Semper Reformanda Baptist Library

Back in January of 2014 I posted here that Stuart Brogden has made freely available a fairly extensive library of works pertinent to Reformed Baptists. He describes his website as the "Home of the Semper Reformanda Baptist Library, a free tool intended to encourage and equip my fellow Baptists to stand firm and dig into our rich history and theology, while never growing weary of reforming to the Word of God." I received a message yesterday stating that the web pages had been updated to provide links to library content by topic. Check it out and let us know what you think, or suggest other sites for our readers to check out.

Free eBook of Old Paths by J.C. Ryle

I have discovered that Monergism.com has made available the free eBook of Old Paths: Being Plain Statements On Some Of The Weightier Matters Of Christianity. You may download it here in ePub, .prc (Kindle) or .pdf formats. Here is a selection from the preface, in which Ryle explains his purpose:

“If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” - 1 Corinthians 14:8

The volume now in the reader’s hands consists of a series of papers, systematically arranged, on the leading truths of Christianity which are “necessary to salvation”.

Few, probably, will deny that there are some things in religion about which we may think other people hold very erroneous views, and are, notwithstanding, in no danger of being finally lost. About baptism and the Lord’s Supper, about the Christian ministry, about forms of prayer and modes of worship, about the union of Church and State, about all these things it is commonly admitted that people may differ widely, and yet be finally saved. No doubt there are always bigots and extreme partisans, who are ready to excommunicate everyone who cannot pronounce their Shibboleth on the above-named points. But, speaking generally, to shut out of heaven all who disagree with us about these things, is to take up a position which most thoughtful Christians condemn as unscriptural,narrow, and uncharitable.

On the other hand, there are certain great truths of which some knowledge, by common consent,appears essential to salvation. Such truths are the immortality of the soul, the sinfulness of human nature, the work of Christ for us as our Redeemer, the work of the Holy Ghost in us, forgiveness,justification, conversion, faith, repentance, the marks of a right heart, Christ’s invitations, Christ’s intercession, and the like. If truths like these are not absolutely necessary to salvation, it is difficult to understand how any truths whatever can be called necessary. If people may be saved without knowing anything about these truths, it appears to me that we may throw away our Bibles altogether, and proclaim that the Christian religion is of no use. From such a miserable conclusion I hope most people will shrink back with horror.

To open out and explain these great necessary truths, to confirm them by Scripture, to enforce them by home, appeals to the conscience of all who read this volume. This is the simple object of the series of papers which is now offered to the public.

The eBook was actually produced by the folks at PreachtheWord.com, who have done a good job creating a very mice-looking and easily navigated eBook. They also have a number of other such sources freely available here.

A New Seminary

Note: Keith Throop here! Doing some blog maintenance and editing, I accidentally messed up and then had to delete my blog partner Jeff Johnson's post about the new seminary begun through the efforts of his church. I was able to post it again it myself, but, of course, I am not the pastor of Grace Bible Church of Conway, Arkansas. Perhaps Jeff can post it under his own account again later and delete this post. This means you will get yet another reminder about the seminary, but, hey, that is a good thing, right? Anyway, what follows is from Jeff!

Grace Bible Church of Conway, Arkansas, where I am privileged to pastor, is starting a church based seminary called Grace Bible Institute of Pastoral Studies. See here.

This is truly amazing. Planting the church over fifteen years ago in my living room, I never thought this would be something God had in store for us. We are thanking God for this great opportunity.

In some ways, the seminary has been forced on us. With more and more young men joining our church with a desire to minister and preach the Word, our responsibility to train them became more and more evident. I have felt for some time now that it is the local church’s responsibility to equip the next generations of pastors. 2 Tim. 2:2 teaches us that pastors are responsible to train pastors. After starting a class that would meet once a month, more pastoral students have been sent to us by God. With such a reservoir of men, and with God supernaturally supplying the financial resources, it became clear to us that we needed to start a more robust training program.

Our objective is to equip, ordain, and send out the next generation of church leaders by providing faithful men with a doctrinal education and pastoral experience within the context, oversight, and accountability of our local church. We not only desire to offer a rigorous education in the classroom, but supply practical, real-life experience under the mentorship of our pastors.

So we created a degree program that is based on four avenues of study. First, we are offering four module courses a year where we will bring in some of the leading professors in America. Over an extended weekend, our students will be able to earn 3 credit hours in a classroom setting. Second, we will provide four residential classes a year that are taught by the elders of the church—including myself. Third, we will require six credit hours of self study a year that will be guided and overseen by the Institute’s staff. Fourth, preaching and counseling practicums will be required throughout the program.

If you want to view our course list, check here.

Dr. Bob Gonzales taught our first module on the Doctrine of the Word, and Dr. Tom Nettles is scheduled to come and teach Baptist Church History next week. For more information on this, see here.

We desire to train pastors who self-sacrificially care for God’s sheep.

Though we are not currently accredited, our goal is to become affiliated and then accredited with the Association of Reformed Theological Seminaries.

If you would like to help us, we are seeking to build a robust theological library and would appreciate book donations. We are in the mist of the building construction of our new church and seminary facilities, and with limited wall space, we plan to build a 25 by 16 foot bookshelf with a spiral staircase and catwalk at the 8 foot mark. So, we need books.  

Most importantly, we could use your prayers as our goal is not to make a great name for ourselves, but to help ordain and send out laborers into the harvest.

Download A. H. Strong's Systematic Theology For Free

For any interested readers, here is a link to download or read online Augustus Hopkins Strong's Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students for free. For those of you not familiar with A. H. Strong, here is a description from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (where the same work is also available for free):

Augustus Hopkins Strong was born in Rochester, NY on August 3, 1836. He was brought to Christ while attending Yale College, from which he graduated in 1857. He began his theological studies at Rochester Theological Seminary and completed his D.D. in Germany.

After serving Baptist churches in Haverhill, Massachusetts, and Cleveland, Strong was elected president of Rochester Theological Seminary in 1872. He was an active promoter of Baptist missions throughout his life, and from 1907 to 1910 he served as the first president of the Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.).

In his forty years at Rochester Seminary Strong taught a theology that combined traditional Reformed emphases, distinctive Baptist convictions on the ordinances and the organization of churches, and a relative openness to modern ideas. He published his multivolume Systematic Theology in 1886. This influential work was revised several times by Strong himself and continues in print to this day. Although Strong was consistently orthodox, he did use the results of modem critical scholarship more than, for example, his near Presbyterian contemporary Charles Hodge. Also, unlike Hodge, Strong was comfortable with the idea that God may have created the world through the processes of evolution. In the 1907 edition of his theology, Strong summarized his views on modern thought: "Neither evolution nor the higher criticism has any terrors to one who regards them as part of Christ's creating and education process."

