Exposition Of Operation Fig Leaf...

Satan hasn't changed his tactics since tempting Eve with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She ultimately didn't choose good vs. evil (she had no idea what they were!), but self vs. God.  This initial sin was only indicative of all that would follow in many ways.  Rejecting the wisdom of God, the trust in His providence and provision,  and the fellowship of Him vs. Satan, et cetera.  All sin was represented in some capacity in that prototype sin.  

We would've done the same thing and ditto Adam and Eve--they were our representatives and we are in effect in solidarity with them or in Adam as the official head of the race.  Satan didn't have anything against being good, it was only in an ungodly way apart from God's plan. What is evil, but deprivation or negation of good--it cannot exist without there being good in the first place. Being good without God, that's all. That's what religion tries to do: make you decent, respectable, honorable people without God--or ultimately knowing Him.

Christianity is simply Christ and taking Him out of the equation leaves nothing to live for--it is nothing.  You can have Buddhism without Buddha, but not Christianity without Christ you disembowel it as someone has said. The kind of people the world looks up to and admires are the ones who have made good for themselves and achieved the "American dream" et al.  Those living the good life or becoming a success in the eyes of man. 

People judge a splinter group by their character and say, "They are such fine people."  Newsflash:  Christ didn't come to make bad people good, but dead people alive!  "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." (Eph. 2:1).  Christianity is not a system of dos and don'ts or a system of ethics, though orthopraxy (right behavior) is the application of orthodoxy (right beliefs).

He wants us to have an "abundant life" and "all these things shall be added unto us" as we seek His kingdom and righteousness.   He gives us "richly all things to enjoy" so God is not a killjoy trying to keep us from having fun.  Evil is just this:  leaving God out of the picture and trying to do it alone without Him.  It's a do-it-yourself proposition.  Sin can be seen as rejecting God's plan and declaring your independence to do it your way.

We're incurably addicted to doing something for our salvation according to Charles Swindoll and are naturally religious (we have been called Homo religiosus or a religious man).  What sin is that Adam and Eve chose was to put self into the center of our existence and live for self--there's no more sure way to personal disaster--the happiest people have learned to serve [live for others], says Albert Schweitzer. True humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less according to Rick Warren.  

The aftermath of the fall was a cover-up and hiding from God and man is still up to this old escape mechanism.  We won't take responsibility and own up to our sins. We have to come clean and renounce all sin in our lives and be willing to let Christ transform our souls from the inside out--not turning over a new leaf or making a resolution, but surrendering the will to God's will.
Soli Deo Gloria!

Reformed Theology On The Defensive!...

Most Arminians (those of the opposite persuasion) are not aware of the fact that their patron saint (Jacob Hermann or Jacobus Arminius in Latin) was once a Reformed theologian at a Dutch university who was expelled from his post in disgrace. Reformed theology is the orthodox position, (going back to Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo's, debate with the British monk Pelagius in the 5th century), though we are all born semi-Pelagians or Arminians (they are actually in the majority, even among Evangelical churches)  and Martin Luther, formerly an Augustinian monk, wrote a book, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.  Luther claimed we are all natural-born semi-Pelagians and we should consequently understand their viewpoint.

Many are in a fog about what Reformed theology is, it is sometimes referred to as Covenant theology, (people call it this to avoid the derogatory term "Calvinist" with its negative connotations).   J. I. Packer says that is is more than a set of doctrines to subscribe to, but a "hermeneutic"--a way of seeing and interpreting Scripture in the light of grace, and having a viewpoint from above.  I see it as a "mindset" and even a "worldview" because we can see everything in the light of God's grace.  Let the Holy Spirit's illuminating ministry open your eyes and I hope you "get it"--a new orientation.

The pill that's hard for some to swallow is that our ultimate destiny is in God's hands and we are not in control (Yes, we are at the complete mercy of God who will have mercy on whom He will have mercy) and so they make erroneous conclusions based on their bias. "It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Rom. 9:16).   It is written in John 15:16:  "I chose you, and you didn't choose me."  Ephesians 1:5 says "according to the good pleasure of His will...."   Being the elect refers to God's election, not ours! The common belief of prescience is that God conditioned our election on our contingent faith on our belief and thus we merited it and are better than the lost.

