The Bible seems to present the idea that disciples of Jesus Christ can be unsaved. Whether these are cases of those who were never truly saved or who lost their salvation is a theological dispute for other posts (I favor the former), but that these cases exist cannot be easily denied. Jesus taught in His parable of the sower/soils (Luke chapter 8; cf. Mt. 13 & Mk. 4) that:

A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold.

After giving the reason for His speaking in parables, Jesus explains the parable to His disciples:

The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

From this we can see that it is possible that a person can both hear, receive, and believe God’s word yet fall away. (Notice that these are contrasted with those who hear but do not believe unto salvation in the first place.) Jesus teaches a similar thing to his disciples during the Upper Room Discourse in John 15:

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

This statement is all the more impactful when we realize that the Upper Room Discourse was delivered just after Judas, who was a disciple of Jesus (Jn. 6:71-72 cf. Mt. 10:4) had just left to betray Him (Jn. 13:18-30). Note that the disciples were perplexed – they had no idea Judas was the one. Nor was this the first disciple to leave Jesus - in John 6:53-66 many of Jesus’ disciples left Him after he gave them His difficult teaching concerning the consumption of His body.

Now, the key word in the above passage is “abide” (Gk. “meno”) which John uses to contrast true believers with antichrists in his 1^st and 2^nd letters:

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 Jn. 2:18-19 [Note: the word “continued” in 1 John is the same as “abide.”])

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn. 1:9)

So we see from Jesus’ own teachings and experiences that disciples can leave the fold. This means that we should expect there to be people who profess belief in the Church today who are not true believers. This seems to me to be the concern of the writer of Hebrews (whose warning passages continue to fuel debate over the issue), who may be issuing pastoral warnings to the believing Jews at large - knowing that his knowledge of their actual salvation state is not sufficient to address them all as permanently saved individuals.

This should give us all pause if we tend to breathe a final sigh of relief when someone finally “says the prayer.” Evangelicals from Reformed Calvinist to Calvary Chapel backgrounds hold that believers cannot lose their salvation, and I agree, but we must not take this to mean that anyone who has even the smallest spark of belief is to be forever considered safe from falling away (the popular view of Philippians 1:6 notwithstanding). We simply do not know which disciples are not true believers unless (until?) they fall away. Fortunately, we are not held responsible for such knowledge. We are to take people’s words and actions into account and treat them accordingly (e.g., Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-5 & 11-12; 2 Thess. 3:14).

100th Post!!!

The Calvinism-Arminianism debate is often framed in terms of man’s autonomy. By autonomy is roughly meant “what natural man can do without God’s extra help.” For example, Calvinists believe that man can make no positive contribution to salvation until after God regenerates him. After that, man has the ability to believe. The Arminian sees a problem here. If regeneration alone results in belief, and only through belief can man be saved, then God is simply choosing to save some and not others. This seems to remove mankind from responsibility before God. But to the Calvinist it seems that if man can generate his own belief that this makes faith a work. Aagghh! There are other issues, but I think that a distinction might be made to alleviate some of the tension concerning belief-as-work.

First, I think we can all admit that regardless of which side we think is correct, the debate would not exist if the Bible did not seem to lay responsibility for man’s salvation on both man and on God. Second, we all agree that without God’s grace man could not be saved, and that works do not save. But if belief is thought of as a work then we must ask how a sinner could ever perform such a thing in the first place (Heb. 11:6) and how it would not nullify grace (Eph. 2:8-10). On the other hand, if belief is the result of God’s efficient causality then the blame for unbelief would seem to fall on God (Mt. 23:37). Scripture on both sides can be batted back and forth for both of these seemingly irreconcilable positions.

But I think there may be a better way to think about it. The Bible clearly presents natural man as God’s active, not passive, enemy (Rom. 5:10; 11:28). We are born battling God due to our selfish and sinful desires and we would not naturally switch to God’s side (Rom. 5:6). But couldn’t we choose to surrender? It is not required for one to positively affirm his enemy to give up the fight. Ceasing to strive against God’s grace is not, itself, striving (viz. law of non-contradiction). In fact, one might say surrender is the cessation of works! But choosing to cease is still an active choice on man’s part (e.g., ceasing to stand results in falling, but falling is not ‘by works’). This interplay of “actively making a passive choice” seems to be illustrated in the life of Jesus who, according to God’s predetermined plan (Acts 2:22), freely chose to lay down His life (Jn. 10:18), which resulted in Him being acted upon by men (Acts 2:23), who were held responsible for their choice (Acts 2:38).

