has-god-failed-september-october-2006

WHO IS ISRAEL? ❘ CALVINISM VS. ARMINIANISM ❘ J.I. PACKER ON “IS GOD UNFAIR?”

MODERN REFORMATION Has God Failed?

VOLUME

15, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006, $6.00

MODERN REFORMATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS september/october

2006

|

volume

15

n u m b er

5

Editor-in-Chief Michael S. Horton Managing Editor Eric Landry Assistant Editor Brenda Jung

Has God Failed?

Department Editors Diana Frazier, Reviews William Edgar, Preaching from the Choir Starr Meade, Family Matters Staff | Editors Ann Henderson Hart, Staff Writer Alyson S. Platt, Copy Editor Lori A. Cook, Layout and Design Ben Conarroe, Proofreader Contributing Scholars David Anderson Charles P. Arand S. M. Baugh Gerald Bray Jerry Bridges D. A. Carson R. Scott Clark Marva Dawn Mark Dever J. Ligon Duncan Richard Gaffin W. Robert Godfrey T. David Gordon Donald A. Hagner John D. Hannah Gillis Harp D. G. Hart Paul Helm C. E. Hill Hywel R. Jones Ken Jones Peter Jones Richard Lints Korey Maas Mickey L. Mattox Donald G. Matzat John Muether John Nunes John Piper J. A. O. Preus Paul Raabe Kim Riddlebarger Rod Rosenbladt Philip G. Ryken R. C. Sproul Rachel Stahle A. Craig Troxel David VanDrunen Gene E. Veith William Willimon Paul F. M. Zahl Modern Reformation © 2006 All rights reserved.

For more information, call or write us at: Modern Reformation 1725 Bear Valley Pkwy.

Escondido, CA 92027 (800) 890-7556 info@modernreformation.org www.modernreformation.org

6

Remnant: Who is Israel?

The author unpacks Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11, and shows how understanding the Sinai and Abrahamic covenants is important for understanding who is Israel, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

by Michael Horton Plus: The Church: Visible, Invisible or Both?

15 By the Numbers 16 Is God Unfair?

What do people mean when they say that God is unfair? Is election unfair?

The author explores the concept of fairness according to the Apostle Paul, in light of sin, grace, and future glory.

by J.I. Packer Plus: Am I Predestined?

23 Chart: Calvinism and Arminianism At-a-Glance 24 Called by the King: Election and Assurance in Romans 9–11 How does the gospel message offer assurance to the elect? The author defends the gospel as “power for salvation” and explains Romans 9-11 in light of the salvific nature of the gospel.

by Peter Anders

ISSN-1076-7169

S UBSCRIPTION I NFORMATION US US Student Canada Europe Other

1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR

$29 $22 $35 $52 $59

2 YR $52 2 YR $63 2 YR $94 2 YR $107

COVER PHOTO BY FOTOSEARCH

Romans Road page 2 | Letters page 3 | Preaching from the Choir page 4 Interview page 28 | Reviews page 34 | Family Matters page 40

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 3

ROMANS ROAD i n

t hi s

is su e

Our Road Through Romans

Cross His Heart

January/February: Romans 1:1-17, The Romans Revolution Introduction and overview of a year spent exploring the transforming message of the Book of Romans.

T

March/April: Romans 1-2, Does God Believe in Atheists?

What role does general revelation play in our witness to nonChristians? How can we use natural law to establish a place in the public square with people of other faiths? Included in this issue is a handy apologetics chart detailing the differences between different schools of thought and answers to basic apologetics questions.

May/June: Romans 2-4, What Does It Mean to be Good?

Look around you: sin is redefined as weakness and grace is merely selfhelp power. No one wants to believe that all of us are under God’s righteous judgment. But along with the consequences of our sin is the promise of good news: the turning away of God’s wrath and a righteousness not of our own making.

July/August: Romans 5-8, The Peace that Starts the War God’s divine pronouncement that we are righteous in Christ is not the end of the story. It is the prelude to a much larger narrative of victory and defeat in our ongoing battle against the world, the flesh, and the devil. How do we live the Christian life in the midst of a war zone?

September/October: Romans 9-11, Has God Failed? Can God be trusted? His work in history— specifically in the nation of Israel—becomes an object lesson for how we relate to God and grapple with the mysteries of his divine will.

November/December: Romans 12-16, In View of God’s Mercies Truth must make a difference in our real lives. How does knowing and believing the message of Romans actually play itself out in our daily interactions with our family, neighbors, and church?

4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

he state of Israel has had no better friend in the past few decades than American evangelicals. Even Joe and Mary Churchgoer can get in on the action by expressing their support through bumper-stickers: “Pray for the Peace of JerUSAlem.” That particular bumper-sticker illustrates the theological rationale behind the support for Israel.

Taking their cue from Genesis 12:3, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse,” some American Christians have determined that their good fortune is bound up in modern-day Israel’s. Their friendship and support for a secular nation more often than not overshadows their kinship with Israeli and Palestinian Christians who face severe persecution from both sides of the internal power struggle.

Does modern-day Israel, the nation-state that was founded after British occupation ended in 1948, have a special place in God’s plan? Are Bible teachers like Hal Lindsey correct in their proclamation that the resurgence of Israel as a political entity heralds the end of these last days? Must American Christians support the policies of such a state, regardless of their means or ends, in order to secure God’s blessing on their own enterprises?

This issue of Modern Reformation takes up these old and important questions; and within Paul’s reflection on the Jewish people in Romans 9-11 we also reexamine God’s electing work of salvation. The first article by editor-in-chief Michael Horton asks simply, “Who is Israel?” We’re delighted to welcome our friend J. I. Packer back to the pages of Modern Reformation. His article “Is God Unfair?” weighs Paul’s question in Romans 9:14 against our own understandings of justice and salvation. Professor Peter Anders, a D.Phil. candidate at Oxford University, unpacks the relationship between God’s electing purpose and his quickening power through the preached Word.

Paired with each of our feature articles are sidebars to help flesh out these ideas in practical terms: what is the distinction between the visible and invisible church? And, am I predestined? We’re also featuring a handy chart detailing the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Why doesn’t this issue give more space to the Calvinism and Arminianism debate other than short interviews with Robert Peterson and Jerry Walls? For starters, Paul’s problem wasn’t Arminianism; it was his passionate defense of the rightness of God’s cause in the face of seeming injustice. So, we want to direct our attention to the problem that Paul wrestled with. By doing so, we hope to chart a course around polarizing topics so that you can get a firm grasp on Paul’s overarching thesis in Romans 9-11: God is faithful to his promises.

Paul was confident that knowing God is faithful in the face of our own faithlessness and the instability of the world would be a comfort and encouragement to the Roman church, and we hope you find comfort in his message today, as well.

Eric Landry Managing Editor

LETTERS your

I found the reprinted interview with Edward Fudge in the May/June 2006 issue quite thought — and prayer — provoking. I had never heard of the conditional view of hell, so much of this article was new to me. It made me realize how little I truly understood of the traditional teaching on hell. Two books really clarified the traditional teaching: The Doctrine of Endless Punishment by William G. Shedd and Hell Under Fire, edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson.

