Dr. Curt Daniel (3)

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in them; and they put incense on it and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. And fire went out from before Jehovah and consumed them; and they died before Jehovah. And Moses said to Aaron, It is that which Jehovah has spoken, saying, I will be sanctified by those drawing near to Me; and I will be honored before all the people. And Aaron was silent” (Leviticus 10:1-3).

“And from this He is able to save to the end completely the ones drawing near to God through Him, forever living to intercede on their behalf” (Hebrews 7:25).

Since Curt Daniel believes that Jesus Christ, in some sense, died for those who are by God’s wrath consumed, he is NOT drawing near to God through Christ alone, but through his own efforts. This is a kind of “strange fire” that the Lord has not commanded. Those who offer up their own efforts as what make the difference between salvation and damnation will be consumed.

Dr. Curt Daniel (2)

It is because of stuff like the following (along with what I believe are disingenuous distinctions of sincere-offer/dualistic atonement/grace Calvinists), that I find Curt Daniel’s brand of Calvinism even more disgusting that Arminianism:

“8. The Double Payment Argument.

A. This is another argument that needs refinement. It can easily be misused by either side. It is summed up in the famous lines from A.M. Toplady’s hymn, ‘Rock of Ages’, viz, ‘Payment cannot God twice demand, First at my bleeding surety’s hand, and then again at mine.’ If Christ paid the debt for all men, then all men must necessarily be saved. If someone goes to Hell, then God demands payment twice — first at the Cross, and then in Hell.

B. But this has weaknesses. First, it is nowhere taught in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly. Why cannot God hold men extra guilty on account of the death of Christ? I would rephrase the argument as follows. Christ died in one sense for all men. Some are given the gift of faith to believe in Christ crucified, and this ratifies the payment of their debt. The rest do not receive faith, for the atonement is never applied to them. Does that mean their debt was totally paid? No, it means that the account was never finally settled. The potential payment for them was never ratified. But since there was a payment in some sense, this redounds to a greater condemnation. Calvin spoke of such persons as ‘doubly culpable.’ They are punished first for their sins, and secondly because Christ provided a payment that they never accepted” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 371).

This kind of Calvinistic garbage is why the apostle Paul spoke of deceitful workers, and why Christ spoke of those who lie like their father the Devil. In Daniel’s view, it is the sinner’s “rubber-stamping,” that ultimately determines how God will view the Sacrificial Offering. Evidently, the sweet-smelling odor of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice — His atoning blood and imputed righteousness — is NOT pleasing and satisfying enough in and of itself, to propitiate the eternal deluge of God’s holy wrath. But somehow, the sinner’s “rubber-stamping” IS pleasing and satisfying enough in and of itself, to propitiate the eternal deluge of God’s holy wrath.

And thus, it is the sinner’s self-righteous stench of “rubber-stamping,” that is the “odor of a sweet smell,” INSTEAD OF the offering and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Picture the exceedingly pernicious portrait that Curt Daniel paints:

The sweet-smelling odor of Christ’s sacrifice ascends into the nostrils of a thrice-Holy God (Isaiah 6:1-5) on behalf of the elect and non-elect. Some (the non-elect) for whom the sacrificial odor ascends, are swallowed up by God’s unmitigated fury. What this necessarily implies — no matter what these self-righteous-blood-despising-Christ-haters say to the contrary — is that God views Christ’s sacrifice as a malodorous stench, rather than a SATISFYING aroma.

The elect “are given the gift of faith to believe in Christ crucified.” The odor of this “debt-ratifying faith” ascends into the nostrils of God, and does what the odor of Christ’s sacrifice was unable to do: it, this “faith,” is able to SATISFY God in and of itself. The odor of Christ’s sacrifice ascends, and there is DISSATISFACTION since many end up in hell. But then the “rubber-stamping” odor of sinner ascends, and now there is SATISFACTION.

The staggering irony is that Curt Daniel’s faith is NOT in Christ crucified, since to Daniel, Christ crucified is NOT what SATISFIES the wrath of God. Daniel’s so-called “faith” is what made satisfaction; this is not faith in Christ crucified, but a SUBSTITUTION of the sinner’s “spiritually-enabled” gift of faith in Christ’s stead. This is the very epitome of anti-christ. This is what the apostle John is writing and warning about in his epistles.

Webster’s thesaurus cannot provide me with adequate enough adjectives to describe the repulsion I have for Curt Daniel and those who believe like him.

“Then become imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell” (Ephesians 5:1-2).

Curt Daniel’s diabolical dung puts forth the lie that the sinner is “effectually enabled” to control God’s hand in the matter of being satisfied or dissatisfied with the sacrifice of His own Son. Daniel’s view says:

If the sinner repudiates Christ’s sacrifice, then God agrees with him and also repudiates the sacrifice; and if the sinner approves of the sacrifice, then God also approves of the sacrifice. Referring to the non-elect, Daniel asks:

“Does that mean their debt was totally paid? No, it means that the account was never finally settled. The potential payment for them was never ratified.”

In spite of what Jesus Christ said on the cross, Daniel says, “It is NOT finished.” Satisfaction is dependent upon the sinner’s efforts, not Christ’s. Pointing to John 3:16, these types of Calvinists blasphemously assert that God gives the NON-SATISFYING gift of His Son to the elect and non-elect alike, while only giving the SATISFYING “gift of faith” to the elect.

Calvinists like Daniel do not know Isaiah’s thrice-holy God. They do not truly know that God is a consuming fire, as the book of Hebrews tells us. With boldness beyond that of a madman, they seek to enter the Holiest Place, NOT by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19), but by the “gift of [their] faith.” They are woefully ignorant of the ONLY way into the Holies (Hebrews 9:8-28, 10:19-20; cf. Romans 10:1-4).

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in them; and they put incense on it and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. And fire went out from before Jehovah and consumed them; and they died before Jehovah. And Moses said to Aaron, It is that which Jehovah has spoken, saying, I will be sanctified by those drawing near to Me; and I will be honored before all the people. And Aaron was silent” (Leviticus 10:1-3).