This seems to (1) retain man’s responsibility for sin and unbelief while at the same time (2) affirm God’s efficient and active role in salvation, yet (3) relieve God from blame for leaving some to damnation if He must, and could, regenerate them to make belief possible but simply chooses not to do so in some cases.

The other day I was preparing to give a lecture on Jesus’ use of parables. If you have heard anything about Jesus you have probably heard that “Jesus taught in parables.” Most of the time when this statement is uttered it is in support of some teaching methodology or genre study issue. My purpose in the lesson was to show that this sentiment is misplaced and to deal with an apologetic issue that is raised by the real reason that Jesus sometimes taught in parables.

But I could not remember the verses that dealt with the question. So I turned to Google and found a web page (which shall remain nameless but whose title is extremely close to that of this article). There enough copyright warnings on it to scare me away from quoting any of it directly, but in summary the writer suggests several reasons why he thinks Jesus taught in parables. These include:

• Parables were the teaching style of the day (which makes me wonder what made the disciples curious about Jesus’ use of them in the first place).
• Parables allow teachers to get away with more (he says Jesus only got in trouble when he claimed to be the Son of God, but what about the Sabbath controversies or forgiving sins?).
• Parables can be used effectively after the fact (he says the apostles later explained Jesus’ parables to the crowds as they evangelized. I know of no instance of this in the New Testament, and in the only example he gives (from Acts 2) they certainly did no such thing.)
• The other reasons mostly revolve around the usefulness of story telling versus making direct statements, which he then applies to modern teaching and preaching methods.

It’s all very nice and sermonly but there is one [additional] problem: It’s not true.

Now, fasten your seat belts as I deliver my stunning process for discovering his mistake. Prepare yourself for a hermeneutical excursion worthy of the finest scholars of any age. If you can master the unbelievably powerful method of Bible interpretation that I am about to impart, you will elevate yourself to dizzying heights of academic excellence. The key to answering the question “Why did Jesus teach in parables?” is . . . IS . . . found in the second half of the sentence! Imagine that! Jesus was asked why He taught in parables and He actually answered. Unfortunately, the writer only partially quoted this sentence at the beginning of his article (even ending the partial quote with a period as if the sentence actually ended there - see example above).

Now, the writer of the article might have gotten confused because the sentence is broken up into separate verses, but this hardly excuses his misquote, or his non-biblical response. Just for fun let’s go crazy and read the whole sentence: The text of the NIV of Mark 4:10-12 reads:

“When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, . . .”

Wait a minute. “So that . . .” Hmmmmm. Might that phrase indicate a purpose about to be revealed??? OK, I can’t stand the suspense any longer - here’s the rest:

“But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Sometimes it’s the little things.

When I teach Bible Study Methods one of the things I stress is that of the three standard steps in study (Observation, Interpretation, and Application) it is often during the (seemingly) simple observation of the text that mistakes are made. It is really somewhat shocking how many interpretation or application mistakes are caused by the failure to simply read the text. It does make for good sermon fodder though.

Now just so I won’t leave you hanging, let’s return to the apologetic issue I wanted to raise in class. Why would God bother to incarnate and spend over 30 years as a human being only to come to those He wished to teach and speak so as to obscure His teaching??? The answer is . . .

Ha! Caught you! Jesus already answered that question too (see above)! The unanswered question is why this was His response. And answering that question involves knowing things like:

• Who Jesus’ audience is here (which is clear from the context - start at verse 1).
• What other passages have to say about the event (i.e., Matthew 13:1-17).
• Why Jesus quotes Isaiah 6 here.
• When it happened. Specifically, knowing the timing of this event in relation to Jesus’ overall ministry. This can be confusing without a Gospel Harmony, but Matthew records this event in chapter 13 which comes right after chapter 12 . . . (hint hint!).