The latter was especially helpful in countering the conditional view and specifically those of Edward Fudge. Before writing you, I went back and reviewed the interview and noticed in very small letters that this article was included under the section “for dialogue in and out of our circles”. Upon my initial reading, it appeared to me that MR was in some way supporting this view. Whether you do or not is not why I am writing. Rather I’d like to suggest that when offering a view “outside our circle” you also recommend books “in our circle” on the same topic.

I am grateful that the Lord used this to deepen my understanding of both his Word and what we have been saved from. May we continue to abound in love with knowledge and discernment through faith in Jesus Christ.

Kris Pope Pottsville, PA

Editor’s Response Please be assured that the editors of Modern Reformation do not support Mr. Fudge’s view. We apologize for not stating this more clearly in the editorial introduction.

An endorsement of Lost Women of the Bible appeared in a recent issue of your magazine. I ask you to reconsider your endorsement of this book.

Misuse of the Word of God and particularly the words “help meet” form the foundation of propositions in the book. The author asserts that these are one word that has been, over time, changed by scholars to refer to God “merely” as Israel’s helper in times of trouble.

Allegedly women share in the role of being strong warriors with men.

These are two words: ezer (to give aid) and neged (counterpart or mate).

It is Adam the man, not adama the humans, who is charged with tending the garden. Adam is commanded not to eat from the tree and is sought by God about his disobedience and resultant responsibility for the Fall. Inclusive language to mean humankind violates 1 Timothy 2:13-14 which removes all doubt as to Adam’s responsibility for the Fall. There is no joint responsibility for the Fall.

Rhetorical language and presuppositional statements lead to faulty logic and conclusions. The author presupposes as facts extra biblical descriptions. God has chosen not to reveal certain details about women, such as Mrs. Noah, in his Word.

We are to believe that women seminary graduates allow us to understand the true meaning of Scripture because they unveil Scripture from a woman’s point of view. Do we understand Scripture by the action of mankind or by the work of the Holy Spirit? Before women theologians, was God unable to speak to women through his Spirit?

The book’s premises serve to paint as oppressors the church fathers and even our own husbands and elders. Beginning with the title, James asserts that she has a new

thoughts

a n d

ou rs

revelation that will bless women of the church in understanding their historically cloaked roles.

Terry L. Norman Annapolis, Maryland

Editor’s Response No book is ever given an unqualified review in our pages. However, Short Notices are just that: short notices, not short reviews. These notices intend to highlight new and interesting books we think are worth reading without providing a thorough review. Readers are always encouraged to exercise due diligence when picking up any book, including those that appear in MR.

Modern Reformation Letters to the Editor 1725 Bear Valley Parkway Escondido CA 92027 760.741.1045 fax Letters@modernreformation.org Letters under 200 words are more likely to be printed than longer letters. Letters may be edited for content and length.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 5

PREACHING FROM THE CHOIR pe r sp e c t i v e s

o n

music

and

the

church

Is Rock Dying?

W

e spent the summer of 1968 in Berkeley, where I interned at an

gone!

To be sure, there is Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The major event of July was not my some musical creativity today. But not in the rock youthful preaching but the People’s Park Revolution, an attempt by students genre. The two major types that have bumped and others to wrench the local park from the control of the rock ‘n’ roll would have to be rap and progressive rock. town fathers and give it to the “people” (whoever they Rap music is the runaway best-selling popular music genre might be). The day after one massive demonstration, the today. It is celebrated in New York, Los Angeles, but also revolution was deemed a failure by the local student newsin Lyon and Hong Kong. Often associated with the unempaper. The reason? They had forgotten to use a rock band. ployed and the oppressed, there is a strong element of How can a revolution be enacted without rock ‘n’ roll? the revolt in much of it. Sadly, there is a good deal of degenjournalist asked rhetorically. I quite agreed. Now, would erate material, some of it violent as well. True, rap has an you ever hear such an argument today? I think not. interesting history, at least some of which is connected to Rock is 60 years old. Has it not lost its edge? It had African-American story-telling, and thus very creative, been the major soundtrack of a generation. But is it not and even prophetic. Today, Christians are involved in showing signs of senility? Here are some signs of the ministering to the hip hop culture, using the genre of rap demise: but for gospel purposes. But the mainstream is fairly pre(1) The protest element of rock music has always been dictable, and, well, not so creative. crucial for its nature. There’s plenty of nastiness in today’s The other form to replace classic rock is progressive music. Think of NME or Mixmag’s hatred of authority. rock, known as “prog-rock.” This umbrella term encomBut is it protest? Instead, it is more a reaction, either passes many variants. With its roots in Pink Floyd and the escapism or rage. Protest has a constructive element in it, more highbrow feeling of King Crimson, prog-rock is more which neither escapism nor rage possess. conceptual, less tied to the blues than traditional rock ‘n’ (2) Rock used to be a wake-up call. Yet it somehow roll. Groups such as Spiral Architect play around with doesn’t shock much anymore. When Britney Spears goes time signatures. The genre often crosses various types, nude nobody much cares. “As long as it’s your own resulting in styles such as Afro-Celtic or baroque-tango. thing,” she argued, what can it matter? Compare this to Some of it is beautiful, deep, and technically astonishing. the often banned 1967 Rolling Stones song, “Let’s Spend But much of it, again, tends to sound the same, in a new the Night Together.” On his show Ed Sullivan made the age kind of way. About the only direct link to traditional Stones change the words to, “let’s spend some time togethrock is the instrumentation, where the guitar and drums er,” because he worried about audience reaction. Or, what are still featured. Similar to the older music, it is dependabout the time John Lennon told the London Evening ent on peer-to-peer programs across the country. But Standard that the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus.” unlike rock, it does not appear to have a purpose other That statement required disclaimers, apologies, retractions. than aesthetic enjoyment.

Yet when Liam Gallager more recently declared Oasis was What is absent in these two genres, rap and prog-rock, is better than God, no one blinked. the constructive protest featured in early rock. In the years (3) Today’s music often lacks the original authenticity of after World War II American youth suffered from a lack of traditional rock. At least, not in the way the genre had purpose and the drudgery of industrialized work. articulated in the first two decades. Not that sales are low.

Remember the “Man in the Grey Flannel Suit?” Rock came Production of recordings labeled “rock” is still strong. Yet along and gave special power to young people. They felt some of the vitality is on the wane. The youth audience themselves to be significant, because this art form articulathas turned its attention to different things. Of course, ed meaning for them. Because rock was rooted in Africanthere is a good deal of recycling going on, and some youth American music, particularly rhythm and blues, and yet was are nostalgic about the music of their parents. So am I! also promoted thanks to teen leisure, it stood at the end of Getting older often means regarding the old days as better. a historical process, and yet also at the threshold of a new But let’s face it, the good old days of Bo Diddley, Chuck one. Chuck Berry could sing about “Sweet Little Sixteen” Berry, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, and the Grateful Dead are without patronizing youth. And it was fresh! Compared to

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

the saccharine sounds of Broadway and the Hollywood crooners, it was real, and accessible. Though naturally shaped by commercial and economic forces, the music had a way of transcending those configurations.

To be sure, not everything in rock was healthy. For many, it was at best a romantic search for reality. For others, at worst, it was a descent into the nightmares of sex and drugs. Still, there was something significant going on.