The golden chain of redemption in Rom. 8:29-39 militates against prescience if you exegete it.  He elected those He foreknew (means to have a personal love-relationship with, not knowing facts about someone).   Calvinists adhere to unconditional election based on His purpose and grace and nothing in us found worthy of it. God doesn't owe us a measure of grace, or it would be justice, not grace!  Do you really think you responded to the gospel because you were more virtuous or moral than the unbeliever? Arminians admit they cannot explain why some respond to His wooing and others don't, other than positing that some desire to be saved and others don't  (actually the Greek word for wooing is elko and it really means to "drag" someone!). God didn't owe us--He didn't have to save anyone!

It seems most people have preconceived notions of Calvinism (which really are "hyper-Calvinism" ideas of "double-predestination" and "reprobation" that they object to, or even the doctrine of "election,"  and for this cause Calvinism gets a bad rap).  Calvinism per se is not what John Calvin taught (his teachings about predestination, for example, were sparse),  and it was first delineated by the Synod of Dort in 1618 to answer the Remonstrants who had a five-pointed objection with the Reformers (namely, Johann Koch, John Preston, John Ball, Caspar Olevianus,  Robert Rollock, Zacharias Ursinus, Henry Bullinger, Huldreich  Zwingli, John Calvin and Martin Luther with Phillip Melancthon ahead of the game or before the fact, so to speak).  

Calvinists are not preoccupied with one doctrine and are not on a mission to convert people to their way of thinking.  It only seems that way since they've had a "grace awakening" and become "grace-oriented."  It's a wonderful way to see God and our relationship with Him--they get the "can't-help-its" and want to share their faith and open their brother's eyes.  Case in point:  When I personally became aware of "eternal security" it opened my eyes to a whole new way of interpreting Scripture.

C. H. Spurgeon said that Calvinism (also known commonly by the nomenclature of Reformed theology and Covenant theology, though these terms are not identical) is simply acknowledging that "Salvation is of the Lord" as Jonah testified in the belly of the great fish.  Faith is God's gift, but our act (God doesn't believe for us!).  Roman Catholics believe that faith is a meritorious work and we all know that we are not saved by works in Ephesians 2:8-9. It is easier to see that we owe our faith to our election and not our election to our faith.   We are not elected because of our faith, but unto faith  (this means the election results in regeneration and faith/repentance and is not caused by it--see 2 Thess. 2:13, Acts 13:48; and 1 John 5:1 in ESV),  and this election is, according to the Calvinists, vital to know, as we don't merit our election in any way.  A condition of salvation is to realize we are not worthy.

If we have to do anything for our salvation we will fail, and miserably. The other possibilities are logical "of us alone" and "of us and God together in a joint, cooperative venture.' If you think about it, the former one is religion, and the latter is legalism.  The only way of grace is by God alone and we can be sure this way (no human element involved to vary):  Man is incurably addicted to doing something force his salvation according to Chuck Swindoll!  We just receive it by faith and that faith is God's gift.  If we have to do a work for salvation we will fail, and at that miserably.  What's the joy in not knowing you are saved or that you have to do something to be accepted in the Beloved? Nehemiah 8:10 says:  "The joy of the LORD is your strength."  This is because there is a difference between the conjecture of the Arminian versus the certitude of the Calvinist--viva la difference!

John Newton says that he believes in unconditional election before he was born because he certainly didn't do anything in his life to merit it! The Reformed doctrines (known also as "doctrines that divide" by some) are known as TULIP or by five so-called points in this acrostic. The misunderstanding comes from the unfortunate nomenclature in describing the points.  They should be better known as radical corruption, sovereign choice, efficacious or quickening grace, particular redemption and the God's preservation of the saints, just to give examples (R. C. Sproul, among others, use these terms).

Faith is a gift per Acts 18:27 ("You have believed through grace") among other passages. He opens our heart like He did to Lydia in Acts 16:14.  Note also that repentance is the flip side of faith and is also the gift of God per Acts 5:31 among other passages.  The terms are used almost interchangeably in the gospels and epistles and there is no saving faith without genuine repentance; you can distinguish them, but not separate them--they go hand in hand and are seen together as the gift of God as a work of grace in the individual to change his character and quicken his spirit to salvation.  The point is that God grants repentance just as faith:  Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:9, et alia.  We have to see what Jesus meant in John 6:44, 65 and that we cannot come to the Father on our own, without grace and it is "granted."