I won’t spoil the joy of discovery for you. But in the meantime I suggest the following:

1. Always look up Bible citations.
2. Don’t assume verses are being considered in context.
3. Look for answers in the text first!

Dr. Thomas Howe has written a response to Hank Hanegraaff’s book The Apocalypse Code titled Breaking the Apocalypse Code (from this title link you can order it in book form for $11.96 or download it for $3.44). I reviewed the initial manuscript and I was impressed. Dr. Howe does not throw a “bash partial-preterism party,” nor does he simply argue for Dispensationalism over against Hank’s position. Rather, he let’s Hank speak for himself and points out questionable material and errors. Thus, it is a good text for considering hermeneutic method as well as eschatology positions.

There are a significant number of Christians out there that seem to think that their beliefs offer some sort of protection from tribulation. After all, didn’t God promise to provide for believer’s needs and protection? If so, why do Christians suffer all over the world?  Despite some scriptures that might seem to imply that this is the case (see below), the idea that God will keep believers from suffering is clearly unbiblical. Christians are not promised a life free from suffering - quite the opposite in fact as Jesus and His followers plainly spell out in Scripture.

Jesus said, “In this life you will have tribulation” (Jn. 16:33). Jesus promised His own disciples that they would be “handed over to be tortured . . .  put to death, and . . . hated by all nations because of my name” (Mt. 24:9). Jesus told certain churches that they would suffer tribulation, but that they would ultimately be delivered to heaven (Rev. 2:10). So from the Gospels to Revelation Jesus predicted suffering for believers. 

Jesus’ disciples were not under the impression that believers would be kept from suffering. James says that Christians should “consider it all joy . . . when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance . . . that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing,” because, “the man who perseveres under trial . . . will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:2-12). The author of Hebrews says that suffering leads to “great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised” (Heb. 10:32-39). Peter says that if anyone suffers as a Christian, he should “not feel ashamed, but instead glorify God” (1 Pt. 4:14-16, see also 1:6-7). John, writing from imprisonment for his faith, called himself, “John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation” (Rev. 1:9). Clearly the disciples did not understand any of Jesus’ teachings to mean that God would protect believers from suffering. 

Paul, the greatest of the apostles, was not confused by his or any other believer’s suffering. In fact, he says that believers are destined to suffer (1 Thess. 3:3-4), and that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:11-13). Yet Paul also said that Christians are to “exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance” (Rom. 5:3). The believers at Thessalonica “received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thess. 1:6), and this led to Paul’s telling them that “we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure . . . that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer” (2 Thess 1:4-5). Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, was written just before he was cruelly martyred. Rather than complain or express disappointment with God, Paul devoted the entire letter to exhorting Timothy and other believers to endure persecution and suffering. Just after proclaiming that “God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power,” he says, ”by God’s power accept your share of suffering” (2 Tim. 1:7-8). Later, Paul exhorts Timothy to “take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:3). Paul even pointed to his own trials and tribulations as part of what built his character (Phil. 4:1-13). He goes so far as to claim that he “takes pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:7-10). This hardly sounds like a man who expected protection from suffering! 

Even this brief survey covers Jesus and all of the apostolic writers except Jude. Yet even Jude wrote to believers facing false teachers in a time of predicted trouble (Jude 1:18 quoting Peter in 2 Pt. 3:3). So whatever promises God may have for his children they certainly do not exclude suffering. The most important thing for a believer to consider with regard to suffering is that God will keep them through it - and thus tribulation will not separate true believers from His love (Rom. 8:35). 

What about Luke 21:18 (“Not a hair of your head will perish.”)? The context makes it clear that this does not refer to physical suffering because Jesus had just said that, “You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will have some of you put to death” (Lk. 21:16). The expression “not a hair of your head will perish” should be taken to refer to eternal life (as opposed to eternal perishing, or death). Note that this promise is in connection with the next verse: “By your endurance you will gain your lives.” “By your endurance” is a call to remain faithful – it is a parallel to Mt. 24:13 which states, “But the person who endures to the end will be saved.” Jesus was not teaching a works-based salvation, rather that genuine faith is one that endures tribulation. 