Rock was “knocking on heaven’s door.” Certainly, rock went through various lulls, but it managed to climb out of them. Think of the relative faltering of rock between 1958 and 1963. But then came the Mersey sound. Think of the disco phase of the early 1970s. But then came Punk and Bruce Springsteen. These cycles recurred down through the early 1990s. Eventually, though, things began to tail off. U2 is still around. The Rolling Stones are doing their thing, over sixty, going on twenty. But they are somewhat like relics, and the energy is gone that once formed a widespread movement to give young people, and not-so-young people, a social conscience, an identity.

So, what is the problem? The problem is that while the postwar years offered a mixed bag of positive and negative reasons for the success of rock, at the center was a needed notion of constructive protest. That is a Christian notion when we think about it. I am not making the case that early rock was all spiritual. Rather, I am lamenting the loss of the prophetic awareness which galvanized a generation, and which was expressed in the music we call rock ‘n’ roll.

Can we find it again? Yes, if only Christians do their job of being salt and light in a dying culture. Perhaps next time we can do better and find the balance between constructive protest and prophetic hopefulness. Who knows what great music might emerge?

Resources This fall most churches will open a new season of Sunday school. A rich, if mixed, tradition of children’s hymns has come out of the American Sunday school movement. One of the best known, deservedly so, is “Jesus Loves Me, This I Know.” The words are by Anna B. Warner. She and her sister Susan lived just opposite West Point, and they devoted over fifty years to teaching a Sunday afternoon Bible class to the cadets. These sessions were born out of concern for the young soldiers’ spiritual lives as the War Between the States loomed. They also wrote novels about faith. “Jesus Loves Me” first appeared in Say and Seal (1859), which includes an account of a dying child, whose comforter, a Mr. Linden, recites it as a poem. It was then set to music by William Batchelder Bradbury, one of the great pioneers of the Sunday school movement. Widely traveled, he helped promote Christian music in the public schools wherever he lived, including New York City. His version of “Jesus Loves Me” was included in the popular singing book, The Golden Shower (1862). It has been used in countless hymnals ever since.

Most of us know the first stanza and the refrain by heart.

The other three are just as powerful, in their simplicity,

though obviously focused on the sickly child.

Jesus loves me! This I know, For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to him belong, They are weak but he is strong Refrain Yes, Jesus loves me, Yes Jesus loves me, Yes Jesus loves me The Bible tells me so Jesus loves me! he who died, Heaven’s gate to open wide; He will wash away my sin, Let his little child come in.

Jesus loves me! loves me still, Though I’m very weak and ill; From his shining throne on high, Comes to watch me where I die.

Jesus loves me! he will stay, Close beside me, all the way; If I love him when I die He will take me home on high.

Seasonal Hymn Many books on rock ‘n’ roll and its history exist. Some are from a Christian point of view. In a previous review of resources (Modern Reformation, Vol. 13, No. 4 [July/August 2004 ], p. 11) we had mentioned Steve Turner’s Hungry for Heaven: Rock ‘n’ Roll and the Search for Redemption (rev. ed., InterVarsity Press, 1995). Many of the best studies are done by those not openly professing faith. Peter Wicke’s Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990—originally in German, 1987) does a marvelous job of situating rock in its early years in the context of postwar identity problem among youth. Glenn C. Altschuler’s All Shook Up: How Rock ‘N’ Roll Changed America (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) is concerned about the same circumstances, but stresses the specifically American landscape, focusing on race, worries about communism, and pop culture wars.

The story of rock is to some extent the story of the West during the Cold War. It’s worth reading about it, and listening to the music, in order to understand the times.

Some of the specific comparisons between past and previous rock performers were suggested by Steve Turner in “All Played Out?” in Third Way Magazine Vol. 22, No. 3 (April 1999), pp. 13–16.

William Edgar is professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, PA) and an accomplished musician.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

HAS GOD FAILED?

Remnant: Who Is Israel?

by Michael Horton

R

eacting against a perceived tendency to reduce Paul’s teaching to answering the question, How can I be saved?, the trend today is to say that the real question that concerns Paul (as it did all first-century Jews) was, Who are the people of God? In other words, it’s a question of ecclesiology (defining “Israel”), not soteriology (how one gets in). However, Paul’s arguments in Romans 9 to 11 especially demonstrate that he is interested in both questions and that, in fact, neither can be successfully answered in isolation from the other. Thus far in Romans, Paul has emphasized that since all people, Jew and Gentile alike, are “in Adam,” condemned by the law, under the sentence of death and divine wrath, the only way to be saved is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Who Is Israel?

The problem is that the covenant that the people made with God at Sinai was being allowed to determine the answer to these questions. How are we saved? By fulfilling the law. Who is Israel? Those who fulfill the law. Paul held this view before his conversion, as a Pharisee and persecutor of the church, but on the Damascus Road everything was turned upside down when he encountered a vision of the very “cursed” one according to the law (“cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) triumphantly seated at the Father’s right hand in glory. Now the questions receive different answers that are, in fact, perfectly

6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

R E M N A N T:

W H O

I S

I S R A E L ?

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 7

consistent with the expectations of the prophets. How are we saved? We are saved in the same way that all of the saints in redemptive history were saved: by trusting in God’s promised Messiah. Who are the people of God? The children of promise—those who share Abraham’s faith. The heirs of the Sinai covenant (and thus of the earthly land) are those who are ethnic descendants of Abraham, circumcised in the flesh; the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant (fulfilled in the new covenant) are all people, Jew and Gentile, who are “in Christ” through faith alone, circumcised in heart.

Throughout his epistles, therefore, Paul labors the contrast between these “two covenants,” represented by two mothers (Sarah the free woman versus Hagar the slave), two mountains (Zion and Sinai), and two Jerusalems (heavenly and earthly) (see especially Gal. 4). Pulling together his teaching across these epistles, we can offer a list of contrasts (see chart below).

Paul has been unveiling the free ABRAHAMIC grace of God in COVENANT the Abrahamic covenant to all ORIGIN: Eternal election of those who are “in individuals Christ”: predestined, called, PROMISE: Eternal salvation justified, glorified (8:30–31). He has BASIS: Christ’s obedience stressed the unconditional basis MEDIATOR: Christ (God’s Son) of this everlasting covenant. So now, TYPE: Royal grant especially for those who had confused the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants, the likely question is raised: So, Paul, is this election that you are talking about a new and different one from the election of Israel? Has God failed in his saving purposes for Israel, so that now he finds himself having to resort to “Plan B” (the church)?

To answer this question, the apostle does not invent a new theology of election. Rather, he shows that all along God has fulfilled his eternal electing purposes distinct from the election of Israel as a national theocracy designed to point all the nations to Christ. It was the Abrahamic covenant (made 430 years before the Sinai treaty) that promised blessing for the nations. It was Abraham’s sons, Ishmael and Isaac, who illustrate the prerogative of God’s sovereign grace in election. Although both were the fruit of his loins and outwardly members of the covenant of grace, circumcised in the flesh, God had already chosen Isaac and rejected Ishmael. “And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated’” (Rom. 9:10–13). God is not unjust in electing apart from any foreseen virtues. Since the elect are chosen out of a mass of perdition, God would only have foreseen sin and resistance in any case. The point could not be any clearer: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (v. 16).

If this is the way God has always worked, then election and grace cannot be assimilated to the Sinai covenant.