It is actually the censer of Curt Daniel’s “‘faith’ in Christ crucified,” that makes the difference between being saved and being consumed, rather than the censer of Christ crucified.

God has certainly commanded that all men put their faith in Christ crucified. But God has NOT commanded the type of “faith” that REJECTS Christ crucified as the only difference between being saved and being consumed, between entering in and not entering in, to the Holy of Holies.

Dr. Curt Daniel (1)

Calvinist Tony Byrne, wrote the following about us, “outsidethecampers”:

“In my phone conversations with Dr. Curt Daniel, he certainly thinks they are Hyper-Calvinists of the most extreme kind.”

We are not hyper-calvinists. And actually, true hyper-calvinists have quite a bit in common with those whom Byrne and Daniel would count as their spiritual brethren, the Arminians and the Puritans (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/hyperheresy.htm).

Tony Byrne’s mention of Dr. Curt Daniel reminded me to look through Daniel’s book, The History and Theology of Calvinism:

“[T]he dual aspects of the atonement match the dual aspects of the grace of God.”

How these alleged “dual aspects” of atonement and grace are expressed among Reformed writers varies. For instance, John Owen and John Gill [1] (as far as I know) do NOT posit so-called “dual aspects” of the atonement, despite holding to a form of common grace. Owen and Gill — again, as far as I am aware or can recall — deny that this alleged common grace “flows from” the cross (or anything like that). The question then for Owen and Gill is: “From whence cometh this ‘grace?’” And I think Owen would deny that this “grace” comes from the atonement, and just say it comes from a “simple, or mere act of will on God’s part” (or something like that).

And then there’s the issue of how this supposed “common grace” works itself out in the life of the non-elect. For example, how does a particular preacher or theologian’s view of common grace work itself out in God’s attitude towards the non-elect in the preaching of the gospel, and in the bestowing of things like the various necessities of life, etc.

[1] I am not saying that Owen’s and Gill’s particular views of common grace are necessarily identical in every respect.

Other “common-gracers” are more blatant (relatively speaking of course) in that they DO assert that this common grace “comes from” the cross. Those who say this express themselves in different ways. For example, while saying essentially the same thing, some say that the sin of the non-elect IS imputed to Christ, while others say the non-elect’s sin is NOT imputed to Christ. Of course, this seeming difference (distinction) regarding imputation/non-imputation completely vanishes in their preaching and expounding on how said preaching is “sincerely offered” to the non-elect. I think it was Vincent Cheung who said they are preaching as if God’s decree of election and reprobation were not true.

“In later studies we will discuss these further, but suffice it here to make the following statement: ‘God loves all men as creatures, but He has a special love for the elect.’ Reformed theology has always, with few exceptions, taught both Common Grace and Special Grace. God loves all men, especially the elect whom He has chosen. The difference is exactly that of the loves a man has for his neighbor and for his wife. A Christian man will love all other men, as he is commanded in the Law; but he will have a special love for his wife. The difference is not quantitative, as if he merely loved her more than the others; rather, it is qualitative — he loves her differently” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 363).

Daniel is being disingenuous. He states that the difference is “exactly that of the loves a man has for his neighbor and for his wife.” Uhh, no. Not “exactly,” at all. An honest and forthright analogy would have the Christian man demonstrating his love for his wife and his neighbor, by dying for BOTH of them. Daniel can call it a “qualitative” difference in the “love” if he wants, but the Christian man’s “wooing” and “well-meant offers” to those who are NOT his wife, blur that “qualitative distinction,” to put it mildly. Marc had written the following regarding this:

In Daniel’s scheme, God not only loves the reprobate, but he sincerely and ardently desires that the reprobate be saved and expresses that wish to them. Daniel says that this difference in love “is exactly that of the loves a man has for his neighbor and for his wife.” He said “exactly.” Thus, a man not only loves his neighbor, but he sincerely and ardently desires that his neighbors be married to him and expresses that wish to them.

Absolutely disgusting.

For Daniel, Christ’s alleged “loving differently,” is not seen at the cross, but in the application. Moderate (i.e., genuine) Calvinist Curt Daniel denies that Jesus Christ’s cross-work is necessarily applied to all for whom He died. This is because Daniel does NOT believe in the biblical doctrine of efficacious atonement — at this point he is just like his Arminian brothers in Satan.

The Arminian would say that Christ died equally for all, and that God desires the salvation of all men equally. Moderate (not “higher Calvinists” such as John Owen and James White) Calvinists like Curt Daniel say that Christ died for all (though not equally for all), and that God desires the salvation of all men (though not all, equally).

The Arminian “equal love” is shown at the cross and in God’s desire. The Calvinist “unequal-differentiating-common love” is shown at the cross, and the “special (or especial) love” is shown in the application of salvation. The Calvinist has God “desiring” that all who hear the preaching of the gospel be saved by believing in the One who died for them. The moderate Calvinist preacher/theologian’s alleged distinction between God’s love/desire toward the elect and reprobate, and the alleged distinction between Christ’s “common death” for the reprobate, and “especial death” for the elect, completely vanishes in practice.

There are some (e.g., Murray & Stonehouse), who while denying that Jesus Christ bore the non-elect’s sins, will still say that God “ardently desires” (by His preceptive or revealed will) their salvation. These irrational Calvinists say that God “ardently desires” (preceptive will) the salvation of those whom it was not His “good pleasure” (decretive will) to save. There is a legitimate distinction between God’s preceptive and decretive will, but the “sincere-offer” Calvinist’s view of “ardent desire” (supposed preceptive will) and “good pleasure” (decretive will) become indistinguishable in their preaching and evangelistic writing.

The difference between Arminianism and this particular kind of Calvinism, really is a matter of degree. In both views the work of Jesus Christ is NOT what makes the sole difference between salvation and damnation; rather, it is the sinner’s works and efforts that make the difference. Both are manifest liars when they say salvation is due to the work of Jesus Christ alone. However, the Arminians are more honest than these kinds of Calvinists in their view of equality in the grace of God and equality in the death of Christ. The genuine Calvinists are a lot more deceptive and deceitful in their dualistic distinctions of God’s grace/desire and Christ’s death.