What about Matthew 6:25-34 (“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life.”)? Once again, in context this does not seem to be referring to protection from suffering or death. Jesus asks, rhetorically, just after this, “Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing?” Well, yes – but if asked with reference to remaining physically alive then it isn’t true for more than a few days! Rather, Jesus’ point is that worrying won’t help you one bit with your physical life. “Which of you by worrying, ” He asks, “can add even one hour to his life?” (Mt. 6:27). Even the analogy Jesus uses – that of the birds in the air – shows that physical protection is not in mind here (birds die all the time, and sometimes pretty nastily if a cat gets them!). Jesus’ admonition is to simply trust God for your physical life needs, for “your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Whether or not we get them is up to Him. 

What about Matthew 6:13 (“Deliver us from evil.”)? Although often quoted, and sometimes translated, this way, the Greek actually uses the definite article in the “evil” reference. Thus, it should read “the evil” which can be understood as “the evil one” – in other words, Satan.  This same construction is used just a bit earlier in 5:37. Clearly the command is not “do not resist evil”! The NET commentary states that “Every instance of this construction in Matthew is most likely personified, referring either to an evildoer (13:49) or, more often, ‘the evil one’ (as in 5:37; 6:13; 13:19, 38).” Therefore, what we are asking for in the Lord’s Prayer is protection from Satan, not evil in general (and, it should be noted, that even here this does not guarantee that God will answer in the affirmative).

Why? This is, of course, the most important question most anyone ever faces when undergoing suffering. It is important to see that God is not simply being mean. Rather, as we suffer from sin (ours and others), punishment for our sin, natural dangers, and specific trials, it is our response that matters. In fact, the Greek underlying both of the terms “trial” and “temptation” are the same. We are tempted when we react sinfully (James 1:14-15) to a trial (which should have led to building up our character - see above verses, cf. Heb. 12). When we react in godly ways to life’s circumstances (good or bad) we are really preparing for the prize - the full enjoyment of God in heaven in concert with godly character. Believers who fail to do so will spend eternity with “full cups,” but their cups will be smaller than those who by perseverance were made worthy of greater reward.

Hank’s Hanegraaff’s long awaited eschatology book The Apocalypse Code is finally here and to kick off the release he was interviewed by Dr. Frank Turek (a popular apologist made famous by his speaking / writing relationships with Norman Geisler). I listened to the broadcast and even got on the second hour (I am “Doug from Monroe, NC”). My comments on that interaction are below, but what it boiled down to for me was that after waiting for about a decade to have Hanegraaff’s views spelled out, I was disapointed to discover that he offers little to the current eschatology debate. Most of his interpretations fall well within the partial Preterist view as anyone even remotely familiar with the subject will quickly see. I am not necessarily in disagreement with many of these arguments, but I am rather frustrated by his campaign strategy for The Apocalypse Code and would now like to officially rant about it.

When I called in to the show I asked Hanegraaff if he, in his book, had responded to criticisms leveled by respected dispensational scholars against the views he holds in concert with standard partial Preterism (which up until that point in the show were all he had given). He did not answer my question. Instead, Hank simply stated that he was not a partial Preterist (not that I had said he was) and spent a few minutes commenting on his interpretation of some unrelated verse in Isaiah. I was then asked by Frank Turek to provide some good dispensational arguments. I did not want to get away from my initial question, which had not been answered, and so I attempted to explain that I knew Hank’s position was labeled neither Preterist nor Futurist, and that I simply wanted to know about how he answered scholarly criticisms of the arguments. Before I could make that clear Hanegraaff interrupted me saying, “Just answer the question, I already answered yours.” Well, no he didn’t. Further, I did not wait on hold for 45 minutes to be asked questions - this was still the Bible Answer Man show wasn’t it? Unfortunately, Hanegraaff  seems to simply sidestep criticisms of “his” interpretations by disavowing himself of the commonly accepted titles for them. The titles, however, are not the issue. If the arguments are the same then the responses to those arguments (which have been around for some time) should be dealt with.