God’s eternal and unconditional election of individuals for salvation, hidden to us, cannot be confused with his conditional covenant with the nation of Israel. What remains unconditional in God’s promises to Israel is his utterly one-sided oath to bring the blessing of salvation to all nations through Abraham’s seed. The Sinai covenant, based on law, cannot annul the earlier Abrahamic covenant, based on promise (see Gal. 3:15–18).

So God is not unfaithful.

His SINAI Word has not COVENANT failed, even if we do not currently Temporal election of see the Jewish the nation people embracing Christ en masse.

Tenure in the land The prophets consistently taught The nation’s obedience that Israel would be saved through Moses (God’s servant) a remnant, and that this Jewish Suzerainty treaty remnant would also include a remnant from all the nations. Together, they would form “one flock with one shepherd,” in a “covenant of peace” (Ezek. 34:11–31). The people resulting from this unconditional election would constitute the true Israel.

Paul is simply announcing that this remnant theology of the prophets has been finally realized in the history of redemption.

Many first-century sects saw themselves as this remnant (especially the Essenes); others regarded themselves and their party as a remnant that will purify the whole nation in preparation for Messiah (the Pharisees). Yet across the spectrum, the pattern is the renewal of the Sinaitic covenant. By contrast, with Hebrews 1:1–2, as Delbert Hillers describes, “Early Christians, even those of Jewish descent, did not look on themselves either as an unbroken continuation of the old Israel or as a group attempting to return to an ancient pattern of faith, like the Essenes. Instead, they stood over against the days ‘of old’ as men living in the ‘last days.’”

Part of this “newness,” says Hebrews 1, is that the new covenant coalesces around a person—a Son, a “better covenant,” one “enacted on better promises.”

Commenting on Jeremiah’s prophecy, the writer says, “In

R E M N A N T:

speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first as obsolete.

And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (8:13; cf. 9:11–23).

The Sinai covenant can become obsolete because it was a conditional treaty, intended by God to serve an important but temporary purpose of pointing forward to Christ. Once Christ (the reality) has come, the law covenant of Sinai (the shadows) becomes obsolete. If we don’t understand this covenantal background, we will either conclude that God has in fact reneged on his promises to Israel or we will build a whole theology around a future restoration of an earthly holy land, with a Davidic king, temple, priest, and sacrifices other than Christ (as in at least old-style dispensationalism).

Thus, the contrast between the Sinai covenant of law and the Abrahamic New Covenant of promise is drawn not merely by the Protestant reformers, nor even merely

by Paul, but by the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, and his apostles. By justifying the wicked by faith apart from works of the law (how we are saved: soteriology), God will be able finally to realize the promise made to Abraham and heralded by the prophets (Isa. 9; 49; 60; 66; Jer. 4:2; Ezek.

39), that in him and his Seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed (who will be saved: ecclesiology).

W H O

I S

I S R A E L ?

children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. (vv. 6–8) “Not all Israelites truly belong to Israel,” according to Paul, is a thesis that goes all the way back to the patriarchal period itself: the promise was made to Abraham and Sarah (not Hagar), so from the beginning election was not determined simply by ancestry, since according to law Ishmael would have been heir. (In fact, the law explicitly upheld the right of the firstborn even if the offspring was of “the disliked” wife rather than the “loved” wife [Deut.

21:15–17].)

The point is that election and the promise are God’s to give, not the patriarchs’. Here, God is the father who bestows his inheritance to whomever he chooses. Hardly lost on readers to this day is the question Paul anticipates: What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” [Exod.

33:19]. So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth” [Exod.

9:16]. So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. (vv. 14–18)

Has God Failed? f all of this is granted, of course, the question is raised for us as it was for the apostles as to whether God has simply set aside one covenant for another, one people for another, and if so, whether any of God’s promises can be trusted. Far from a mere point of theological speculation, this is a heart-wrenching personal issue. The argument begins with Paul’s willingness to be “cut off” for the sake of his “kindred according to the flesh” (9:2). Far from dismissing the Jewish people as having been replaced by what will be increasingly a Gentile church, Paul reinforces the original connection: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen” (vv. 4–5).

Far from identifying the Hebrew scriptures exclusively with law, in opposition to gospel, Paul recognizes that both law and gospel, command and promise, are part of Israel’s heritage (notice the plural “covenants” in 9:4). Thus, Israel is the people of God and the place where God has always held intercourse with the world, supremely in the arrival of the Messiah.

Yet, adopting the remnant theology already present in the Old Testament, Paul reminds his readers,

The apostle anticipates our perennial question whenever God’s electing grace is discussed: “You will say to me then, ‘Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’,” offering anything but a rationally satisfying reply calculated to suspend our speculations: “But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?” (vv. 19–20), especially when we consider that according to strict justice, God could have determined to leave all people under sin.

Unconditional election proclaims God’s unfathomable mercy.

So, embedded within Israel’s national election (unconditional in its origin yet conditional in its maintenance) is the election of particular Israelites to inherit the promises made to Abraham and his Seed, who are by God’s gracious decision, “objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.” Again, Paul is not inventing a novel doctrine of election but drawing on the remnant theology of the prophets:

It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants, but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you” [Gen. 21:12]. This means that it is not the

As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved’” [Hos. 2:23]. “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they shall be called children of the

I

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 9

living God” [Hos. 1:10]. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively” [Isa. 28:22]. (Rom. 9:23–28) Paul then turns to the contemporary situation: Israel’s unbelief as a nation: “What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” (vv. 30–32). Regardless of whether it is dismissed as a caricature of the Jewish position, Paul’s point itself seems clear enough: God has chosen his people according to his mercy and not their decision or effort, incorporating into the people of God a remnant of both Jews and Gentiles; consequently, the righteousness (justification) and bestowal of the inheritance comes not through ancestry or through our own personal fulfillment of the law’s requirements, but through faith in Christ. It is also difficult to see how “works” here could be limited to circumcision and dietary laws, since Israel had in fact fulfilled these: that is why even the Jerusalem church struggled with admitting Gentiles without making them first conform to the Jewish identity markers.

Chapter 10 presses this argument further with its sharp

contrast between “the righteousness by faith” and the “righteousness by works.” The nation of Israel remains in exile for having violated the terms of the Sinai treaty: Saul the Pharisee and Paul the Apostle would have agreed with each other on this point. The difference is over what to do about it, and with great zeal yet ignorance of the righteousness that comes by promise through faith apart from works, the nation is seeking a renewal of the covenant of law instead of embracing the earlier covenant of promise and its fulfillment in Christ (vv. 1–4). Because this salvation (unlike the national renewal) is based on God’s descent rather than our ascent, and is delivered by the preaching of the gospel rather than attained by human striving, the universal scope of the Abrahamic promise is now being realized (vv. 12–13). God finds us; we do not find God (v. 20). “But of Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people’” (v. 21).

This, however, is not the last word and the chapter break is well-chosen. Romans 11 begins by bringing us back to the question that began the argument in chapter 9: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people?” The answer is decisive: “By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (11:1–2). Like the remnant in Elijah’s day, Paul and his fellow Jewish Christians are evidence that God is still faithful to Israel (vv. 2b–4). “So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it

THE CHURCH: VISIBLE, INVISIBLE, OR BOTH? BY

MICHAEL BROWN

When Protestants speak of the distinction between the visible and the invisible church, it is not without good reason.