Here’s Daniel commenting on Ephesians 5:25-27:

“The point is simply this: Christ died for a special intent for His betrothed that He did not have for the rest of mankind. He may have died to provide salvation for all in a general sense (that is, to remove all legal impediments to them in case the Father chose to apply it to them), but He died with a special intent for the elect” (Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 368).

Daniel’s statement, “to remove all legal impediments” is like W.G.T. Shedd, and I vaguely recall that it was William Twisse (or perhaps William Perkins) that said something like, “in case the Father chose to apply it to them.” Romans 10:1-4 presents Christ’s work and the laws demands as inextricably linked together: For Christ is the end (some say culmination or purpose) of the law for righteousness.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the demands (penal & preceptive) of God’s law and justice. He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and established an everlasting righteousness on behalf of those for whom He died. In asserting that Christ removed “all legal impediments” for those who perish, Daniel necessarily removes Christ as being the end of law for righteousness.

In Daniel’s view, Christ removed the legal impediments to the non-elect. “Legal impediments” obviously refers to God’s law, and so to remove legal impediments is to fulfill the laws demands. Since a person cannot be “spiritually-enabled” to meet the law’s demands — and since only Christ could meet those demands and fulfill that perfect standard of righteousness — one must move this stumbling block out of the way. Clearly, Daniel reveals his ignorance of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel:

Since Daniel believes that Christ established a righteousness for those who perish, then he must establish his own righteousness.

Throughout Scripture (e.g., Romans, Galatians) Christ’s work is connected with the purpose of God’s law. Though multitudes have doomed several Galatians passages to irrelevance, I believe Galatians 5:2-4 describes Curt Daniel (and all conditionalists) quite well. Daniel denies that it’s Christ’s law-fulfilling that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. For Daniel, it is the established righteousness of the sinner that makes the difference, rather than the established righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Daniel (and those like him) would vehemently deny that they attempt to be justified by law (Galatians 5:4). But it’s real easy to deny being justified by the law, when you remove the inexorably strict penal & preceptive demands of the law clean out of the way as the sole condition for salvation. The fact that Jesus Christ is the only One who could meet these inexorable demands, is the reason why salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

Curt Daniel insists that Jesus Christ established His righteousness by fulfilling the law (i.e., remove all legal impediments) on behalf of those who perish. Thus, Daniel has stumbled at that stone of stumbling and rock of offense (Romans 9:31-33). For he does NOT seek righteousness by faith in the law-fulfilling-cross-work-of-Jesus-Christ alone, but by a law of righteousness, which he deceitfully calls “the spiritually-enabled condition of non-meritorious faith,” that has been ADDED TO the work of Christ. Call it what you will; either Christ is the end of law for righteousness, or the sinner is.

Since Daniel asserts that the law was fulfilled by Christ on behalf of those who perish, he has become a debtor to keep the whole law (Galatians 5:3). He believes the efforts of the sinner make the ultimate difference between justification and condemnation.

Clearly, in Daniel’s scheme, sinner’s efforts become the ground of justification — Justification cannot be by Christ alone if Christ removed legal impediments from those who perish. Either one is justified by Christ alone, or one is justified by law (Galatians 5:4). Daniel is justified by law.

Of course, one way to evade the charge of justification by works (or the sinner’s efforts), is to redefine “works.” In this way, the supposed “condition of non-meritorious-spiritually-enabled faith” would not be a work (in their minds), despite the fact that this “conditional faith” has REPLACED Christ’s law-fulfilling work on the cross as the sole condition of salvation.

God’s sovereign grace (2)

Commenting on Romans 9:16-18, James White writes:

“God desired to display His power so that His name would be proclaimed in all the earth. Therefore, Paul asserts, God will have mercy on whom He desires to have mercy, and He will harden whom He desires to harden.

We stop right here and say, ‘wait a minute — I simply will not accept such a concept. My God is fair, and this God of whom you speak is most definitely not.’ But let’s think closely about our feelings. First, we look at Pharaoh and say, ‘Poor fellow. God really mistreated him.’ But such is hardly the case. We feel like siding with Pharaoh because we share something in common with him — we are sinners, just as he. We do our best to dismiss the fact that sinners have no claim on God’s mercy. We forget that if God allows a sinner to exist for one instant after each and every act of sin, He is being gracious and merciful to them.”

It is true that sinners have no claim on God’s mercy. But White misses Paul’s presentation, that not only does God withhold mercy from the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, He unconditionally and actively hardens them in order to display His power and wrath. Please note how White shoehorns (i.e., eisegetes; reads into) into the biblical text, the damnable notion that God’s maintenance of Pharaoh’s existence (for instance) “after each and every act of sin,” is an act of grace and mercy towards Pharaoh. On the contrary:

“But if God, desiring to demonstrate His wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction” (Romans 9:22).

WHY does God endure “in much long-suffering vessels of wrath” such as Esau and Pharaoh, to continue existing for even “one instant after each and every act of sin”? Is it to show “common grace” and “common mercy” to them. NO. Rather, the long-suffering of God is in order to display His wrath and to make His power known in them. In contrast to what White says, it is NOT a display of mercy and grace, but a display of power and wrath in order that the vessels of mercy may know what true mercy is (cf. Romans 9:22-24). If one has an heretical view of God’s dealings with the vessels of wrath, he will necessarily have an heretical view of God’s dealings with the vessels of mercy.

Jame White, and all orthodox Calvinists (note that I said, orthodox Calvinists, not orthodox Christians), reject active reprobation, and replace it with a passive reprobation where God “decrees” to allow pots to fit themselves — and thus, does not “mistreat” them or handle them “unjustly.” When orthodox Calvinists understand Paul’s teaching aright, they find themselves to be Paul’s God-hating critic.

“And, on an even more basic level, we hate the fact that God can do with us as He pleases, sinner or not. We are creatures — His creatures, and He can dispose of us as He pleases. If He wants Pharaoh to perform a certain function in bringing about a display of God’s power, we have absolutely, positively no grounds upon which to complain. God is God, and we are not” (James White, God’s Sovereign Grace, p. 63; emphasis White’s).