What really bothers me is the fact that Hanegraaff  seemed to be presenting his views as if they represent some “paradigm shift” (his words) in biblical eschatology. Those in the know realize that the bulk of Hank’s “discoveries” are just warmed over partial Preterism, repackaged for popular consumption. The examples and arguments given on Hank’s show Tuesday and Wednesday are what one would hear in their the first day of a ”Preterism 101″ class. Not only are these views old news, but none of the hermeneutical principles he espouses are new or unique either. The title of his view is, laughably, Exegetical Eschatology (or “E2″ for you Bible Answer Man nerds) - as if he alone has discovered that the key to eschatological truth is “letting the Bible speak for itself” and “comparing Scripture with Scripture.” Does Hanegraaff seriously expect his listeners to believe that no one else makes these very same claims? Those seeing “E2″ as a startling new methodology or interpretive scheme only show their ignorance of the subject.

Another problem I have with Hanegraaff is that while he claims to “not be offering a different model of eschatology, but only a different method of biblical interpretation,” he openly attacks one view in particular (Dispensationalism). But Hank does not interact with seriously respected scholars from the dispensational position (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Tom Ice, etc.). Instead, Hanegraaff’s attacks are leveled against fringe speakers like John Hagee and fiction authors like Tim LaHaye. I did a quick perusal of Apocalypse Code’s  Notes section and counted 100 citations of Tim LaHaye, 14 of Hal Lindsey, and 12 of John Hagee. On the other hand, I found notable Dispensationalist scholars like John Walvoord, Norm Geisler, and Paul Benware cited no more than 2 times each (sometimes Tom Ice was cited with LaHaye. Ice was cited 4 times in non-LaHaye collaborations).  Charles Ryrie, who literally wrote the book on Dispensationalism, is not cited once! Hanegraaff can get away with this, though, because his audience falls neatly between the academics (who generally aren’t interested*) and the lay-Christian community (that generally does not know enough to challenge him). This allows Hank to get away with more than he would otherwise.

*Two apparent exceptions to the above concern deserve comment. First, Dr. Norman Geisler (during his time as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary), commented on Hank’s fictional book The Last Disciple on his website (www.normgeisler.com), but this was in response to those contacting him at SES concerning Hank’s view. Second, Dr. Frank Turek, Hank’s interviewer on the Bible Answer Man show in question, holds a professional Doctor of Ministry degree (D.Min) - not an academic one - in an unrelated subject area (apologetics). No emphasis in Eschatology is included in the curriculum for this degree, and was the subject of only one half of one semester during his Master’s program (also in apologetics, see www.ses.edu). Dr. Turek himself admits in his review on Amazon.com that, “Perhaps the reason I hadn’t realized this sooner is because I never took a real interest in eschatology.” Therefore neither his educational background nor his credentials should be seen as evidence that scholarly dispensational eschatologists are taking Hank’s view seriously. If they do in the future, and Hank takes the opportunity to engage them, that would correct a serious deficiency.

So, should you read Apocalypse Code? Sure, why not? But whether or not you are impressed with the arguments – and especially if you are – make sure to follow up with scholarly books that are keeping up with the current debate. Recent books by (Preterist) Kenneth Gentry and (Dispensationalist) Tom Ice would be a good place to start.

I remember back when I was first being introduced to pop Christian culture I heard a song by Michael W. Smith called I Miss The Way concerning someone who had fallen away from the faith. One of the lines is, “Somewhere in the saddest part of heaven’s room our Father sheds a tear for you – He’s missing you too.” It’s a beautiful song, and while it was certainly touching to think of God like that, it always seemed a bit . . . off. I still have a difficult time picturing the all-powerful creator of the universe having to go off into a quiet corner of heaven and have a good cry because one of His creatures doesn’t like Him anymore.

Through college I kept hearing about how “passionate” God was for me. I even knew a girl who had regular “dates” with Jesus. Sorry, but that just seemed rather creepy. Later I was told that our relation to God was a “sacred romance.” In seminary I thought things might get a bit clearer and was told that God had “unchanging emotions.” This made more sense – God cannot change nor be affected then however He feels cannot change or be affected either.