We make this distinction because we recognize Scripture’s clear portrayal of the church as both the elect people of God, whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 21:27), and the visible community of faith established on earth (Matt. 28:18–20). Yet, as Scripture also shows us, these two are not always one and the same. There is the church as we see it and the church as God sees it. Thus, Protestants have included specific language in their confessions to uphold this important distinction as part of their ecclesiology. In the Reformed churches, for example, we confess in Article 29 of the Belgic Confession that there are “hypocrites, who are mixed in the church along with the good and yet are not part of the church, although they are outwardly in it.” Likewise, Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith points out that “the catholic or universal Church which is invisible consists of the whole number of the elect” and that “the visible Church… consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion and of their children.”

But we also speak of this distinction because it guards us against two unbiblical and spiritually dangerous extremes: a superstitious formalism and a radical individualism. Perhaps the nineteenth-century Scottish theologian John MacPherson put it best when he said, “Protestantism sought to find the proper mean between the magical and supernatural externalism of the Romish idea and the extravagant depreciation of all outward rites, characteristic of fanatical and sectarian spiritualism.” These are the two perilous errors that the visible–invisible distinction helps us avoid.

Avoiding “Magical and Supernatural Externalism” Many professing Christians have grown up in churches in which they have been taught—either by formal doctrine or a cultural tradition—that their salvation depends more on their baptism and church membership than on the righteousness of Christ received by faith alone. While this sort of teaching comes in a multiplicity of forms and is present 1 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

R E M N A N T:

is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (vv. 5–6).

In other words, the confusion of the promise covenant (Abraham), which concerns the election and salvation of individuals, and the law covenant (Sinai), which concerns the nation itself, is behind the assumption that God’s word (promise) has failed. While the nation was preserved in the land only as long as it kept its oath made at Sinai, individuals—whether Jew or Gentile, can only reach the true and heavenly land of rest by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Sinai cannot cancel, absorb, or qualify the earlier Abrahamic covenant.

Has God Rejected Ethnic Israel? aul rounds out his argument in Romans by applying the double action of God in election and the hardening he described earlier (9:11–18) to the present state of Israel, yielding a remnant despite a more general rejection (11:7–10). But then he asks: “[H]ave they stumbled so as to fall? By no means!” (v. 11). The rhetorical structure indicates a parallel with the first verse of this chapter: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people?

By no means!” Whatever conclusions can be drawn about Paul’s teaching on the current redemptive-historical status of Israel, a simple supercessionism or “replacement” theology is unsupported. The New Testament church does not replace Israel, says Paul.

Reformed interpretation of Scripture has traditionally insisted, especially in opposition to what it has regarded as

P

W H O

I S

I S R A E L ?

an Anabaptist (and dispensationalist) disjunction between old and new covenants, the continuity of a single covenant of grace, even to the point of referring to the new covenant church as an extension of the old covenant church. This accords with the language of kahal (“assembly,” “congregation”), which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates synagoge or ekklesia, which is then carried over into the New Testament designation for the people of God. Israel is the recipient of the laws and promises, the covenants of Sinai and Abraham, and whatever happens to extend the family is in fact an expansion rather than replacement of Israel. It is through the earthly, physical, ethnic Israel of God that the covenant of grace has unfolded throughout history and now reaches outward to the nations. Yet, Paul adds, it even circles back to include a massive ingathering of ethnic Jews at the end of the age.

God has not rejected Israel as a corporate body—even if the covenant of law (Sinai) can no longer be a basis for its future hope. Rather, in the mystery of God’s redemptivehistorical purposes, the “stumbling” of Israel is an occasion for the mission to the Gentiles at the present time. Yet it is a stumbling short of falling, “and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (vv. 11–12). Notice the future tense! In other words, the story is not finished when we hear about there being “at the present time a remnant chosen by grace” (v. 5).

During the period of the Gentile mission, God is making the Jews jealous in order to “save some of them” (v. 14),

in a wide variety of churches (everything from Rome to certain cults), it can also exist in certain Protestant groups that have played rather fast and loose with their confessions. There is even a trend in some Reformed circles to speak of every baptized person in the church—“head for head”—as being truly elect and united to Christ. It is also possible to hear some conservative Reformed people, steeped in the confession all their life, speak of the church and baptism in magical ways, rather than as the means of binding us to Christ and his benefits.

But it must be understood that membership in God’s visible covenant community does not guarantee membership in God’s elect people. This is Paul’s point in Romans 9, defending the fidelity of God’s promise to Abraham: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6). In other words, not all in the visible church belong to the invisible church. While the visible church is no longer identified with a national, geo-political Israel, it still contains a mixture of both Jacobs and Esaus, that is to say, true believers and hypocrites. Like Esau, it is still possible for one to be in the covenant externally but not actually united to Christ through faith.

This is why the writer to the Hebrews includes many warnings in his letter about the necessity of true faith; he doesn’t want his readers to rely solely upon their membership in the visible church. In 3:7–4:11, he reminds them of the Israelites who fell dead in the wilderness; although they belonged to the visible covenant community and heard the gospel, they did not respond to it in true faith. Consequently, they did not enter the Promised Land. The writer deliberately uses this as a warning to the New Testament heirs of the same covenant of grace: “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God” (3:12).

Being baptized into the visible church is very important, but every baptized member still has the responsibility of embracing with true faith the promise made to him in his baptism, apart from which he will not enter the eternal Sabbath rest.

Avoiding “Extravagant Depreciation of All Outward Rites” Yet, as treacherous as this first error is, the second is no less deadly and unquestionably more common in American Evangelicalism. How many times have you met a professing Christian who does not attend church regularly, let alone (continued on page 12) S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 11

but also with a further intention: “For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches are also holy” (vv.

15–16). The tree of Israel is not dead. Even now its boughs are heavy with fruit-bearing branches and even if some natural branches have been broken off for a time to make room for wild grafts, God will fill his tree again with natural branches as well.

It would appear that the “last days” really do bring about the end of exile expected by Second Temple Judaism: not only the resurrection of the dead, with Christ as the first fruits, but the resurrection of Israel as a people.

N. T. Wright’s insight that the eschatology of exile-andreturn is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ as the True Israel is therefore true, but only part of the story.

As the rest of Paul’s argument in verses 17 to 24 seems to indicate, there is one tree of life, and it is Israel’s menorah.

Natural branches may be broken off and replaced with “a wild olive shoot…grafted into their place,” but such shoots cannot boast, since “it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you” (vv. 17–18). The natural branches were not broken off simply in order to make room, “but because of their unbelief,” and “you stand only through faith. So we do not become proud, but stand in awe” (v. 20). Again, the point is that faith defines everything: If natural branches were broken off because of unbelief, wild shoots will certainly be as well (v. 21). Paul

seems even to regard the regrafting of natural branches as somehow more fitting and appropriate than the grafting of the wild branches, since it is, after all, Israel’s menorah that is the tree itself (vv. 23–24).

The hardening of Israel at the present is not only partial but is also temporary, “until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved” (v.

25). The disobedience of the Gentiles led to the opportunity for God to show Israel mercy, and now the tables are turned—for the moment (vv. 28–31). Then follows the crucial summary: “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (v. 32).