James White, and all orthodox Calvinists, HATE the fact that God can do with us as He pleases. If White would correctly and consistently exegete the passage, he would claim as his grounds of complaint, that since God made him like this (cf. Romans 9:20) and actively hardens and causes him to do the things he does, then God cannot find fault. James White, and all orthodox Calvinists, hate the fact that God is God, and they are not. For more information regarding this topic, and how it relates to the gospel, see the article, Unconditional Reprobation and Active Hardening: A Study on Romans 9:11-22:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/reprobation.htm

God’s sovereign grace (1)

In 1991, God’s Sovereign Grace, written by James White, was published. Chapter four is entitled, The Grace of God in Salvation. After citing 2 Timothy 1:8-12, James White writes:

“In encouraging Timothy, Paul speaks of the God who saved us, and who called us to a holy life. Why did God do this? Certainly not for anything we did! Instead, the basis of God’s saving work is ‘his own purpose and grace.’ No election based upon our actions to be found here! Paul speaks of God’s grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the very beginning of time itself! Before creation, God set His love and mercy upon us in Christ Jesus. Before we had done anything — before creation even came into existence — God chose us, and granted to us grace in His Son Jesus Christ. And we must not miss the importance of what Paul says in verse 11, for having just presented the sovereign grace of God in eternity past, he says, ‘And of this gospel I was appointed a herald….’ The truth of God’s grace is the gospel, the gospel for which Paul was willing to suffer! This is not some side-issue that can be dismissed as a ‘non-essential’! It involves the very definition of the gospel message itself” (James White, God’s Sovereign Grace, pp. 55-56; emphasis White’s).

Of course, for James White — and all tolerant Calvinists — the gospel of the sovereign grace of God IS a side-issue, a non-essential doctrine over which they can disagree with their Arminian brothers in Satan.

John Owen on indwelling sin

John Owen writes:

“2. As it is unsearchable, so it is deceitful, as in the place above mentioned: “It is deceitful above all things,” — incomparably so. There is great deceit in the dealings of men in the world; great deceit in their counsels and contrivances in reference to their affairs, private and public; great deceit in their words and actings: the world is full of deceit and fraud. But all this is nothing to the deceit that is in man’s heart towards himself; for that is the meaning of the expression in this place, and not towards others. Now, incomparable deceitfulness, added to unsearchableness, gives a great addition and increase of strength to the law of sin, upon the account of its seat and subject. I speak not yet of the deceitfulness of sin itself, but the deceitfulness of the heart where it is seated. Proverbs 26:25, “There are seven abominations in the heart;” that is, not only many, but an absolute complete number, as seven denotes. And they are such abominations as consist in deceitfulness; so the caution foregoing insinuates, “Trust him not:” for it is only deceit that should make us not to trust in that degree and measure which the object is capable of” (John Owen, Indwelling sin in believers, VI. pp. 172-173).

This view of Owen — and multitudes of other professing Reformed, or Calvinistic folk — is self-refuting. For how does Owen know that his deceitful and desperately wicked heart, is not deceiving him into thinking that the hearts of true believers are deceitful and desperately wicked? The irony, of course, is that Owen’s deceitful and desperately wicked heart has indeed deceived him. Here Owen speaks of the indwelling sin of believers as being enmity against God:

“And this also lies in it as it is enmity, that every part and parcel of it, if we may so speak, the least degree of it that can possibly remain in any one, whilst and where there is any thing of its nature, is enmity still. It may not be so effectual and powerful in operation as where it hath more life and vigor, but it is enmity still As every drop of poison is poison, and will infect, and every spark of fire is fire, and will burn; so is every thing of the law of sin, the last, the least of it, — it is enmity, it will poison, it will burn. That which is any thing in the abstract is still so whilst it hath any being at all. Our apostle, who may well be supposed to have made as great a progress in the subduing of it as any one on the earth, yet after all cries out for deliverance, as from an irreconcilable enemy, Romans 7:24. The meanest acting, the meanest and most imperceptible working of it, is the acting and working of enmity. Mortification abates of its force, but doth not change its nature. Grace changeth the nature of man, but nothing can change the nature of sin. Whatever effect be wrought upon it, there is no effect wrought in it, but that it is enmity still, sin still. This then, by it, is our state and condition: — “God is love,” 1 John 4:8. He is so in himself, eternally excellent, and desirable above all. He is so to us, he is so in the blood of his Son and in all the inexpressible fruits of it, by which we are what we are, and wherein all our future hopes and expectations are wrapped up. Against this God we carry about us an enmity all our days; an enmity that hath this from its nature, that it is incapable of cure or reconciliation. Destroyed it may be, it shall be, but cured it cannot be” (John Owen, Indwelling sin, VI. p. 177).

This sentence by Owen says a lot:

“Mortification abates of its force, but doth not change its nature.”

For Owen, mortification involves the supposed unregenerate part of a believer warring against the regenerate part. It seems, in Owen’s view, that the true believer and the unbeliever BOTH have minds of the flesh that are enmity against God, only that the supposed believer has “less enmity” than the unbeliever. Romans 8:5-9 refutes Owen’s damnable heresy:

“For the ones that are according to flesh mind the things of the flesh. And the ones according to Spirit mind the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace; because the mind of the flesh is enmity towards God; for it is not being subjected to the Law of God, for neither can it be. And those being in the flesh are not able to please God. But you are not in flesh, but in Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His” (Romans 8:5-9).

According to Owen, indwelling sin is the “unregenerate part” in a believer. Evidently, for Owen, the regenerate part will win out over against the unregenerate part, despite having a “deceitful and desperately wicked” enemy to contend with. Also, Owen’s view denies the work of Jesus Christ in destroying the work of the devil (among other things), as well as denies the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 John 3:8-9; Ezekiel 36:26).

When believers sin (cf. Romans 7), they do NOT sin from a deceitful and desperately wicked heart that hates, and is at enmity with God. When unbelievers sin, they (out of the mind of flesh) DO sin out of a hatred, and enmity against God. For further reading on this subject, see the following article:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/wickedheart.htm

The Cricket King (3)

Hello, Josh-

My comments interspersed. You wrote:

==Thank you for responding again. I wonder if you have misunderstood me. I never said that God CANNOT control all things, just that he DOES NOT have to. ==

I had written:

“The god who did not create the universe and everything in it is an idol; and the god who does not (or cannot) control what He creates is also an idol.” [bold emphasis mine--CD]

No misunderstanding — I understood your emphasis to be, not on the “cannot,” but on the, “does not.”