Yet late in his life Strong spoke out strongly against those who used modem thought to compromise belief in Christ's divinity or his saving work. In the 1907 revision, Strong proposed the counter to modernism that he maintained until he died: Christ as "the one and only Revealer of God, in nature, in humanity, in history, in science, in Scripture."

Although, sadly, Strong never abandoned his Theistic Evolution, he is definitely worth checking out. Just keep a discerning eye as you read him. At many points, he reads like a Baptist version of Charles Hodge, but at other points, as the above description maintains, he goes too far into modern critical thinking. For those who use e-Sword, his Systematic Theology is also available for free as an e-Sword module here.

Bob Gonzales Reviews "Confessing the Impassibile God"

The blog's regular readers will no doubt remember our support of Bob Gonzales' writing on the doctrine of the impassibility of God here. Well, now I would like to call your attention to his review of Confessing the Impassible God: The Biblical, Classical, & Confessional Doctrine of Divine Impassibility. In this review Bob manages to put into words what has troubled many of us regarding the current debate over the doctrine of divine impassibility. The review is entitled From Dust to Deity: Some Critical Reflections on a Critical Book, and I highly recommend taking time to read it. And, while you're at it, you might want to take some time to read more of Bob's excellent, thoughtful, balanced and Biblical writing on his It Is Written blog. The slogan under the blog titles says, "Promoting the Supremacy of Scripture," and that is exactly what Bob does, not only on the issue of impassibility but on every issue about which he writes.

The Absurdity of Unbelief by Jeff Johnson Is Available Now!

Today my blog partner, Jeff Johnson, announced on Facebook that The Absurdity of Unbelief, his new book on apologetics, is now available on Amazon.com. Here is the description of the book on the Amazon webpage:

Because all non-Christian worldviews are indefensible, it is not sufficient for skeptics to attack Christianity without also defending the foundation for their own unbelief. Everyone has a worldview, even atheists and skeptics, but only the Christian worldview is not self-contradictory. The Absurdity of Unbelief demonstrates why every possible reason for unbelief is irrational and ultimately meaningless by exposing the various self-refuting systems of thought in which these objections are rooted.

"Agnostics and atheists have been making a lot of noise in recent years, in spite of the fact that their belief systems are so obviously flawed. To counter their propaganda we need a flow of books exposing just how flimsy their arguments are. Jeffrey Johnson has chosen the word 'absurdity' to characterise these, and he has chosen well. Chapter by chapter he strips unbelief of any vestige of credibility, then shows with crystal clarity why the biblical case for God stands supreme when contrasted with all other philosophical and religious belief systems. I predict that this book will be as great a help to many of its readers as it has been to me, and I commend it warmly." John Blanchard

"As Christians struggle to hold onto a semblance of sanity in the midst of the collapse of Western morality and thought, a sound foundation upon which to stand in explaining our unwillingness to bow the knee to Caesar is a must. In The Absurdity of Unbelief, Jeffrey Johnson provides a clear and compelling case for the Christian faith, readable and usable for believer and unbeliever alike." James R. White

Having read the book myself, I highly recommend it as a must read on the subject. As I said in a post earlier this week, it as an excellent example of presuppositional apologetics. It is one of those books on apologetics that every pastor should read and have on his shelf for future reference.

The Absurdity of Unbelief by Jeff Johnson Is Coming in 10 Days!

Today my blog partner, Jeff Johnson, announced on Facebook that his new book on apologetics, entitled The Absurdity of Unbelief, "is currently being printed. The Official release date is Jan. 15, though the books should be ready for shipping before then. Take advantage of the 50% off pre-publication special that will continue for the next few days by filling out the contact information on this link below." Here is the link about which he spoke: The Absurdity of Unbelief.

As the link for the pre-publication page says, "Sign up to take advantage of the 50% discount. This does not obligate you in anyway, it simply ensures that you will receive the discounted rate. No payment is due until the time of shipping. You will be contacted a few days prior to the release date with shipping and payment options.." I have read the book, and I highly recommend it as an excellent example of presuppositional apologetics. It is one of those books on apologetics that every pastor should read and have on his shelf for future reference.

"Jonathan Edwards on Freedom of the Will" by Philip Fisk

Immanuel Baptist Church, where I serve as the primary teaching elder, has been privileged to support Phil and Cindy Fisk in their ministry at the Evangelical Theological Faculty (ETF) in Leuven, Belgium. May God bless their ministry and the ministry of ETF!

Phil recently defended his doctoral dissertation at ETF, and you may watch his defense in the video above. His dissertation is entitled Jonathan Edwards on Freedom of Perfection: Establishing the Shift Away from the Classic-Reformed Tradition of Freedom of the Will. I highly recommend watching the defense in its entirety. It is both fascinating and informative. If you're at all like me, it will make you want to learn more and to get a copy of the dissertation and read it for yourself. The book will be available in the fall of 2016 as a part of the series New Directions in Jonathan Edwards Studies, by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Given the defense above, I suspect that it will become essential reading for anyone interested in the theology of Jonathan Edwards. I also suspect that, even if many still side with Edwards' view, they may be forced by Phil's work to acknowledge that they stand outside Classic-Reformed theology when they do so. I think I certainly need to study the issue again in a much deeper way and to reassess my own view in the light of Scripture.

After messaging with Phil, he has stressed that it should be kept in mind while watching the video that he is only making the claim that Edwards turned from the classic-Reformed tradition on the topic of "freedom of the will," not on other topics, such as union with Christ, the Covenants, etc.

I'll be sure to let our readers know when the book is available for purchase.

The Absurdity of Unbelief Coming Soon!

The blog's regular readers will recall that I posted an article previewing The Absurdity of Unbelief, Jeff Johnson's upcoming book on apologetics, here. I then posted an article seeking reviewers here. Now I am pleased to say, however, that the book will be available on December 1 and that Jeff has just debuted a new website for the book here. You may preorder the book at a 50% discount on the website.