But then someone asked me what it meant for God to have feelings about things that did not affect Him. Hmmmm. Good question! Another good question: Without a body what would it mean for God to have “feel-ings” in the first place? Double hmmmm. So I turned to The Theologian, St. Tommy (Aquinas) himself, and found some interesting stuff that I thought might be of interest.  By considering different attributes of passions in light of what we know about God (I will be assuming the classical view here), we can discover if they may be found in God. (Note that the word “passion” as used in Aquinas is equivalent to how we use “emotion” or “feeling.”)

First we can look at the source of the passion. Passions are considered to be movements of the senses which require a body with which to sense. This also implies the possibility of undergoing some change (as when our hearts beat faster to produce certain feelings). But God does not have a body, nor does He change, so at the very least when we speak of emotion or feelings in God we are not using the terms as we often do when ascribing these things to humans. Rather, we are referring solely to the intellect - the will. In good marriage counseling it is often pointed out that love is a choice - it is the willing of the good of another. Now in humans this is often accompanied by feelings – but that is a separate matter. Likewise, joy, delight, and happiness are not properly said to be passions, although they can be accompanied by passions and are often referred to in that way. But love, joy, happiness, etc. in God are not  passions as they can be and most often are in us.

Second, we can look at what object a given passion is directed toward and in what way that passion is directed to its object. For example, sorrow’s object is some evil that affects us. God cannot be directed toward nor affected by evil, thus He cannot have sorrow. Joy, however, is the opposite of sorrow for its object is goodness. God can have joy, for He is the good to which He is directed and in which He has joy. Hope is in relation to a good that is not present. Because God is directed to His own good, which is always present, God cannot have hope (and, oddly, neither will we when we enter into his presence!). Fear, the opposite of hope, is relating to a non-present but threatening evil. Fear cannot be found in God then, for He cannot be threatened.

Using these philosophical criteria we may deduce the appropriateness of assigning passions to God in a literal manner. Some examples include:

• Envy, which is sorrow over the good of another, cannot be found in God – not only because it requires sorrow, but it takes the good of another as being evil – and this confusion is not present in God.

• Anger, which is the willing of the evil of another due to sorrow over injury, cannot be found in God for it too requires sorrow, the willing of evil, and the suffering of injury which God cannot experience (in fact, if God were to will evil of a thing then it would simply not exist).

• Love, which is the willing of good for another, is not improperly said of God, for He wills the good of Himself and others. Joy and delight are properly attributed to God, for both require that one finds rest in a present good – which is God in Himself.

• Hatred, which is the willing of the evil of another is not properly said of God, unless one takes hatred to mean the willing of less good (which it often does in Scripture, see Luke 14:26 and Rom. 9:11-13). It is not that God necessarily wills less good for one than another, rather that the proper good of one is less than the proper good of another.

So what about the Bible passages ascribing the above passions to God? Thomas’ answer is simple: other than love and joy these other passions are said of God metaphorically. These are usually attributed to God to describe actions that, when considered from a human perspective, would usually indicate the passion’s presence (such as anger from the action of punishment).

While it might at first seem merely arbitrary to label some statements in Scripture as metaphor and others as proper truths, we must remember that all metaphors require some prior knowledge of a thing’s essence (metaphysics) in order to properly communicate meaning. This knowledge comes from natural revelation (Rom. 1). Thus, one’s prior metaphysical beliefs (from natural revelation) will determine how one understands the Bible (special revelation). This includes all biblical descriptions of God, not just the “obvious” ones, for if they are all taken literally it seems that contradictions would result (e.g., Num. 23:19 cf. Ex. 32:14). So it is really a matter of whose metaphysical beliefs are most correct - and the system by which we derive the classical  attributes of God (infinity, simplicity, immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) also includes impassibility of some sort.