This is not the place to elaborate or defend these doctrines here, as we will miss the point:  What is the point?  Simply what the reformers' battle cry was:  The "Five Onlys":  Sola Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory--i.e., we get no credit!), sola fide (by faith alone--i.e., not of works we do), Soli Christo (through Christ alone--i.e., we don't help Jesus out!), sola gratia (by grace alone--i.e., it is freely given and not earned or deserved!) and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as authority--i.e., not the Papists, Romanists, or the "Church.").  As Martin Luther said, "I dissent, I disagree, I protest." Namely, that God gets all the glory and credit and we have naught to brag or boast of in His presence of.  Grace alone means we don't work at all in our salvation!  They should be known as the "doctrines of grace, not doctrines that divide."  Arminians don't accept the fact that grace is the sine qua non of faith (in other words it is not only necessary, but all-sufficient, and regeneration precedes faith per 2 Thess. 2:13 and 1 John 5:1 in the ESV).  Romanists affirm that grace is necessary but we must add at least some congruous merit to it since it is not sufficient.  We don't add to God's work in us--that gives us some of the credit.

Christians of the Reformed persuasion are not fanatics on a mission to convert believers to their school of thought but have a new spiritual fervor because of this awakening, and once you've experienced it, you want to pass it along!  Just as Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).  God turns our heart of stone into hearts of flesh by grace (cf. Ezek. 36:26)--He makes believers out of us per Philippians 2:13 et alia!  The conclusion of the matter is this:  God doesn't enable us to save ourselves or even just offer to save us--He saves us!  We must first quit trying to save ourselves and learn to trust and obey.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Orthodoxy And Orthopraxy

This means "right belief" and "right conduct" and they are both vital to a growing faith. The faith you have is the faith you show. If we are just satisfied with being theologically correct without applying it we miss the boat. Theology by itself is necessary for a sound Christian life, but it is not sufficient. It can lead us cold: Would you debate the Trinity to ease depression? Doctrine can make us grow in our apprehension of God and His Word, but the aim is to fulfill the Law by loving God and our neighbor. It can leave us cold, even if it impeccably correct. Romans 2:6 says: "God will repay everyone based on their works."

At the Bema (Judgment Seat or Tribunal of Christ for purpose of reward; cf. 1 Cor. 3:12-15) we will not be interrogated as to our school of theology or our so-called philosophy, but our works will be evaluated by fire. In my Bible study, I realize I will be under stricter judgment and must practice what I preach to be effective, but God is looking for faithfulness and He will provide the increase.

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and I will reject the intelligence of the intelligent" (1 Cor. 1:19). There is such a thing as spiritual pride in thinking we have cornered the market on truth or have a monopoly on orthodox doctrine. No one is infallible in the body of Christ except Jesus, the head of the body, who is the cornerstone. We all need each other but the wise and bright are not a cut above the other believers who may be simple-minded or common folk. "Not many noble" are called says, Paul. It is too easy for a brilliant expositor to "wow" his flock with his scholarship and blow them away, taking the eyes off of Jesus. Jesus was known for keeping it simple so that the common people heard him gladly.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta is an example of a saintly woman who had a simple faith and applied it to the utmost in helping the untouchables. We are not called to debate theology but to catch people and make followers or learners (disciples) of Christ. It can be fun to debate doctrine but this is not the true goal of genuine fellowship: we should strive for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). Psa. 133:1 says that it is "pleasant" when brothers "dwell together in unity."

In Christ's high priestly prayer in John 17 he prays that we will be one as he and the Father are one. It quenches the Spirit to quarrel and we should agree and find common ground and that is what fellowship is: two fellows in the same ship. To sum up: it is paramount that we get our heart in the right place and apply what we know, rather than have theoretical knowledge.   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Chief Of Sinners...

"But let him who boasts boast that he understands and knows me" (Jer. 9:24).

Our knowledge about God is no measure or gauge of our knowledge of God or personal acquaintance with him as Lord and Savior. It is tempting to be just content to be theologically correct and not apply what we know; still, thirst and desire for the truth is a good thing and a positive sign of spiritual life and of its fruit. The Bible says this about unbelievers and the reason for their condemnation: "Because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10). Orthopraxy (right ethics) is important just as orthodoxy (right doctrine) is, and that is why the epistle of James was written: the faith you have is the faith you show!  However, one can be wrong in nonessential doctrine and still be a good Christian.    