==As for God’s glory, yes glorify God as the Scriptures do. I’m not sure why in the world I would have to give glory to the cricket in my example if he were the least bit autonomous.==

How about the glory of ultimate self-determination (or self-rule)? How about the glory of being the ultimate metaphysical cause of its own actions? God alone has ultimate self-determination, which means that there is nothing above Him that determines what He will do. God alone is the ultimate metaphysical cause of of His own actions, which means that He does according to His will in the heavens, and not according to someone else’s will. You have made the cricket into God, *insofar as* BOTH God AND the cricket have ultimate self-determination, and are both the ultimate metaphysical cause of their own actions.

== Obviously, he never will mess up God’s plans for mankind. God won’t let him.==

You wrote previously:

“I never said that God CANNOT control all things, just that he DOES NOT have to.”

Do you say that God does not have to control all men without exception, or do you limit it to things like atoms and crickets? I was thinking that if your reasoning regarding the cricket was applied to some of the unregenerate reprobate who desired to kill an unregenerate elect person, then God would have to squash the reprobate person (or something) to keep His plans of regenerating that elect person from being messed up. In this scenario, at the end of the day, you still would end up with two beings (two Gods) who have the power to control their own thoughts and actions.

==It is not little god (cricket) vs BIG GOD (Jehovah). The cricket does not possess ANY attributes that would cause anyone sane to worship it. Is it holy, holy, holy? No. To me, it ends right there, but we could go on. ==

The cricket may not be “holy, holy, holy,” but the cricket shares some of the exact same Divine attributes, which are ultimate self-determination and self-causation. This is like a partial “I AM” attributed to the little cricket, minus the self-existence part. You are attributing some of the qualities of a Being who IS self-existent, to a being who is NOT self-existent.

==Did it create all things? No. Anything? No.==

Does the cricket control all things? No. But hey, neither does God. But at least God does control *some things,* which is more than we can say for the cricket. Well, at least God gets *some praise* for *some things,* which is better than *no praise,* for *no thing.* Wow. What a doxology that is.

“In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus toward you” (1Thessalonians 5:18).

Not in everything are we to give thanks, Paul — only in, *some things.*

== Is it a Savior? No. I just don’t see how I would logically have to have a little “cricket god” just because he was autonomous. ==

Besides your imaginary cricket friend, who else in the Bible has sole and exclusive autonomy. Oh yeah, that’s right. It’s God.

==By the way, obviously, in a very real sense, God would be controlling the autonomous cricket anyway. Think about it. God created the cricket kind with certain pre-programmed information. He created the natural laws. Thus, everything the cricket does in response to his environment has been predetermined by God in this sense, absolutely.==

In a “very real sense”? Really? Are the makers of Timex, “in a very real sense,” the direct controllers of these watches? Since you say that the Maker still has some involvement with what He creates, this is not full-blown deism, but what you articulate above sounds like a form of semi-deism, not Biblical Christianity.

== OF COURSE God created all things in the beginning. That does not mean he has to specifically create every animal born NOW. He could have simply commanded every kind to reproduce after its kind, and now allows his former command to rule all of creation. In this way, God would be sovereignly in control of ALL THINGS. ==

So, you are saying that God can be IN CONTROL of ALL THINGS, without actually controlling all things. This reminds me of a sermon Marc preached:

>>In light of this, let’s first look at the hardening of Pharaoh. As we saw last time, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, which included Pharaoh’s thoughts and desires. God made Pharaoh NOT WANT to let the Israelites go, and, as an extension of this, God made Pharaoh NOT LET the Israelites go. God MADE Pharaoh disobey. Did you know that this is controversial among professing conservative evangelical Christians? Now how can something so straightforwardly biblical be controversial among those who say they believe every word of the Bible? Well, this shouldn’t surprise us, since even the concept of an atonement that actually atones is controversial among this same group. But please don’t misunderstand me – these things are NOT controversial among true Christians. But they ARE controversial among the false religionists who come in the name of conservative evangelical Christianity. And they are even controversial among the false religionists who call themselves Calvinists, who claim to uphold the absolute sovereignty of God, who say that God is in control of everything. Like the Arminians, most Calvinists will say that God is IN control of everything, but not that He CONTROLS everything. And they concoct all kinds of theories to try to have a god who is IN control of everything while not CONTROLLING everything. Try figuring that one out – how God can be IN CONTROL without CONTROLLING. As we’ve seen so many times before, the lie is much more complicated than the truth. http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans73.htm <<

I’m not sure if I linked this (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/truefalse1.htm), but hopefully it will prove helpful to you.

==And I do believe in at least this. I hope you don’t get tired of my e-mails. I don’t wish to bore you or anger you.==

I am not bored, nor angered at all; nor have I grown weary of your e-mails.

==I must say, I had more assurance of salvation before you e-mailed me back. I would like to visit your church sometime. I’m not sure what state its in though. (I might have seen it and forgotten. I live in Alabama.) It would be weird though. Coming to hear good sermons and be among Christian people and be counted as an unsaved person (though not necessarily non-elect right?) ==

Correct — not necessarily non-elect. The gospel of Jesus Christ has primacy. Obviously. But the Scripture makes distinctions between the true and living God, and idols.

“And it will be, when the Lord has broken off all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will visit on the fruit of the proud heart of the king of Assyria, and on the glory of his lofty eyes. For he says, I have worked by the strength of my hand and by my wisdom; for I am wise. And I take away the borders of peoples, and have robbed their treasures. And like a mighty one, I put down ones living in it. And my hand has found the riches of the people. Like a nest, I also have gathered all the earth, as forsaken eggs are gathered. And there was not one moving a wing, or opening a mouth, or one chirping. Shall the axe glorify itself over him chopping with it? Or shall the saw magnify itself over him moving it? As if a rod could wave those who lift it. As if a staff could raise what is not wood!” (Isaiah 10:12-15)

Apply this passage to cricket-kind, or to *some* among mankind who are outside of God’s active control. One need not know about, or use terms like, “ultimate metaphysical cause” or whatever. The crucial, simple, elementary, fundamental, basic point is that if ANYTHING in the universe is free from God’s active control, then it is like unto an axe, saw, rod, and staff, who have been “pre-programmed” to respond to various stimuli.