Seeking Reviewers for The Absurdity of Unbelief by Jeff Johnson

 
On June 1 I informed you all of an upcoming book on apologetics by Jeff Johnson. It is entitled The Absurdity of Unbelief, and a preview of the final chapter was posted here on June 4. I am writing now, however, to inform you all that, as Jeff has contemplated the publication of the book, he has decided to print a number of review copies to send out before finalizing the text. He has basically decided to subject it to some peer review in this manner, hoping to make the book stronger and better with some helpful input, especially from within the Reformed community. If you study apologetics, or if you have a blog and would be willing to write a thoughtful review of the book, you will be sent a free prepublication review copy. He is printing only fifty copies for this purpose, so let him know soon if you wish to be a reviewer. You may contact him at freegracepress@gmail.com.

After Jeff has read your reviews and feels comfortable with the final text, he will then send you a free copy of the published book as a thank you for your help. He may or may not adopt suggested changes, but he hopes that you will give a full, fair, and honest review of the work.

Thanks in advance to all who are willing to help!

The Absurdity of Unbelief by Jeff Johnson

Today my blog partner, Jeff Johnson, announced on Facebook that he is almost finished with his book on apologetics. The text of his post says, "Getting close to finishing an apologetic book The Absurdity of Unbelief. Right at 90,000 words, which is about the same size as The Fatal Flaw."

Having had some lengthy discussions with Jeff about apologetics, as well as about his work on this book, I have to say that I can't wait to read it. Following are a few pictures Jeff has posted that show the cover of the book and its contents. He has told me that the graphic for the cover is only a mock draft. Just click on a picture to enlarge it.

I will be sure to keep you all posted about the progress of the book and when you will be able to purchase it. It helps to have an inside track here! Thanks Jeff!

The Primacy of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jeff Johnson

As the description on the YouTube pages says, in this message "Pastor Jeff Johnson, author of The Fatal Flaw Behind The Theology of Infant Baptism, shows us how the Abrahamic Covenant unifies the Old Testament and the New Testament; the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, the demands of the law and the glory of grace." I hope all the blog's readers will find it helpful. If you want to learn more from Jeff on these foundational issues, I highly recommend two of his books:

The Fatal Flaw Behind The Theology of Infant Baptism (The single best book I have ever read on the subject)

The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Expression of Covenant & Biblical Theology

I am grateful to have Jeff as a blog partner, and I hope you will find his writing as beneficial as I have.

Bob Gonzales on John 3:16

A few weeks ago I finished writing a two-part series of blog posts on the meaning of John 3:16. In the first of those posts I observed that there is room within the Reformed theological community to agree to disagree about the interpretation of this verse, most particularly with regard to the meaning of the Greek term kósmos, which is translated as world. In fact, I cited both John Calvin and D.A. Carson as examples of Reformed theologians who have understood this word to have a universal meaning. They believe it is correct to understand this word as referring to God's love for all men, whereas many Reformed theologians such as John Owen and James White understand the term to refer to the elect from all over the world rather than just the Jews.

In this post I would like to offer another example of a Reformed theologian -- in fact, a fellow Reformed Baptist -- who understands John 3:16 as speaking of God's love for all men. Bob Gonzales has written an article entitled Look and Live! John 3:16 as a Universal Gospel Invitation . Here is his conclusion:

Just because you’re a Calvinist doesn’t mean you’ve got to reserve John 3:16 for the saints. It’s designed for sinners too. It has an evangelistic aim. Therefore, don’t just preach the facts of God’s benevolent love and Jesus’ incarnation. Don’t just tell your congregation that believers go to heaven. Use the text as a gospel invitation. Entreat all and every sinner to “look and live.” And if someone questions whether you’re truly a Calvinist, you can reply, “I’m a ‘John (3:16) Calvinist.”

Although I disagree with Bob's interpretation of the verse, I agree with him that there is a Gospel invitation implied in the verse, and I agree that a good Calvinist may understand John 3:16 as he does, so I wanted to make that clear to the blog's readers. I hope you can all agree with me that, whether or not you side with Calvin, Carson, and Gonzales concerning the precise meaning of this verse, there is room within the Reformed camp for such a difference of interpretation.

God's Great and Gracious Love – John 3:16 Part 2 (Teaching Outline)

Introduction: Just as I pointed out last week, even so this week I want to observe how important it is to begin reading the text at verse 1 in order to refresh our minds concerning the context leading up to this verse. As the text is read, observe again that the word for (γάρ, gár) at the beginning of verse 16 tells us that this verse is explaining the cause of what Jesus said in verses 14-15. This means that God's love is what caused the Son of Man to be lifted up for our salvation, not anything in us!

NKJ  John 3:16 For [γάρ, gár] God so [οὕτως, hoútōs, thus, so, in this manner] loved the world [κόσμος, kósmos] that He gave His only begotten [μονογενής, monogenḗs, one and only] Son, that whoever believes [πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, pãs ho pisteúōn] in Him should not perish [Aor. Dep. Subj. > ἀπόλλυμι, apóllumi] but have [Pres. Act. Subj. > ἔχω, échō] everlasting life.

Last week we began our examination of the first part of this verse under the heading, “The Greatness of God's Love,” and this week we will continue our study of the latter part of this verse under two headings, first “The Grace of God's Love,” and then “The Goal of God's Love.”

The Grace of God's Love

This idea was implicit in our study of this verse last week, when we saw that God's love for us sinners was so great that it led Him to give His one and only Son for the elect from all over the world. Today I want to make this idea explicit, because John himself definitely means to communicate that our salvation is by God's grace when he highlights two facts.

First, John highlights the fact that it was God Himself who took the initiative to do what was necessary to save us. It was God in His love who offered His one and only Son so that we might not perish but have everlasting life. His presentation here thus highlights what he later stresses in his first epistle:

NKJ  1 John 4:16-19 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. 17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 19 We love Him because He first loved us.

What a comforting truth it is to know that God has loved us even though we don't deserve it! Such love does indeed cast out fear!

Second, John highlights that salvation is by God's grace when he specifically says that God “gave” His one and only Son. So, when the Lord Jesus died on the cross, He did so as God's gift to us by which we are saved and receive everlasting life. This leads us to our next major heading.

The Goal of God's Love

John tells us what was God's goal or purpose in giving His Son. It was so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” But it is important here to understand clearly what John is saying, especially since so many well-intentioned Christians tend to misunderstand this verse precisely at this point.

For example, when many Christians read this verse and see that God loved the world, they assume that He loved everyone without exception and that He loved them all in the same way. But we saw last week that this is not necessarily the right way to understand John's use of the Greek word for world here.

