else is in this symphony that he doesn't write and yet he not only authors but uses: silence.
The man doesn't write the silence in the same way as he writes the notes, yet the silence serves to greatly enhance the beauty (or glory) of the piece. The man is still sovereign over the silence, make no mistake, but it does not flow from his work but arises by the absence of his work.

Think of silence as sin, the notes as God's positive decrees, and the symphony of God's unfolding plan for our universe.

Thoughts on knowing God through Fatherhood

As a personal opinion I think that women have the better end of the deal when it comes to submission rather than leadership, but on the other hand women get the short end of the stick in parenthood as only men get to be Fathers. Here's why. Women seem to be much more emotionally sensitive to the outside world, much more caring, much more in tune, much more responsive to stimuli.  Highs, lows, and everything in between make a direct impact on their state of being.  Men seem to be much more stable, laser focused, they pick an emotion and are that for awhile. As my wife was talking to me yesterday about how she feels being a mother, the ups the downs, the emotional roller coaster the kid is, I knew immediately from personal experience why God is described as a Father.
I don't feel like she does at all.  That one note stable emotion in me was nailed to 'love' when my daughter was born and it hasn't moved since.  It's sort of a love beyond being affected. Sure I get angry, or disappointed, or elated, based on her actions, but those ephemeral ones are built on a foundation of that primary emotion- they don't replace it.  I always feel love, I sometimes feel other things at the same time. 
This has helped me to understand the dynamic of God's "emotions" and why He would choose to use the word Father, rather than Mother, to describe Himself. I'm afraid I can't do anything better then that at the moment, but hopefully that should be enough to get you thinking along the same lines.