==I do have a question. I know that the Psalmist talked about hatred for God’s enemies. I also know that God loves his elect even before regeneration. I wonder: do you hate me currently? I do not accuse you of being unloving or anything, I presume that you practice loving your enemies. I was just wondering. I won’t get all huffy if you say yes, don’t worry. These conversations are enlightening. I hope someday I believe all the same things that you do. I would very much like to have people like those at your church claim me as a brother in Christ.==

Presently, I do not consider you a brother in Christ, so yes, I hate you in Psalm 139:22 sense and love you in the Matthew 5:43 sense. This is NOT paradox since the aforementioned verses are speaking of two different senses: I am to LOVE those whom I count as an enemy. I LOVE them when I bless them, and do well to them, and pray for them. I HATE them when I count them as the enemies of God and, by extension, my enemy (see: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/godrelect.htm).

I hope that we can continue corresponding.

The Cricket King (2)

Hello, Josh-

You wrote:

==Thank you for your response. I wanted to respond fairly quickly so that you might get it tonight. Yes, the links are helpful. I do think, however, that you have engaged in faulty logic. Let me explain. Just because I do not see from the Scriptures that God automatically predestines all things does not necessarily mean that I reject that he can keep his promises. ==

It DOES necessarily mean that you reject that the God of Scripture can keep His promises:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? Even as it has been written, ‘For Your sake we are killed all the day; we are counted as sheep of slaughter.’ But in all these things we more than conquer through Him loving us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord” (Romans 8:35-39).

If God does not predestine all things, then it IS logically possible for some creature outside of God’s control, to separate the elect from the love of God in Christ Jesus. You say that this does NOT necessarily follow, since you’ve constructed a god of your own imagination, where it “just so happens” that this god is able to keep his promises, since the other god did not get in his way.

==Here’s an example. Let’s imagine a cricket in the forest. Now, does it REALLY matter if he takes 5 steps left, or 6 before turning around?==

It might matter. One step might make all the difference between living, and becoming fused to the forest floor. Perhaps you mean does it “really matter” whether or not God controls, and has predestined this cricket to take the 5 or 6 steps? It matters greatly. If this cricket is outside, and free from God’s predestinating control, then he is the sole cause of his own movements (or actions). And thus, you’ve made the idolatrous transfer of the glory of God, to creeping things (Romans 1:21-23). One may object to the accuracy of calling this a form of dualism, since the “more powerful god” could easily squash the other “much less powerful god” like, well, like a bug. But despite the striking disparity between the power of these two “gods,” you still are left with two “independent forces” at work in the universe.

== I know that small things can have big consequences, but isn’t it possible that God might just allow instead of command certain things?==

This is like asking whether or not it is possible for God to cease being who He is; or whether it is possible for God to relinquish some of His sovereign glory to a part of His creation.

== If God knows that the steps of the cricket on a certain day won’t have any adverse effect on his plans, he does not have to intervene, does he? Could he not simply use his wisdom to command all NECESSARY things to happen for every promise that he has made to come to pass? I say yes, and it does not make any sense to say no.==

By your phrase, “to command,” I assume you mean something like, “to decree.”

“Give to Jehovah, sons of mighty ones; give to Jehovah glory and strength. Give to Jehovah the glory of His name; worship Jehovah in the majesty of holiness.”

But what of that little cricket? Does he not deserve a minuscule amount of thanks, glory, and strength, for not taking it upon his autonomous self to adversely affect the plans of Jehovah?

“The voice of Jehovah is on the waters; the God of glory thunders; Jehovah is above many waters. The voice of Jehovah is in power; the voice of Jehovah in majesty. The voice of Jehovah breaks the cedars; yea, Jehovah breaks Lebanon’s cedars. He also makes them skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox. The voice of Jehovah is cutting through the flame of fire. The voice of Jehovah shakes the wilderness; Jehovah shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. The voice of Jehovah causes the does to calve; and He uncovers the forests. And in His temple it all is saying, Glory! Jehovah sits upon the flood; yea, Jehovah sits as King forever. Jehovah will give strength to His people; Jehovah will bless His people with peace” (Psalm 29:1-11).

The voice of Jehovah has the majesty and power to break cedars, to cut through a flame of fire, to cause does to calve, to shake the wilderness, and to lay bare an entire forest.

But according to your scheme of things, the God of glory has thunderous effects in the forest, but as for affecting the cricket in the forest, He cannot so much as chirp. Ridiculous, idolatrous blasphemy.

“[He] causes the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for the service of man, to bring food out of the earth” (Psalm 104:14).

But where, oh where, does it say anything explicit about causing, and controlling crickets? That’s what I’d like to know.

“He causes the vapors to rise from the end of the earth; He makes lightnings for the rain; He brings the wind out of His storehouses” (Psalm 135:7).

He can make a supposed, “predestinating decree” that the rain will drown the cricket. He can sovereignly bring out the wind from His storehouses to blow the cricket about, like He did with those many locusts in Exodus. But He CANNOT directly control what He has created. You do believe that all Christians believe that God created all things don’t you? Your absurd view has a part of creation free from the control of its Creator.

I realize that your seemingly innocuous (to you, anyway) cricket doctrine may be a cover for some (seemingly) more insidious past peace-speaking you’ve engaged in (e.g., speaking peace to your former ignorant-of-the-sovereignty-of-God self); but asserting that ANYTHING (no matter how small) is free from the control of God, is blasphemous in the extreme — it is a denial of the God of Scripture, and an affirmation of belief in an idol.