Yet this is not where the problem ends, because these same Christians then go on to assume that John means to imply that everyone is equally capable of believing when he says that “whoever believes” in Him should not perish. Yet John says nothing in this verse about who is able to believe in Christ. Nor does he say anything about how anyone comes to believe in Christ. He simply says that every one who does believe will not perish but have everlasting life.

The Greek phrase here is pãs ho pisteúōn. Pãs is an adjective which means all or every, and ho pisteúōn is a participle preceded by an article, and it means he who believes or the believing one. John is thus quite clearly saying that God's intention in giving His Son Jesus was so that every believing one should not perish but have everlasting life. He is specifying a particular group of human beings – those who believe – and nothing in the grammar indicates that all human beings are in mind. Yet, whenever certain Christians see the word whoever or whosoever in an English translation, they automatically assume that John is speaking of some indefinite group and that he is trying to say that all human beings have the same capacity to believe. They also often assume that simply citing this verse is enough to defeat the doctrine of election as taught elsewhere in the Bible and as understood by Reformed believers.

But, as I have pointed out, this text says nothing at all about who will believe in Christ or how they will come to believe in Him. For an explanation of these ideas we would have to look elsewhere in Scripture. For example, if we want to know how it is that people come to faith in Christ, then we might want to pay close attention to Jesus' teaching as recorded by John later on in this same Gospel. Perhaps a brief look at John 6 will suffice.

First, it is important as we read John 6 to see how Jesus used the terminology of coming to Him as equivalent to believing in Him. This can be seen in verses 35-40:

NKJ  John 6:35-40 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” [Notice that everlasting life is spiritual life that may be experienced now, but which also includes our future resurrection.]

We have taken the time to read these verses so that you can be assured that, when Jesus speaks of someone coming to Him, He means that this person believes in Him. He uses the terminology interchangeably. Now, with that understanding, let's take a look at a couple of other points Jesus makes later in the same context.

NKJ  John 6:44-45 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

How can we tell who has been taught and drawn by the Father? All we have to do is look to see who is coming to Jesus in faith. Clearly, only those who have been so taught by the Father and drawn by the Father to Jesus can and will believe in Him. And, since no one can come to the Jesus unless they are thus drawn by the Father, then no one can believe in Jesus unless they are drawn by Him. Later on in this passage, Jesus stresses the same point:

NKJ  John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted [Perf. Pass. Part. > δίδωμι, has been given] to him by My Father.”

Now, if coming to Jesus is the same thing as believing in Jesus, and if coming to Jesus is a gift from God the Father, then believing in Jesus is a gift from God the Father. So this is just one of a number of passages that show that saving faith is a gift of God, not something that anyone has in and of himself, aside from God's having granted it to Him. The Apostle Paul would later put it this way:

NKJ  Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God....”

But if this is true, if faith is the gift of God, then we have even more evidence that the common understanding that many Christians have of John 3:16 is simply wrong. For they see it as indicating that all men are somehow equally capable of believing, when the Bible clearly teaches that no one is capable of believing in Christ at all unless saving faith has been given to him by God.

But what is the nature of the faith that God gives? What is saving faith like? I think Wayne Grudem gives us a helpful start in answering this question when he explains the sense of the Greek phrase employed by John in this verse, a phrase which is also commonly used elsewhere in the New Testament:

John 3:16 tells us that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”  Here John uses a surprising phrase when he does not simply say, “whoever believes him” (that is, believes that what he says is true and able to be trusted), but rather, “whoever believes in him.” The Greek phrase pisteuo eis auton could also be translated “believe into him” with the sense of trust or confidence that goes into and rests in Jesus as a person. Leon Morris can say, “Faith, for John, is an activity which takes men right out of themselves and makes them one with Christ.” He understands the Greek phrase pisteuo eis to be a significant indication that New Testament faith is not just intellectual assent but includes a “moral element of personal trust.” Such an expression was rare or perhaps nonexistent in the secular Greek found outside the New Testament, but it was well suited to express the personal trust in Christ that is involved in saving faith. (Systematic Theology, p. 711)

In other words, saving faith is more that intellectual assent to facts about Jesus. Saving faith is rather personal trust in Jesus to save you from your sins. It is faith such as this which embraces Christ so that one might not perish but instead have everlasting life. And, as we have already seen when we looked ahead to John 6, this everlasting life refers to spiritual life now that looks forward to and includes the resurrection.

But those who do not trust in Jesus will perish, which means that they will experience the eternal death which involves separation from the love of God that has been so wonderfully declared in this verse. Later John would write more about the fate of unbelievers in the Book of Revelation, where he described the final judgment and said, “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire” (20:14-15).

Conclusion: I will conclude with an illustration from a sermon by S. Lewis Johnson:

What does it mean to believe? There is a story of a skeptical physician who was administering to a Christian patient. He said to his patient, “I could never understand saving faith. I believe in God and I suppose I believe in Jesus Christ. I’m not conscious of any doubts. I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and I believe in the Bible, yet I’m not saved. What’s the matter with me?” The Christian patient said, “Well, a day or two ago I believed in you. I believed that you were a very skillful physician; I believed that you could possibly prescribe for me and heal me. But then a few days just recently I discovered I was really sick and so I came to you and I put myself in your hands to be healed. In other words, I trusted you.” He said, “For a time now I’ve been taking some mysterious stuff out of a bottle. I don’t know what it is, I don’t understand it, but I’m trusting you.”

Well that’s a good explanation of what saving faith is. It’s to turn to the Lord Jesus and say, if you’re puzzled, “Lord Jesus, Christianity seems to me to be full of mysteries. I don’t understand all those mysteries but I believe that you are trustworthy and I trust you. I entrust myself and my eternal destiny into your hands because you have offered an atoning sacrifice for sinners, and that’s what I am.” That’s saving faith. (Online sermon entitled The Greatest text of All)

I pray that all who read these posts and who have not yet come to know Christ as Lord Savior will so trust in Him.

See part one here.