I have been reading some Calvinist books lately trying to get a handle on what they actually teach compared to the caricatures often heard from non-Calvinists of various stripes. One of the issues that provides a foundation for the Calvinist enterprise is the notion of free will which seems to lead to the rest of Calvinist doctrine. I have a potential counterexample that I would like some help with because I can’t believe it hasn’t been thought up before but no one seems to know the answer. Any Calvinists out there that can help me out with this one?For most of the Calvinists that I have read they basically believe that either the will is not free or that it is at least not free in the sense that people have equally possible choices given whatever conditions they happen to be in. Rather, Calvinists argue, people are free in the sense that they are allowed to do what they most desire at a given moment. So if my strongest desire is to take a drink of coffee rather to not do so, and I can, then I am free.If someone buys into this notion of free will then it is easy to see why Calvinists insist that God must regenerate a person prior to faith. If the Calvinist is correct that free will means doing what we desire, and the Bible is correct that no one naturally desires God (Rom. 3:11-18, etc.), then no one would ever naturally desire God. Therefore, says the Calvinist, God must perform a supernatural act in order for us to desire Him. Being “born again” in this sense means becoming a new kind of creature - a creature that desires God. The “ULIP” in “TULIP” pretty much follows.

I am still investigating this notion of free will, and so will not comment on it at this time, but there seems to me to be a way out of this dilemma even given the Calvinists’ definition of freedom. (I have only read three or four books so far, and maybe someone deals with this so please don’t flame me if I missed it, but so far no one I have talked to has an answer for me.) OK - here it is: the Argument from Cauliflower.

Granting the Calvinists’ notion of freedom - that a choice is free so long as it is in concert with one’s greatest desire - what happens when two conflicting choices are presented and neither are desirable? For example, I do not like Cauliflower - I find it rather disgusting in fact and can barely choke it down when it is served to me. However I do eat it because it is good for me and I would rather endure Cauliflower than get sick. There seems to be a distinction between something positively desired and something that is less negatively desired when compared to another greater negative desire. Sproul himself mentions something like this in his explanation of freedom - he doesn’t desire to pay his taxes, but he pays them because his greater desire is to not go to jail!

Well, why can’t this work for faith as well? The Calvinist always seems to point to biblical denials of fallen mankind’s natural positive desire for God as if these prove that natural man could never have a less negative desire for God than something else (say, Hell). Given the two choices of God or Hell why couldn’t an unregenerate person desire to serve God more than he desires suffering in Hell?

That’s it really. Any takers?

(The Lake of Ice from Dante’s Inferno by Gustav Dore)

Hell does not seem to be a very popular topic within the church these days. It just seems mean, doesn’t it? If God is love (1 Jn. 1:8; 4:16), and loves the world (Jn. 3:16), then how could He send people to Hell just because they don’t choose to love Him back? There is a basic misunderstanding in this question and it is largely the church’s fault that it exists. But if we explained the gospel in its fullness this kind of objection would not come up . . .The problem is with a presentation of the gospel which starts out with, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life . . .” then proceeds to, “the reason you don’t have this great life is because sin has separated you from God,” and finishes with, “God sent His son to die for you so you can be reconciled to Him if you believe.” Now wait, someone might ask, isn’t all that true? Yes, it is true – but woefully incomplete. This kind of gospel presentation is akin to telling a rapist that he ought not rape women because the women won’t be his friend afterward. While this is certainly true, it is also deceptively lacking in truth.Without a proper understanding of sin we will not correctly understand salvation. Therefore without a proper understanding of sin we cannot communicate the true gospel. The gospel must begin with all that we are being saved from. So, did Christ die a horrific and unbelievably painful death so that God can be our buddy? Is salvation being saved from a less-than-wonderful life? Is the gospel about finding our “best life now”? Is the gospel concerned with finding our “driving purpose”? No. It is about . . . are you ready for this? . . . avoiding punishment in Hell. But, of course, Hell does not make sense with the popular “gospel” message of relational life enhancement. Only a very cruel God would hurt people for not liking Him right?

So let’s look at the consequences of sin according to the word of God. First, it is true that sinners are spiritually dead – separated from God (Eph. 2:1; 2 Thess. 1:9). But that’s not all there is to the story. Too many people stop there, apparently believing that the mere threat of separation from God will drive people into His arms. Now it is true that some people at rock bottom will respond to a message like this. But it is also true that evangelical conversions over the last few decades have an 80-90% backsliding rate. Could this be because these folks responded to a “gospel” that promised them a big friend in the sky that turned out to not fit their desires?