== I believe that God will keep all his promises to his people, he has never failed. He does not have to control the motion of every atom in order to do this, just all of the necessary things.==

To quote from Scripture:

“To whom will you compare and make Me equal; yea, compare Me, that we may be alike? Those who lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver on the measuring rod; they hire a refiner and he makes it a god. They fall down; yea, they worship. They carry it on the shoulder; they bear it and set it in its place, and it stands; it shall not move from its place. Yes, he cries to it, but it does not answer, it does not save him from his distress. Remember this and be a man; return [it] on [your] heart, transgressors. Remember former things from forever, for I [am] God, and no one else [is] God, even none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past those things which were not done, saying, My counsel shall rise; and, I will do all My desire; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My counsel from a far off land. Yes, I have spoken; yes, I will cause it to come; I have formed; yes, I will do it” (Isaiah 46:5-11).

“To whom will you compare and make Me equal; yea, compare Me, that we may be alike?” Rhetorical question? Well, at least one cricket, and one atom seemingly have ultimate self-determination, and are absolutely free from the control of anything outside themselves.

==Knowing that “all” can have different meanings in Scripture, I still cannot see the necessity of interpreting it as “everything, everywhere, ever”.==

The context of Ephesians 1:11 is clear. You are bringing your idolatrous presuppositions to the text. I think you are ignorant of how many things “ride” on God’s being in absolute control of everything, as it pertains especially to the unregenerate elect prior to God’s regenerating them — you cannot just arbitrarily limit God’s lack of control to a cricket and an atom. I think your denial of the sovereign God of Scripture would also deny God’s control over every man, everywhere, in every situation.

== Also, as far as the preservation of Scripture goes, I understand your point. I guess I won’t comment on that now. Hopefully, you have thought a bit more about your position on the “necessity” of belief in absolute predestination. If my boast is truly in the cross of Christ alone, which it is, then please do not try to add conditions on to what I must believe in order to be considered a Christian. Absolute predestination may be true, but again, the efficacious atonement is what is important, and I believe that GOD WILL keep his promises. Just because I do not necessarily believe that he will keep them the same way you do does not mean that I don’t believe that he will. ==

Idolatry includes attributing to God qualities of character that DO NOT belong to Him, NOT attributing to God qualities of character that DO belong to Him, and attributing to the creature qualities of character that belong to God alone. By denying that all who truly boast in the cross of Jesus Christ alone, believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, you have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man (Romans 1:23). You have attributed to the creature, qualities of character that belong to God alone. Jesus Christ is the sovereign God in the flesh. And thus you are denying certain essential attributes that Scripture attributes to Christ, and so you are following an idol of your vain imagination. The fact that you place a biblical name on this idol, and use biblical phraseology such as “boasting in the cross,” is immaterial.

Absolute predestination is NOT the gospel, and neither is the doctrine of creation. But all who truly believe the gospel, believe both of these doctrines. The god who did not create the universe and everything in it is an idol; and the god who does not (or cannot) control what he creates, is also an idol.

By the way, from reading some of your past correspondence with Marc, I see that you wrote the following:

“I can say now with confidence that all Tolerant Calvinists are lost.”

By parity of reasoning, the Tolerant Calvinists quote your very own words back to you:

“please do not try to add conditions on to what I must believe in order to be considered a Christian.”

For me to say that you have not yet turned to God from the idols, to serve the true and living God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9), is not to add conditions to the gospel (as if the gospel was not SOLELY conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone).

The Cricket King (1)

[The following correspondence began on April 26, 2011. The Lord willing, I will be slightly editing things like spelling or grammatical errors on my part.]

Hello, Josh-

Marc Carpenter is the editor of the Outside the Camp newsletter (thus, I put him on the “Cc” line). The Outside the Camp web site is the web version of a newsletter put out by Sovereign Redeemer Assembly. Since I am a member of Sovereign Redeemer Assembly, and have contributed a few articles to the site, I would be happy to answer your questions. You wrote:

Hello. My name is Josh R. I have learned a lot since reading the Outside the Camp website. I do believe in the efficacious atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, that he truly did purchase the church with his blood. I thank you for all of your work in the Lord Jesus. I have a few questions for you. I can see the scriptural support for many of the doctrines declared at Outside the Camp, like effective atonement, God’s hatred of the reprobate, etc. I also understand that God does predestine things to occur. However, while not rejecting the doctrine, mind you, I do wonder if perhaps I am missing something when it comes to absolute predestination. To say that God predestines the things that the Scripture says he does is understandable with me, and I say Amen to that. But I cannot find any verse that was given which unequivocally says that God predestines every single event that has ever happened or will ever happen. Even a verse like Ephesians 1:11 does not make it explicitly obvious.

Please let me know if I’m understanding you correctly. You do not oppose the doctrine of absolute predestination, but you do not believe that the Bible explicitly teaches it. Is that correct? If so, then you are saying that a verse like Ephesians 1:11, does not explicitly teach that “God predestines every single event that has ever happened, or will ever happen.” Let’s take a look at Ephesians 1:11 with context:

“Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies with Christ, even as He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us to adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace in which He favored us in the One having been loved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of deviations, according to the riches of His grace which He caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding, making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, for the administration of the fullness of the times to head up all things in Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things on earth, in Him, in whom we also have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of the One working all things according to the counsel of His own will” (Ephesians 1:3-11).

If Ephesians 1:11 is not explicitly obvious in its teaching that God predestines and works all things according to the counsel of His own will, then God could be thwarted in the good pleasure of His will to adopt His elect people to Himself through Jesus Christ. For one “single event” or person, might nullify God’s good pleasure to work out those things in time, which He has predestined from eternity.

From Romans 8:28-39, and a verse like Ephesians 1:11, it is clear, explicit, and obvious, that “God predestines every single event that has ever happened or will ever happen.” For how would it be possible for all things to be worked together for good on behalf of those loving God? The gospel is God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone (Matthew 1:21; 2 Corinthians 1:19-20).

“For Jesus Christ the Son of God, the One proclaimed among you by us, through me and Silvanus and Timothy, did not become Yes and No, but has been Yes in Him. For as many promises as are of God, in Him they are yes, and in Him are Amen, for glory to God through us” (2 Corinthians 1:19-20).