God's Great and Gracious Love – John 3:16 Part 1 (Teaching Outline)

Note: As we prepare to examine this text, I just want to point out that there is some legitimate disagreement as to whether or not Jesus is still speaking in verse 16. Although red letter editions of the Bible typically continue with red print through verse 21, I think it highly likely that the Apostle John begins to add his own comments on Jesus' statements to Nicodemus beginning in verse 16. Of course, either way we still have the inspired Word of God, and we must still understand John's teaching as having derived from Jesus Himself. So, even if we have John's comments in verses 16-21, we must understand his statements as reflecting the teaching he had previously received from our Lord Jesus. With this in mind, it is important to begin reading the text at verse 1 to refresh our minds concerning the context leading up to this verse. As the text is read, observe that the word for (γάρ, gár) at the beginning of verse 16 tells us that this verse is explaining the cause of what Jesus said in verses 14-15. This means that God's love is what caused the Son of Man to be lifted up for our salvation, not anything in us!

Introduction: James White has written concerning this verse that:

Sometimes the passages we know best we know least. That is, when we hear a passage repeated in a particular context over and over and over again, we tend to lose sight of its real meaning in its original setting. This is surely the case with John 3:16, for it is one of the most commonly cited passages in evangelical preaching. And yet, how often is it actually subjected to exegesis? Hardly ever. Its meaning is assumed rather than confirmed. (Online article entitled, Blinded By Tradition: An Open Letter to Dave Hunt)

I agree with James White's assessment, which is why I want to devote the entirety of today's and next week's teaching to this single verse. We all know that it is one of the most quoted verses of the Bible, but I hope we will see after our study of the verse that it is perhaps also one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the whole Bible. We will examine the verse under three headings. This week we will consider the meaning of the first part of the verse under the heading, “The Greatness of God's Love,” and next week we will consider the second half of the verse under the headings, “The Grace of God's Gove” and “The Goal of God's love.”

The Greatness of God's Love

We see the greatness of God's love in the first part of the verse, which tells us that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten – or, better, one and only – Son.

NKJ  John 3:16 For [γάρ, gár] God so [οὕτως, hoútōs, thus, so, in this manner] loved the world [κόσμος, kósmos] that He gave His only begotten [μονογενής, monogenḗs, one and only] Son, that whoever believes [πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, pãs ho pisteúōn] in Him should not perish [Aor. Dep. Subj. > ἀπόλλυμι, apóllumi] but have [Pres. Act. Subj. > ἔχω, échō] everlasting life.

In other words, God's love for the world was so great that it led him to give even His one and only Son to become flesh and dwell among us (1:14) and to be lifted up on the cross to die for our sins (vss.14-15). This is the primary way in which the greatness of God's love is seen. It is seen in the greatness of the gift He has given for sinners such as you and me.

But the greatness of God's love is not only seen in the greatness of the gift it led Him to give; it is also seen in His loving such a big, bad world of sinners. But here we come to a potential problem in our interpretation of this verse, because many believers automatically assume that, when John speaks of the world, he must mean every human being without exception. Indeed, there have even been renowned Reformed theologians who have understood the term this way. For example, in his commentary on this passage, John Calvin wrote concerning this verse that:

It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. (Commentary on John, e-Sword)

Thus Calvin clearly saw the Greek term kósmos – translated world in this verse – as having a universal connotation, although he is quick to point out that this does not mean that anyone and everyone without exception will be saved, since God gives faith only to the elect.

A modern Reformed theologian, D.A. Carson, agrees with this broader understanding of the term world in this verse. He has written a fascinating and very helpful book – one which I heartily recommend to all of you – entitled The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, and in it he writes:

I know that some try to take κόσμος (“world”) here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John's Gospel is against the suggestion. True, world in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness. In John's vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God's love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired not because it is extended to so big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing; not to so many people, as to such wicked people. Nevertheless John elsewhere can speak of “the whole world” (1 John 2:2), thus bringing bigness and badness together. More importantly, in Johannine theology the disciples themselves once belonged to the world but were drawn out of it (e.g., John 15:19). On this axis, God's love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect.

The same lesson is learned from many passages and themes in Scripture. However much God stands in judgment over the world, he also presents himself as the God who invites and commands all human beings to repent. He orders his people to carry the Gospel to the farthest corner of the world, proclaiming it to men and women everywhere. To rebels the sovereign Lord calls out, “As surely as I live … I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11). (pp. 17-18)

Thus we have two Reformed theologians who think that John's reference to God's love for the world here means that He loves all men, whether elect or not, even if it is only the elect who will believe and be saved. But I am not so sure either of these men are correct in their understanding of this term in this context, especially since even in this Gospel there are instances in which the Greek word kósmos does not indicate a reference to all men without exception. For example:

NKJ  John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, “You see that you are accomplishing nothing. Look, the world [κόσμος, kósmos] has gone after Him [Jesus]'”

Clearly these Pharisees do not mean to say that all men without exception have gone after Jesus. Rather they are using the word kósmos figuratively, as hyperbole, in order to stress how great a number there are who have gone after Jesus. Now, I do not think that John is using the term as hyperbole here in 3:16; I simply point out this instance to you in order to demonstrate that we must be careful not to automatically assume that the term must have a universal reference.

But I think there is an even better example for a more restricted meaning of the word that comes from Jesus Himself. It is found in His high priestly prayer in chapter 17:

NKJ  John 17:6-9 I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world [κόσμος, kósmos]. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. 9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world [κόσμος, kósmos] but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

In this passage Jesus uses the Greek word kósmos in order to speak of the world of the non-elect versus the elect who have been given to Him by the Father out of the world. So we see again that we have to be careful not to assume that this word always refers to all men without exception. It may indeed have a more restricted meaning, and I think that this is likely the case in John 3:16. But in John 3:16 I think the term refers to the world of the elect versus the non-elect, since it speaks of God's love for the world leading to His giving of His one and only Son so that those who believe may be saved.