No wonder, then, that all that is left to say is in the form of doxology rather than speculation: O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” [Isa. 40:13] “Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?” [Job 35:7] For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever. Amen. (vv. 33–36) Especially given the history of Christian practice toward the Jews, our interpretation of such New Testament arguments is a crucial, as it is sensitive, matter.

While Luther’s earlier position sharply criticized the treatment of the Jews by the medieval church, his

(continued from page 11) possess membership in a particular congregation? The reasoning of such people usually goes something like this: I don’t need to worship God in a formal setting or belong to a particular congregation; I have a personal relationship with Jesus and worship God in my own way.

Such reasoning, however, is not based on Scripture, but on the pagan concept that “organized religion” should be set against “spirituality”: the former is disparaged as passé at best and hatefully intolerant at worst, while the latter is readily embraced as chic and healthy. Organized religion is viewed as something very particular that manifests itself in narrow doctrines, liturgical customs, and exclusive tradition. Spirituality, on the other hand, is seen as something universal that can express itself in a wide variety of personal faiths and individual practices that generally seek one common goal, namely, self-improvement. Influenced by this mode of thinking, many professing Christians believe they can have membership in the invisible church while opting out of membership in the visible church.

But such a concept is foreign to Scripture. The New Testament reveals to us a church established by Christ that is not purely invisible, but an observable society made up of real flesh-and-blood members and real organization and structure.

It is a kingdom described as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9a; cf. Exod. 19:6). The King of this kingdom, the Lord Jesus, rules his citizens by his Word and Spirit through the officers he has appointed at the local congregation. He has furnished his kingdom with ministers of the Word so that his people will grow from spiritual infancy to spiritual maturity (Eph. 4:7–16). He has ordained the offices of pastor and elder as guardians to watch over the souls of his flock and ensure that everything is done decently and in good order (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; 5:17; Titus 1:5–9; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1–4). He has provided the office of deacon in order that the poor and needy in the church would be cared for (Acts 6:1–7; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8–13; 5:3–15). He has commanded that discipline be exercised to maintain the purity and peace of his church (Matt 18:15–20; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14–15; Titus 1:10–14; 3:9–11). He has supplied his church with the tangible elements of ordinary bread, wine, and water, with which the Holy Spirit nourishes our faith (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:17–34; cf. John 6:41–58).

1 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

R E M N A N T:

disappointment with their failure to embrace the gospel recovered in the Reformation engendered a deep hostility.

The Jews were ranked alongside Moslems and the Church of Rome as enemies of the gospel. Calvin, on the other hand, was more favorable to Jews at least in part because of his more positive treatment of the Old Testament, Moses, and the law. “Yet, despite the great obstinacy with which they continue to wage war against the gospel,” writes Calvin, “we must not despise them, while we consider that, for the sake of the promise, God’s blessing still rests among them” (4.16.15). Further, as David Holwerda demonstrates, “Calvin continued to hold to a future conversion of Jewish Israel.”

God’s election of a people as a gift to his Son was made “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), “before the twins [Jacob and Esau] had done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not because of works, but by his call” (Rom. 9:11). The plan that is now unfolding in history was “predestined before all ages,” as are the individuals who are included in that communion (Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:4–11; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:2) and this plan cannot be thwarted by the vicissitudes of history. It is not merely the church that is chosen collectively, but the individuals who comprise that church (2 Thess. 2:13; Matt. 24:22; Rom. 8:33; Rom. 11:7; 1 Tim. 5:21; Titus 1:1), and their election is not conditioned on anything in them, even foreseen faith and repentance (John 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 9:16; Titus 3:5), since even these are gifts rather than conditions

W H O

I S

I S R A E L ?

of election (Eph. 2:5–10).

While Israel as a nation was elected as a trustee or guardian of God’s purposes for the world, the election and redemption of “men and women from every tribe, kindred, tongue, people and nation…to be a kingdom of priests to our God” (Rev. 5:9) transcends all ethnic identities. In God’s eternal election, the barrier between Jew and Gentile established in history does not exist, and when the Son appeared in whom these are chosen, that dividing wall was dismantled within history itself. Yet until the fullness of the Jews is added to the fullness of the Gentiles, the tree of Israel remains incomplete. A remnant of Jews and Gentiles will be gathered in Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, because they have been chosen by God from eternity to constitute a new humanity, “to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6).

Therefore, just as the covenants of Sinai and Zion must be carefully distinguished, the election of the “Jerusalem that is below” must be seen as distinct from the election of that “Jerusalem that is above.” Each has its own significant vocation in the economy of redemption. It is worthwhile once again to listen to Jewish theologians and exegetes in order to compare and contrast their understanding of the differences with Christian views of election. According to Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod, God’s election of Israel would be arrogant if it were the self-election of the people. “As it is,” however, “it is a sign of God’s absolute sovereignty which is not

All of this Christ has provided to his church in his infinite wisdom. Nevertheless, some professing Christians try to be wiser than Christ. The person who abandons the church or does not see his need to be under the spiritual care of ministers and elders in a local congregation, seems to think that he knows what is best for his spiritual well-being and sanctification, even if it is contrary to what God has revealed. Being turned off by life in the visible church, he opts for a life of “Lone Ranger Christianity”—acting as pastor, elder, and deacon to himself and abstaining from the means of grace in the preached gospel and the sacraments to the injury of his own soul (Heb. 10:24–25).

For this reason, we confess in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession: “We believe, since this holy assembly and congregation is the assembly of the redeemed and there is no salvation outside of it, that no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, no matter what his status or standing may be.” The fact that in this life the visible church is imperfect and mixed with hypocrites gives no Christian the right to depart from it. As the third-century church leader Cyprian put it, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the Church for your mother. If you could escape outside Noah’s ark, you could escape outside the Church.” Except in otherwise extraordinary cases, a person cannot belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church without also belonging to a visible manifestation of the same, which, according to the New Testament, is the local congregation that preaches the gospel, administers the sacraments, and exercises church discipline.

As we seek to avoid these two dangerous extremes, let us recognize the value in distinguishing between the visible and invisible church, even as we long for the day when the King returns and publicly reveals the one catholic body of his elect as the visible church.

Michael Brown is pastor of Christ United Reformed Church in Santee, California.

In this article, Rev. Brown has quoted from John MacPherson, Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898) and Cyprian’s “The Unity of the Catholic Church” as found in Early Latin Theology, ed. S. L. Greenslade (Louisville: Westminster Press, 1956).

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 13

interpretation that Gentile believers, no less than Jews, are justified by grace through news, since no one could be saved according to the faith without any distinction (Acts 15:8–11). righteousness of the law. The only way to be saved, Circumcision counts for nothing: everything turns on and therefore, to belong to the true Israel of God, faith in Christ, announced by the gospel (Rom. 2:17–29). is to be “in Christ.”

The attitude we must have toward ethnic Jews is bound by human conceptions of fairness.” After citing that of Paul the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles, who would examples (Luke 3:8, Rom. 9:6–8, the latter harking back to have willingly born Israel’s “anathema” in her place (Rom. Hosea 1:10), Wyschogrod notes, 10:1–3). At the same time, we must remember that this anathema is not over Jews as Jews, but over all of The attitude of the New Testament is quite clear. humanity apart from Christ. If we really follow through Jews labor under the illusion that they have some with the Pauline logic (maintained elsewhere in the New sort of advantage in being descended from Abraham.