The problem with the relational life enhancement “gospel” is that it treats non-Christians as if they were Christians. You see, non-Christians don’t want God (Rom. 3:11). If they wanted God, they would be believers. But they don’t. Now, how does the promise of remaining separated from God come off as a threat to someone who already doesn’t want God? As Aquinas said, “No one is afraid to lose what he does not desire to gain” (SCG, 3.145). Those who desire evil have already turned from God. Consequently, exclusion from God is not enough to call them to repentance.

Again, we need to present the whole gospel. What else does Scripture tell us about the consequences of sin? That sinners are God’s enemies (Hab. 1:13; James 4:4; Rom 5:10), that God’s wrath is upon sinners (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; Phil. 1:28; 3:19; Rev. 19:15), and that God wills sinners’ punishment (Dt. 28:63; Ps. 7:11; 10:7; 1 Sam. 2:25; Mt. 13:41-42; 25:31-41; 2 Pet. 2:3; 3:7; Rev. 20:11-15). True, God does not desire that people choose this route (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pt. 3:9, Ezk. 18:23) – but this does not mean that He does not also will the punishment of evildoers. So, Scripture not only threatens sinners with exclusion from the goodness of Heaven, but also with the affliction and punishment of Hell.

BUT . . . this punishment is not simply given because God wants some love and isn’t getting it. It is because those who choose evil over good are God’s enemies, deserving of His righteous wrath and punishment. Hell is that punishment – not for not desiring a big buddy or daddy in the sky, but for being wicked and desiring evil over good (and, in a sense, Hell gives the sinner the desire of their hearts even as Heaven gives those who desire God their’s).

Salvation, therefore, is not simply a chance to get to be with God forever. It is also the avoidance of the just penalty for being an evil enemy of the Great God of the Universe. Without this fact not only does Hell not make sense, the gospel itself makes no sense. And we can hardly blame someone for not believing what doesn’t make sense.

A. W. Tozer has a famous quote that says something like, “What you think of when you think of God is the most important thing about you.” The thing I think a lot of Christians forget is that Jesus is God. Oh sure, Jesus is God, but is He really GOD???I think that the focus of popular versions of Evangelical Christianity on the relational aspect of the faith has caused some misunderstandings of the nature of that relation. Yes, as believers God is now our Father (Jn. 1) – even our ‘abba father’ (Rom. 8:14-19; Gal. 4:1-7) the significance of which some have made much. But the verses addressing this seem to link us to the inheritance we will receive through our relation to Jesus. In other words, God is no longer simply our creator but He is also, positionally, our adopted father - and as such will bestow upon us the riches of His true Son, Jesus Christ.Further difficulty arises when we start to speak of conversion to the Christian faith as “becoming friends with Jesus.” This is allegedly the distinctively Christian relation that replaces all other religions. But what does it mean to be Jesus’ friend? Does it mean He is our buddy now? Does it mean He thinks of us as bro’s? Does it mean He winks at our sin and chalks it up to being friends with sinners?Scripture does not indicate that this is the case. In Scripture the friendship that belivers have with Christ is clearly defined. John 15:14-15 says, “You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, because the slave does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because I have revealed to you everything I heard from my Father.” It is important to note that these words were spoken by Jesus to the apostles the night of His arrest. In other words, these were the closest friends He had at the height of their friendship and yet that friendship appears to be “merely” an elevation from ‘ignorant obedient slavery’ to ‘knowledgeable obedient slavery’ (cf. Rom. 6). This is hardly the “buddy Christ” as pictured above.

Romans 5:6-11 and John 3:16 show what kind of love God has for us – it is the kind of love that a justly wrathful God has for His enemies. Laying down our arms and surrendering to this love is hardly an act of friendship in the popular sense. The same Jesus that came and died for the enemies of God (Rom. 5:10) will slaughter unrepentant enemies upon His return. In Revelation 19 we see both the marriage supper of the Lamb as well as His bloody judgment of those who refuse to bend the knee. Quite a honeymoon!

If what we think about God is the most important thing about us then that applies equally to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If we are to think accurately in terms of a relationship and friendship with our Lord Jesus Christ then we must do so on biblical terms. Jesus Christ is the King and Creator of the Universe (Col. 1:15-20). We are His undeserving subjects, saved by His death – not His “buddies” in the popular sense.