Those who believe the gospel, believe that God “predestines every single event that has ever happened or will ever happen,” and is thus able and faithful to keep all His promises. If you do not believe that God is absolutely sovereign, then you do not believe that His promises are sure and certain. If you do not believe that His promises are sure and certain, then you do not believe the gospel.

You write:

As with John 3:16 and other verses, meanings depend on contexts. I would be glad to receive some more things to ponder concerning absolute predestination.

Yes. Obviously, meanings depend on contexts. The context of John 3:16 is that God’s love for the world is demonstrated in the believing ones not perishing, but having everlasting life. Here are some links relevant to God’s love shown in the atonement of Jesus Christ:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/christcruc.htm

And some links pertaining to absolute predestination:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/egd1.htm

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/egd5.htm

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/reprobation.htm

And of course, the CCF:

3. God absolutely controls all actions and events; nothing at all happens by chance or merely by His permission. All actions and events happen because of His sovereign decree, including the sins of men and angels. Contrary to the aspersions of the enemies of God, this doctrine does not attribute sin to God; instead, it provides great comfort for believers. [Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; Deu 2:30; 32:39; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:6-8,25; 2Sa 17:14; 2Ch 10:15; 11:4; 25:20; 36:22; Job 12:14-25; 23:13-14; 26:7-12; Psa 105:25; 115:3; 135:5-7; Pro16:4,33; 21:1; Isa 40:23-26; 42:9; 43:13; 45:6-7; 46:9-11; Jer 18:6; 52:3; Eze 17:24; Hab 1:6,12; Joh 19:11; Act 2:23; 4:27-28; Eph 1:11; Rev 17:17]

4. Because God sovereignly orders all things, He is able to keep all His promises. Because God is the God of truth, He is faithful to keep all His promises. [Deu 7:8-10; Jos 21:44-45; 23:14; 2Sa 23:3-5; Psa 89:24-37; 132:11; Isa 45:23; 46:9-11; 54:9-10; Jer 33:20-21,25-26; Act 13:32-33; Rom 15:8-9; 2Co 1:19-20; 1Th 5:24; Tit 1:1-3; Heb 6:13-20; 2Pe 3:9-13]

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/ccfii.htm

I do wonder about the Christian Confession of Faith on Outside the Camp. I’m not sure how every single one of those doctrines can be said to be automatically believed by the elect. Certainly, I do not oppose any of them.

Please note the phrase in the preface to the CCF, “opposes any of the doctrines.” There are SOME doctrines in the Christian Confession of Faith, that every Christian will believe immediately upon regeneration (2 Corinthians 4:3-6). There are SOME OTHER doctrines in the Christian Confession of Faith, that a Christian may have never thought about, but would *never oppose.*

I downright agree completely with many of them. But I would like a response on that subject. Efficacious atonement, the deity of Christ, his resurrection- these I can see the necessity of from the Scriptures. I would like to receive some reason as to WHY it is that your group believes that it is necessary to believe in absolute predestination, or that the Bible has been preserved completely through every age, etc., in order to be counted as a Christian. I have never seen any verse of Scripture to my knowledge that either directly or indirectly addresses these things as necessary fruits of regeneration. Please use Scripture in your response, and something that is not murky, but give a reason that clearly shows your position, please.

You, “downright agree completely with many of them.” Many? But not all? Which ones do you disagree with? To disagree with a doctrine in the CCF, is to oppose a doctrine in the CCF. The necessity of belief in absolute predestination was already given briefly above (the links go into greater detail), but I’ll repeat what I had said again, here:

“If you do not believe that God is absolutely sovereign, then you do not believe that His promises are sure and certain. If you do not believe that His promises are sure and certain, you do not believe the gospel.”

As for the necessity of believing that the “Bible has been preserved completely through every age.” Really? Are you serious? If the Bible has NOT been “preserved completely through every age,” then it CANNOT be said with certainty, that essential gospel doctrines such as Efficacious atonement, the deity of Christ, his resurrection, have been preserved. The gospel of Jesus Christ stands or falls, with the preservation of the Scriptures.

Those who do not believe that God has preserved His Word unblemished through every age, cannot be sure that God has actually witnessed concerning His Son, thus making Him a liar (1 John 5:10).

If one is uncertain regarding the providential preservation of the Bible, then one is uncertain of whether the gospel has been preserved. Uncertainty regarding the gospel is unbelief, and those in unbelief are lost (cf. Mark 16:16; Romans 1:16-17).

The narrow gate (2)

I was thinking of a couple Scripture passages related to the narrow and “constrictedness” of the gate. Job 28:12 asks:

“But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?”

Where, indeed? Where has it been found in the whole of “church history”? Where has it been consistently found in, say, the Westminster Confession of Faith? How about the WCF section, “Of Marriage and Divorce”? Is wisdom and understanding found in there? How about at the Synod of Dort? Is wisdom and understanding found in those places in the Canons of Dort that deny the Godness of God (cf. Isaiah 10; Romans 9) and assert a hypothetical possibility for the reprobate to be saved( e.g., “sufficient/efficient”) by Christ’s atonement? And what is wisdom and understanding? Job 28:28 tells us:

“And to man He said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom! And to turn from evil is understanding.”

Certainly, none of the aforementioned Confessions and Synods feared the Sovereign Controller of the universe, or turned from the evil endorsing of adultery, or the evil of commanding or dictating to the Potter.

The other verse related to the narrow gate, the fewness of the elect, and the scarcity of wisdom and understanding is Proverbs 31:10-12:

“Who can find a woman of virtue? For her value is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, so that he has no lack of gain. She deals good with him, and not evil, all the days of her life.”

Who can find a woman of virtue? Why ask such a (rhetorical) question if these believing, these truly virtuous woman are scattered about through history? Our enemies and detractors like to wonder about who in church history has held to “our views.” I could reply by asking them when was the last time they cracked open that dusty book, called the bible? Then perhaps, they might see who held to “our views” regarding essential gospel doctrines. If our enemies were correct in there assessment of who is a true Christian in “church history” for example, then they really should answer Proverbs 31:10 with:

“A lot of men can, since they are found all over the professing Christian world!”

Really? Are you serious?