In other words, just as the context of Jesus' prayer in chapter 17 indicates that he intends to restrict the meaning of the word to the world of the non-elect, so here in chapter three the context indicates that John means to restrict the meaning of the word to the world of the elect. I also think he uses the term because he wants to stress that it is not just the Jews that God desires to save, but rather all the elect from the whole world, a concept that many Jews would have rejected. In fact, later in this Gospel, John felt the need to stress this point when he reported the unwitting prophecy of Caiaphas:

NKJ  John 11:47-52 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. 48 If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” 49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

I hope you can see, then, why so many Reformed theologians over the years have seen a more restricted meaning of the term world here in John 3:16. James White, whom I cited earlier, provides a good example of this view when he writes:

The great controversy that rages around the term “world” is wholly unnecessary. The wide range of uses of kosmos (world) in the Johannine corpus is well known. John 3:16 does not define the extent of  kosmos. However, a few things are certain: it is not the “world” that Jesus says He does not pray for in John 17:9, a “world” that is differentiated from those the Father has given Him: “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours.” It is not the “world” that is arrayed as an enemy against God’s will and truth, either, as seen in 1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Obviously, the “world” we are not to love in 1 John 2:15 is not the world God showed His love toward by sending His unique Son. The most that can be said by means of exegesis (rather than by insertion via tradition) is that the world is shown love through the giving of the Son so that a specific, particular people receive eternal life through faith in Him. Since we know that not all are saved by faith in Christ, it is utterly unwarranted to read into kosmos some universal view of humanity: how is God’s love shown for one who experiences eternal punishment by the provision of salvation for someone else? (Blinded By Tradition: An Open Letter to Dave Hunt)

I must frankly admit that the more I study the issue, the more I agree with this latter point of view, but I want you to see that there is room to agree to disagree on the precise meaning of the term world in this passage, so long as we avoid the mistakes that both John Calvin and D.A. Carson have avoided, namely making the assumption that this word somehow provides ammunition to deny God's sovereign and unconditional election of believers unto salvation or to deny His special love for the elect.

But, someone may ask, “If the word world in this verse is to be taken in a restricted sense, as referring only to the elect, then must we conclude that God does not love everyone in the world? Must we say that God loves only believers?” My answer to this question is, “No, we should not conclude that God does not love everyone in the world.” In fact, I think there are other passages that teach us that God does love even unbelievers. Consider, for example, Jesus' teaching in the sermon on the Mount:

NKJ  Matthew 5:43-45 You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

In other words, if we want to be like our heavenly Father, we will love our enemies as He loves his enemies and thus causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust. There is, then, a real sense in which God loves even the non-elect who never believe in Him. But He does not love them as He loves believers. There is a special sense in which God loves the elect who believe in Christ. And it is when this special, electing love is in view that the Bible speaks of God's hatred for sinners, such as when God said, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom. 9:13, citing Mal. 1:2b-3a).

Now, all you have to do to see that God showed His love to Esau is to look back at the accounts in the Old Testament to see how greatly God blessed him (e.g. Gen. 33:9; 36:6-8ff; Deut. 2:5; Josh. 24:4). However, none of these blessings included Esau's having been chosen for salvation. In fact, the author of Hebrews uses Esau as an example of an irremediable apostate and warns professing Christians not to fall into the same trap into which he fell:

NKJ  Hebrews 12:14-17 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: 15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; 16 lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. 17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.

So, we may say that there was a sense in which God loved Esau, but that there was also a sense in which He hated him. He loved Him by causing His sun to rise even upon him and by sending His rain even upon Esau's crops, and He loved Him by giving him the land of Seir as an inheritance (Deut. 2:5; Josh. 24:4). But God did not love Esau as He loved Jacob, for He did not choose Esau for salvation as He chose Jacob.

The Apostle Paul speaks of this very issue when he writes to the Romans concerning God's sovereign grace and election:

NKJ  Romans 9:10-16 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” [Gen. 25:23] 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” [Mal. 1:2b-3a] 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” [Exod. 33:19] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

So, I think we must conclude that there is a sense in which God loves all sinners, but there is a special sense in which God loves the elect. And we must conclude that this special love for the elect is not extended to the non-elect, who are rejected by God as Esau was rejected by Him.

Perhaps I can make the point with a rather meager, human illustration, since even we humans can manage to love people in different ways. For example, I can honestly say that I love all the women who belong to Immanuel Baptist Church, all of whom are my sisters in the Lord. But I don't love any of them like I love my wife. I have a special love for my wife that I have for no other woman. In a similar way, God has a special love for those whom He has chosen for salvation, and He does not share this love with unbelievers, even if He still bestows many blessings of love and common grace upon them.

Conclusion: I will conclude this teaching by reminding you all that we may perhaps agree to disagree on the meaning of the word world here in John 3:16, but I think we all must agree that there are different senses in which God loves the elect and the non-elect and that it is only the elect who experience the fullness of God's saving love.

I also want you to see that the interpretation of this verse is not nearly as obvious as so many make it out to be. One thing is certain though: This verse quite clearly tells us of the greatness of God's love, which led Him to give even His one and only Son for the salvation of sinners, and that this love was not restricted to any particular race. God has purposed to save sinners from every tribe and tongue and nation, and He will accomplish that purpose. Remember, for example, what the Spirit revealed to the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation:

NKJ  Revelation 5:8-10 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.”

I believe that it is this global family that John has in mind in John 3:16, and I praise the Lord that we who have trusted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior may count ourselves among them.

See part two here.

A Couple of Helpful Videos From the 1689 Federalism Website

Discover the covenantal heritage
of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.

In a previous post, I recommended the 1689 Federalism website as a good place to start if you want to get  a good introduction to Reformed Baptist theology. The site focuses on the Biblical basis for and the distinctiveness of Reformed Baptist Federalism, also known as Covenant Theology, as outlined in the the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. Now I want to recommend the site again. It has a number of helpful videos, two of which I offer for your viewing pleasure here:





The site also includes some helpful charts and a list of resources.

"A Few Thoughts for Consideration in the Modern Republication Debate"

The Particular Voices blog recently posted a brief article entitled A Few Thoughts for Consideration in the Modern Republication Debate. The article offers for Presbyterians a summary of points in favor and against the notion that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works. Here is the primary portion of the post for your consideration.

These thoughts are directed primarily at members in the OPC and PCA.

For those contra republication:

1. The view that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works is a view found among Reformed divines in the 17th and 16th centuries.

2. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not the exclusive expression or boundary of Reformed orthodoxy.

For those pro republication:

1. The fact that a given divine at the Westminster Assembly held to a given view does not mean that the Confession itself either reflects, includes, or accounts for their view. They debated many things. The conclusion of the debates was a majority vote in one direction, not a unanimous vote.

2. A covenant of works and a covenant of grace are as different as wood and stone. They are different “substances.” If the Mosaic covenant is a formal covenant of works (not just containing a remembrance of Adam’s covenant) it cannot be the covenant grace. See John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London: Printed by G. Miller, 1645), 93-95. Ball is discussing John Cameron’s view that the Mosaic covenant (the old covenant) is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace but a legal covenant for the nation of Israel to live life in the land of Canaan. Ball concludes that this view makes the old covenant differ from the new in substance. See also John Owen, A Continuation of the Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (London: Printed for Nathaniel Ponder, 1680), 324-42. Owen considers the majority view as expressed in the WCF and rejects it because he views the Mosaic covenant as a works covenant for life in the land. This is the result of the simple logic of substance as applied to covenant theology.