John Bunyan wrote a masterpiece, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners!  Could Paul be the chief of sinners and still know God? Actually, yes! Jesus said in his great intercessory prayer that eternal life is to "know [God]." Being a Christian is not about being religious, memorizing the dance of the pious, or playing along with the game or the rules. There are indeed hypocrites who talk the talk but don't walk the walk and pretend to be Christians and are ones in name only (nominal Christians) in order to gain something (by ulterior motive).  

 NB:  Someone has wisely said that Christ didn't come to make bad people good, even though Christ changes lives and many who are born again have wonderful testimonies of being such vile sinners and have had their lives turned around. Someone then added that Christ came to make dead people live (spiritually, that is). All Christians are sinners--but justified sinners, though,(if one has a relationship with God through Jesus).

All of our righteousness is as "filthy rags" (Is 64:6), and our "fruitfulness" comes from God (Hosea 14:8). And all that we have done is through Christ's power (Isa 26:12 says He has actually has accomplished it through us!). What is paramount is knowing God (Hos 6:6 says: "I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." We have then only done our duty and what is required of us as a servant of God (vessels of honor). "Since You have performed for us all our works" (Isa. 26:12). "For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me" (Rom. 15:18). In other words, our goodness and virtue is God's gift to us, not our gift to God.   

God isn't looking for religious people who keep all the so-called "rules of engagement". He's looking for thirsty souls who want to seek his face and have a desire to have fellowship with him and worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Amos 6:13 mentions believers who boasted of what they had accomplished as if God didn't just use them to do his own will--it wasn't by their strength at all.  Paul said that he "would not venture to speak, but of what Christ had accomplished through [him]"  (Rom. 15:18).   "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD," says Zechariah 4:6.

God's chief controversy, or peeve, against Israel, as Hos. 4:1 says that "there is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of God in the land." So, who is the better Christian? One who is moral and ethical and has a successful life, achieving the American dream, for instance, or the sinner, saved by grace, who knows he's a work in progress-- but truly knows the Lord? Prosperity, therefore, is not necessarily a sign of God's good favor or approval. Ps. 17:14 says the wicked have their reward or portion in this life.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Test of Orthodoxy?

We all tend to have our favorite Bibles and maybe even translations, but it shouldn't be a test of one's orthodoxy to the faith to be partial to one translation, e.g., the Authorized King James Version. You are really only reading the true Word of God when you read the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic because all translations fall short. You need to realize that the Word is verbally inspired and the exact word in the original is inspired for a purpose. Settle all doctrinal issues with exegesis, or returning to the original text.

I realized the problem we have when at Bible study yesterday that someone said, "I like that translation!" just because of the choice of wording that hit his funny-bone. It is not what words impress us in the translations that are paramount, but the original text. The best translations are more difficult to read because they don't do all the work for you and call a spade a spade and don't use idioms that become obsolete and are only fashionable and current for a while. I'm not saying a young believer shouldn't read the NLT (New Living Translation), the CEV (Contemporary English Version), or other modern-day translation for example, but he must realize what he is doing and compare versions. Don't get stuck in only one version, which will take away much perspective and insight: by resorting to this one can get Bible fatigue, where it seems like you are bored with an all-to-familiar text. Variation brings challenge and new input or inspiration and illumination.

I find that my doctrines don't depend on any one translation and I can read without hesitation almost any translation; however, I know hundreds of verses by memory and I am able to compare these verses, and I already know what I believe through good Bible-teaching exposure.  I feel free to use any translation and to quote Mother Teresa of Calcutta, though I am not a Catholic. Notes of explanation should be given to the reason for a specific translation being favored: Is it more literal or easier to understand, for instance? (Not that it sounds good or catchy!)

Once you have studied what the original language or wording says you will be somewhat disillusioned about the quality of a translation and lose faith in a so-called "King-James-only" faith. In conclusion, God can speak through any translation, but we are to exercise common sense and not be ignorant about what we are doing, but not skeptical either.   Soli Deo Gloria!