Testament, as it was seminally in the prophets), there is no In so thinking, they are thoroughly mistaken. Being more guarantee that a particular visible church that bears descended from Abraham is no advantage the name Christian will not fail to have its candlestick whatsoever. God is able to declare anyone a child of removed should it live by any principle other than faith in Abraham (“God is able from these stones to raise up Christ. It is therefore not ultimately a question of whether children of Abraham”). And Paul confirms this by one is a Jew or a Christian in terms of outward pointing out that not all of Abraham’s children were organization, but of whether one is “inwardly of Israel. Isaac was of Israel but Esau was not. So circumcised”—that is, buried and raised with Christ. being a physical descendant of Abraham does not Nothing that exists apart from him—even that which calls make one a child of promise. By quoting the verses itself Christian, can live, and nothing that is in him can die. from Hosea, Paul says that God can take a people Jesus is not only the federal head and mediator of the who is not chosen and make it chosen. God is not covenant; he is in his very person “a covenant to the bound by genealogical considerations… This is people” (Isa. 42:6). presumably the church which is not a natural family characterized by descent from a common ancestor but an association of persons from many peoples Michael Horton is professor of systematic theology and apologetics united by a common faith. at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California) and host of the White Horse Inn weekly radio broadcast.

Although he rejects it, Wyschogrod understands the New Testament better, at least on this point, than many In this article, Dr. Horton has quoted from David E. Christian interpreters.

Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand As Israel’s exile testified, God had not reneged on his Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 3, 6, 255; and Michael promise; Israel had reneged on hers. This point is as clear Wyschogrod, Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewishin the prophets as it is in Paul. God would still fulfill the Christian Relations, ed. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, purposes of his eternal election, however, and the 2004), pp. 26, 48-49.

Abrahamic promise envisioned this as the blessing that would come to all peoples through the Seed of Abraham and Sarah. As with Eden, there is no way back to Sinai, but this is actually good news, since no one could be saved according to the righteousness of the law. The only way to be saved, and therefore, to belong to the true Israel of God, is to be “in Christ.” At Mount Sinai, Israel responded to the conditional terms as one person: “All this we will do!”, yet broke their covenant oath. At Mount Calvary, the True Israel, who had fulfilled the terms throughout his life, cried out, “It is finished!”

At the Synod of Jerusalem, this christocentric interpretation of election and redefinition of Israel in line with the prophetic texts was officially adopted and it was Peter who gave such eloquent testimony to this

There is no way back to Sinai, but this is actually good

1 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

BY THE NUMBERS

T

o what do evangelical Christians in the U.S. attribute their salvation: Works or grace? To whom do they attribute their salvation: God or man? Here are the results according to our own polls conducted at the 2006 National Pastors Convention and 1996 Christian Booksellers Association Convention, as well as Barna Research and SermonAudio.com.* Some of the questions and answers are featured in the current and recent broadcasts of the White Horse Inn. You can learn the doctrines that relate to these poll questions by listening to the White Horse Inn online at www.whitehorseinn.org.

“At the end of the day, do you end up in heaven because you chose God or because he chose you?”

44% 23% 33%

I chose God God chose me Both

“Are you saved by exercising your free will, or by God’s mercy and choice?”

44% 17% 39%

God’s mercy and choice Our free will Both

(WHI Poll, 2006 National Pastors Convention)

(WHI Poll, 2006 National Pastors Convention)

“God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within their power.”

“If a person is generally good, or does enough good things for others during their life, they will earn a place in heaven.”

(A popular medieval Catholic slogan) 54% Agreed 44% Disagreed 2% Unsure (WHI Poll, 1996 Christian Booksellers Association Convention)

“We are saved by grace, after all that we can do.”

(Joseph 42% 57% 1%

Smith, Book of Mormon) Agreed Disagreed Unsure

(WHI Poll, 1996 Christian Booksellers Association Convention)

54%

Agreed

(Barna, 2006)

“When people are born they are neither good nor evil—they make a choice between the two as they mature.”

74%

Agreed

(Barna, 2002)

Which doctrine do you hold to?

40% 47% 3% 2% 3%

Biblical Fundamentalism Calvinism Arminianism Roman Catholicism No answer

(SermonAudio.com, 2005–2006) *These poll results do not intend to represent the views of all NPC, CBA, Barna, and SermonAudio.com participants

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 15

HAS GOD FAILED?

Is God Unfair?

“No,

life isn’t fair,” said the journalist, whose livelihood was touring the world to cover disasters. “Earth-quakes, tsunamis, famines, floods, pandemics, volcanic eruptions—they just happen, and that’s all you can say about them. You can work out afterwards whattriggeredatleastsomeofthem,butyoucan’tpredictthemwith any accuracy, and you certainly can’t foresee how much damage they will do. They kill thousands at a time, and ruin the lives of thousands more, millions sometimes. They turn this lovely world into a tragic mess, and when you’ve seen them close to, as I have, you’ll know better than to shrug them off and say they don’t matter.

Life’s not fair, and if there’s a God who runs the show, he isn’t fair either, for it’s always the nice folk who suffer most.”

“Genetics certainly isn’t fair,” said the doctor, who specialty was Huntington’s chorea. “Physical and mental handicaps are randomly passed on by genetic transmission; some babies are marked for misery from birth, and all you can offer is palliative care—there’s no cure possible. If you had to talk to parents and relatives the way I sometimes have to do, you’d appreciate how awful this is. I believe in God, I think most people do, but sometimes I find myself thinking how unfair—how downright cruel—he seems to be. I’m sure many of those who are in these situations feel the same.”

“Well, I’ve certainly found myself feeling that God is unfair many times these last few months,” said the investment adviser. “I was bamboozled and bankrupted by a man in the church whom I’d known for years. We set up together as a Christian firm; we prayed together about it, and I prayed a lot about it on my own. He fiddled the books, absconded with the money, and left me with nothing. I felt God was laughing at me, and it wasn’t a good feeling.”

“A lot of Christians paint themselves into a corner where they can’t help tagging God as unfair,” said the publisher. “They say that God loves everyone, and everything is under his control. So the way he wrecks some lives though not others is certainly unfair. If they say God loves some people but not all people, that is unfair in itself. And yet, you know, the Bible tells us that God plays favorites in just that way. You know the little rhyme that says, ‘How odd / of God / to choose / the Jews?’ Well, according to the Bible he did that, and told the Jews to kill a lot of other tribes to make room for themselves when they invaded Palestine, and sometimes he did the killing himself when the Jews were under threat. If that isn’t playing favorites, I don’t know what is. Nowadays we’ve got Bible-bashers who insist that God loves nobody but the 1 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

elect, whoever they are. Is the God of all that callous elitism unfair? As the Brits say, Not half! The God I think I believe isn’t like that at all.”

By this time they were all looking at Bill.

“Bill,” said the journalist, “you’ve heard what we’ve just said. If you think we’re getting at you, I won’t say you’re wrong. You’ve often told us that you’re an old-fashioned orthodox Christian who believes the Bible from cover to cover. Be honest now: don’t you agree that your God has a lot to answer for? Can’t you see that if he exists at all,

I S

BY

G O D

U N F A I R ?

J . I . PA C K E R

he’s terribly, terribly unfair?”

What is there that Bill can say? That is the question we will explore.