My thanks to Richard Barcellos for drawing this to my attention. The whole article is posted here.

Interesting Articles on the Doctrine of Two Kingdoms

In this post I thought I would list some helpful and interesting articles on the Doctrine of Two Kingdoms, or Two Kingdom Theology. This is a doctrine that I believe reflects a proper understanding of Scripture. In various forms it was held by Augustine and then later by Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and it is a doctrine that has had a long history among Reformed churches and theologians. It is also a doctrine upon which I and my fellow-blogger Jeff Johnson agree (at least in its Reformed rendering). In fact, our commitment to a form of this doctrine is reflected in some of the articles we have written here (as will be mentioned below).

Here is a helpful introduction by Kim Riddlebarger:

A Two Kingdoms Primer 

Here are some helpful articles by Michael Horton: 

A Tale of Two Kingdoms 

Two Kingdoms and Slavery

Response to Questions About the Two Kingdoms

Here are some helpful articles by Matthew Tuininga:

The Two Kingdoms and the Reformed Tradition

The Two Kingdoms Doctrine: What's The Fuss All About? Part One 

The Two Kingdoms Doctrine, Part Two: John Calvin 

The Two Kingdoms Doctrine, Part Three: The Teaching of Scripture 

Jeff Johnson and I have also written several articles on this blog advocating or assuming the position of this doctrine: 

Giving Uncle Sam His Due (A good, basic introduction to Two Kingdom Theology, with some important practical implications, by Jeff)

A Memorial Day Reflection on Christian Patriotism 

The American Revolution: Was it Biblical? 

These last two articles are written by me and definitely reflect the perspective of Two Kingdom Theology. I hope you find all of these articles helpful, and I welcome contributions to the list from the blog's readers as well.

James White Responds to Adam Harwood's Challenge to Reformed Theology

Dr. Adam Harwood, the Associate Chair of Theology and the McFarland Chair of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary located in New Orleans, Louisiana, recently delivered a sermon at Truett-McConnell College, in which he directly challenged specific points of Calvinistic theology.

 

In this sermon, it is my view that Dr. Harwood demonstrates -- to put it mildly -- a very poor understanding of what Calvinists actually believe, and that he consistently misrepresents our point of view. Here is the video of that sermon:

Dr. James White, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has offered the following response:

Needless to say, I am in agreement with James White here, because he correctly understands and proclaims the teaching of Scripture concerning our salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Giving Uncle Sam His Due

Would it not be nice if it really were a sin to pay taxes? I get discouraged, very discouraged, when I think that a third of my paycheck goes to Uncle Sam. Nevertheless, the Bible says something along the lines as, “render to Uncle Sam what is Uncle Sam’s.” So paying taxes, sadly, is not a sin but a divine mandate. Yet, when the Lord tells us, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matt. 22:21), we are not only given instructions on paying taxes, but more importantly, we are given a helpful key in understanding our relationship with the culture and secular governments.

The relationship that we, as believers, have with culture has been and will continue to be debated until heaven and earth are united with the world filled with only righteousness. Until then, the debate will continue. For instance, Richard Niebuhr (in his book, Christ and Culture) suggests that there are four overarching answers to this question: 1. Christ against culture, 2. Christ of culture, 3. Christ above culture, and 4. Christ and culture in paradox. What is the relationship between the secular and the sacred? That is, what is the relationship between the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God? Using broad brushstrokes, I agree with Niebuhr that there seems to be four different answers that are given by four different types of Christians.

Those Against Culture

First, we have the strict legalistic and fundamentalist type. These professing Christians tend to believe that there is no link between that which is holy and that which is unholy. The secular and sacred, if you would, have little to nothing in common, for what does light have to do with darkness? This group is prone to isolate themselves in a bunker and create all kinds additional regulations (don’t taste, don’t touch, etc.) to help safeguard themselves from contact with the world. Rejection of the culture and boycotting things made in China is the safest way to remain holy in an unholy world. For them the culture and governments of the world are like a sinking ship that is beyond repair. Why spend time and energy polishing the brass railings (e.g., seeking to improve the culture), when we know that the ship is ultimately doomed to sink into the eternal abyss?

Those For Culture

Second, there is the more liberal and “emergent” group who believes that the ultimate goal of the church is to redeem the culture. For them, the kingdom of God is culture restoration. Thus, they are more concerned about social justice, being culturally relevant, and going “green” than they are about preaching the gospel to a fallen world. With this in mind, it is just as important, if not more important, to be culturally sensitive (getting inked, attending a few political rallies, and planting a few trees) than it is to articulate a clear gospel. This is because they believe that mankind is basically good; with a little religious assistance, man can reach his full potential. Thus, as this group becomes more concerned about political justice and handing out hot bowls of soup, they inadvertently merge the sacred into the secular. Unlike the “legalistic Fundamentalists” who reject the culture, this group tends to reject the “sacred.” In the end, the ship is not sinking, for it is only in need of some minor repairs and a little refurbishing.

Those With Culture

Third, we have the optimistic postmillennialists, who, due to their covenantal and eschatological beliefs, tend to minimize any secular and sacred distinctions. For this group, everything in the world (e.g., the sciences, the arts, governments, etc.) is to be holy unto the Lord. They are quick to quote Calvin and Kuyper who said in various ways that “every square inch of creation belongs to God.” The goal of the church, therefore, is to reclaim every square inch of this world for the glory of God. Through progressively spreading Christian values, the culture and governments will slowly be Christianized. Thus, preaching the gospel to sinners and culture renewal are both essential parts of the great commission. In other words, witnessing and voting are both sacred duties. In the end, that which is secular is to disappear with only the sacred remaining as the kingdoms of this world merge into the kingdom of God. In this case, the ship will remain afloat until it is sailing for the glory of God as Christ returns as its captain.

Those Within Culture

Fourth, we have those, like myself, who think that the secular and sacred realms will remain separated until the Second Coming of Christ. And, therefore, until heaven and earth is made one, we are to render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar and render unto God the things that belong to God.

The distinction between the secular and sacred kingdoms is not based merely upon the single proof text of Matthew 22:21, but rather it is built upon the holistic understanding of Scripture known as Two Kingdom Theology. For the Bible speaks of history as being divided into two ages: this present, evil age and the age to come. The present, evil age is the time-frame where sin and evil reigns upon the earth. The age to come is the time-frame where righteousness will reign upon the earth. The Old Testament saints longed for the age to come when the Messiah would reign and put an end to sin. However, rather than only one appearing, we have learned from the light of the New Testament that Christ’s coming takes place in two stages. As His First Appearing, the age to come and the kingdom of God was inaugurated. For where the King is present, then righteousness, the kingdom of God, and the age to come are also present. In His life, death and resurrection Christ defeated sin, death, and the Devil and introduced the glory of the age to come to the sons of men. But even though the age to come has been introduced, this present, evil age continues and will do so until the Second Coming of Christ. In that, the two time-frames of this present, evil age and the age to come overlap each other. This is because at His First Appearing, the kingdom of God was inaugurated with Christ conquering the power of sin, death, and the Devil, but the full end of sin, death, and the Devil will not occur until the consummation of the kingdom of God at Christ’s Second Appearing. Therefore, although we are children of the kingdom now, we must wait until the Second Coming until we receive our glorified bodies and inhabit a new earth where only righteousness dwells.

Currently, Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom that is invisible to those outside of faith. It is a spiritual kingdom that consists of spiritual warfare and spiritual weaponry. Though we currently are seated in the heavenly places with Christ Jesus, we yet remain upon the earth as ambassadors of Christ. Therefore, we belong to two different ages and two different kingdoms at the same time. We are citizens of heaven and we are residents of this world. Because of this, we have different responsibilities to each of these two kingdoms. Yes, we are to seek first the kingdom of God, but we should also not neglect our responsibilities as residents of the world. As believers, we should desire for our Christian values to have the greatest impact possible upon this present, evil age. We should take time to vote and pay our taxes. As musicians, welders, bakers, doctors and the like, we should practice our art and go about our jobs for the glory of God and for the good of our neighbors. In other words, although the ship is sinking, we still are called to do as much good as we can until the Lord comes back with a new and better ship.

It is with this theological backdrop – of Two Kingdom Theology – that I seek to answer these following questions.

1. What is the Christian's responsibility to secular governmental powers?

Two Kingdom theology is helpful in distinguishing the different responsibilities that the church and the individual believer have to the culture and secular governments. For the most part, the church (as a body) is the visible manifestation of the kingdom of God. Therefore, secular governments have no jurisdiction or right to interfere with the life, business, and affairs of the church. Secular governments and the church operate in two different spheres or jurisdictions. The church, likewise, should resist the temptation of becoming politically involved and giving the bulk of her attention and resources to social and political concerns. Saving the world and redeeming the culture is not the mission the church.

As individual Christians, on the other hand, we are responsible not only to be an evangelistic light to the world, but also for helping the poor and making a difference in society. This is because we are citizens of heaven and residents of this world. We operate within two different jurisdictions or spheres. And as residents of this world, we have an obligation to the cultural needs around us. Though the church should ovoid political activism, this does not mean that we do not have the right to promote a political party or cause. Moreover, we should take our rights and responsibilities to our culture and government seriously. We should vote, pay our taxes, submit to and honor our leaders, and even be willing, if necessary, to join the armed forces to protect the freedoms of our land.

2. Is there ever justification for civil disobedience?

Although we live in both kingdoms, we are not to give both kingdoms equal allegiance. Our eternal citizenship is in heaven, while our residency in this world is only temporary. When visiting a foreign country we are obligated to obey the laws of that land, but this does not mean that we are no longer American citizens and under her sovereignty. In the same way, we should submit to the laws of our earthly governments as long as those laws do not hinder us from submitting to the laws of God.

Moreover, though God has delegated His authority to different subordinate powers on earth, He has not given absolute power to any. Absolute power belongs to God alone. This means that when any subordinate authority ceases to submit to its authority, it ceases to have its own authority. That is, seeing that all authority is derived from God’s authority, no authority has the authority to go against God’s authority. Thus, it is only wise that our first allegiance be given to the King of kings and the Lord of lords. We should never fear man more than we fear God. Yes, we must obey all authorities that God has placed over us, but only with a clear conscious that is fully submitted to the rule of God. As Luther said, when pressured to disobey God, “it is neither right nor safe to go against conscious.”

3. What is the responsibility when rendering to Caesar (secular government) conflicts with rendering to God?

A lot of civil disobedience stems from selfishness: ‘We don’t like to pay taxes,’ ‘we don’t like to be suppressed,’ and ‘we don’t like our leaders.’ However, Nero was a tyrant, and Paul never promoted civil disobedience or disturbance for any such political or social injustice. There are times when we must disobey the laws of the land, but only when those laws are contrary to the glory of God. When God’s glory is at stake, then we must follow the example of Daniel who openly disobeyed his king to follow God. Daniel was not motivated by self-interest, but motivated by a love for God. He was willing to disobey the king not to gain more civil and personal freedom, but rather he was willing to lose what civil liberties that he had for the sake of following God. In the end, we too must follow God no matter what it may cost us – even if it will cost us our lives. But if we disobey and suffer, let it be for righteousness sake.

4. Is the Christian required to give honor to government leaders with proven dishonorable characters? Do we separate the official function from personal character?

Yes and yes is the answer to both of these questions. To confirm this all we must do is look at who was the leader of the Roman Empire when Paul penned the thirteenth chapter of the book of Romans. No matter how awful and despicable Nero was, Paul instructed believers to submit and honor their King. This teaches us that there is a difference between an office of authority and the person holding that office. For instance, a police officer has authority not because of his ontological makeup (for he may be weaker and smaller than us), but because of his position as a law enforcer. In the same way, even if we do not approve of the character of our leaders, we are still to honor and obey them for the sake of their position. To do otherwise is to dishonor God – the One who has placed our leaders in authority.

In summary, let us seek to be good citizens of heaven and good visiting residents of this world. Although we are just passing through as sojourners, we still have commitments and responsibilities to maintain. Therefore, let us render to Uncle Sam the things that belong to Uncle Sam and render to God the things that belong to God.

Published in The Sovereign Grace Messenger: A Publication of the Sovereign Grace Baptist Fellowship, Issue 37, Winter 2014, p 18-20.

For a couple of related articles see also:
The American Revolution: Was it Biblical?
A Memorial Day Reflection on Christian Patriotism