Who Defines “Fair”?

Look first at what the word unfair means in this discussion. The idea of fairness, which forms itself unbidden in every child’s mind and has more recently become big in Western political discourse, is a facet of the larger idea of justice. Fairness is held to require, first, that

other things being equal, resources, benefits, privileges, and immunities should be distributed evenly (sausages at a cookout, for instance) and, second, that penalties and rewards should be proportioned to what people actually deserve. The second requirement may modify the first, for personal deservings are among the things that are not equal and need to be factored into the distribution if fairness is to be maintained. It is assumed that we owe each other recognition of our intrinsic worth as human beings and concern for each other’s welfare; no administrative procedures will be thought fair if they lack this foundation, so that the equity in them is not principled but merely accidental. Fairness is founded on a valuation of people as such.

What do people mean when they say God is unfair?

They mean, first, that he does not seem to take account of the worth of particular human beings and, second, that he does not appear to distribute or withhold benefits according to what people deserve. Behind this two-fold complaint lies the assumption that under ordinary circumstances God owes us the life that we think of as good—comfortable, pleasant, pain-free—and that no one should receive from him less than this (save those whom we recognize as socially obnoxious). That assumption, in turn, rests on the idea that as our Creator may tell us our duty to him, so we his creatures may determine his duty to us, and that as God may judge us in an executive way if we fail to obey his laws, so we may judge him intellectually by forming an opinion as to whether he has given us what he owes us or not. Luther chided Erasmus for thoughts of God that were “too human”; assessing God by creaturely standards of fairness surely merits the same criticism.

Our positive argument against the claim that God is unfair is to be drawn from Scripture – the inspired, infallible, true, trustworthy, and authoritative Word of God, and in particular from Paul’s letter to the Romans. Romans is Paul’s fullest and most elaborate statement of the good news God sent him to share; it contains, in brief at least, all the considerations that we shall deploy; it is a single cumulative line of thought, each step of which has greater force because of the power of the whole of which it is part; and it is intensely God-centered from start to finish, parading God’s sovereignty in his grace and his grace in his sovereignty and breaking into the argument three times for doxological exclamation in very strong terms (see 1:25, 9:5, 11:33-36), over and above the further doxology that rounds everything off (16:25-27). The doxological tone of Romans as a whole is important for our present argument, since the effect, and so the test, of all good theology is that it prompts praise. Paul’s exposition, as we shall see, covers S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 17

all the facts triggering the complaints of God’s supposed unfairness, yet Paul sees reason to keep on praising, and the acid test of the adequacy of what this article will say will be whether it has a similar effect on its readers. May God guide us as we proceed.

Fairness in the Light of Sin The argument of Romans begins with an extended demonstration (1:18-3:20) that the whole human race, non-Jew and Jew alike, lies “under the power of sin” (3:9, ESV), and so is guilty in the eyes of our holy and just Creator and can only expect condemnation, rejection and the pain of retribution on the day when, “according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (2:16). Sin, as we learn more fully in chapters 6 and 7, is to be thought of as a quasi-personal fund of energy operating like a second self within everyone, a demonic slave-driving force that motivates and masters us all in our natural condition and exposes us to the payment of its wages of death as an abiding state (see 6:6, 12-14, 16-23).

And even though sin is no longer in full control of those who have been raised into a new life in Christ, it is still active in our system to distress us by causing us constantly to fall short of the perfect obedience to God’s law at which we aim (7:14-25). The fruits of sin in human society are all the impieties and immoralities, all the declinings from God

and defiances of him, that are reviewed in 1:18-32, plus all the impenitence, irreverence, moral unreality, and selfrighteous hypocrisy that Paul takes apart in 2:1-3:8. His peroration as he rounds off this first section of his argument stresses the universality of sin and its guilt (3:920). There are no exceptions; sin rules the race and has done from the start and always will. Western Christian theology expresses this when it speaks of original sin generating actual sin, the perverted egocentrism and antiGod motivation of the natural human heart leading to transgressions of God’s known will in thought, in word, and in deed.

What follows? Simply this: that God owes us nothing save the retribution of which he forewarns us. Paul is most forthright about this, repeating the thought for emphasis and rubbing our noses in it by the lurid vividness of the rhetoric. “…God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works…for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek…God shows no partiality” (2:5-11). God in his providence certainly gives all kinds of good things to all kinds of people, but since we are all sinners none of us deserves any of it, and all assumptions to the contrary—with their corollaries that

AM I PREDESTINED? LUTHER AND CALVIN ON THE DANGERS OF SPECULATING ABOUT ELECTION APART FROM CHRIST BY

SHANE ROSENTHAL

In 1524 Erasmus of Rotterdam decided to engage the famous Martin Luther in a debate over free will and salvation.

Critical of Luther’s grace-oriented approach, Erasmus warned that Christians should not “through irreverent inquisitiveness rush into those things which are hidden, not to say superfluous.” Among the list of irreverent or superfluous debates, Erasmus included the question, “whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to eternal salvation.” This assertion did not sit well with Luther who in 1525 published his book The Bondage of the Will as a way of responding to Erasmus’ complaints. “This is the cardinal issue between us, the point on which everything in this controversy turns,” Luther wrote. “For if I am ignorant of what, how far, and how much I can and may do in relation to God …I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God.” Throughout The Bondage of the Will, Luther presents his case that one cannot have a stable view of God’s grace unless it is anchored in the doctrine of election. He argues, for example, that a man will not completely despair of himself and his own works until he has “no doubt that everything depends upon the will of God.” Knowledge of God’s sovereign will in election then, is the only medicine strong enough to kill the virus of human pride in Luther’s scheme. “For as long as [one] is persuaded that he himself can do even the least thing toward his salvation, he retains some self-confidence and does not altogether despair of himself, and therefore he is not humbled before God, but presumes that there is…some place, time, and work for him, by which he may at length attain to salvation.”

But perhaps this medicine is a bit too strong? For often when Christians begin to consider the fact that salvation is out of their hands, they begin to question whether or not they belong to the number of God’s elect, and thus despair and doubt that they themselves are truly saved. The word Luther used to describe this type of anxiety was Anfechtungen, for he personally struggled with this question for some time. After repeatedly falling into the trap of speculating over

1 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

I S

God is unfair if he fails to give to all as much as he gives to some—are simply false.

No doubt original sin, with its implication of universal illdesert from God, is the most difficult of all Christian doctrines for moderns to grasp. We live in a post-Christian era in which it is virtually axiomatic throughout the Western world that everyone is good at heart and we can all learn to be virtuous in every way, and all ideas of original sin and indelible corruption in the human heart were never more than bad dreams, supported sometimes by decadent and corrupt cultures. None of us is as sensitive to evil as our Maker is, for our self-serving inclinations numb our consciences, and we never see what lies deepest in human hearts, whether in us or in others, in the way that “he who searches hearts” does (8:27). The truth is that we are nowhere near loving God with heart, mind, soul, and strength as we were designed to do, so we all give offence to God every hour of every day, and if he were guided by the principle of fairness alone – the principle, that is, of giving everyone everything they deserve, he would simply let loose on us the “wrath…fury… tribulation…distress…” of which Paul spoke and so wipe us out.

Bill should explain this to his friends, who censure God for not giving pleasant things more widely and not shielding more people from unpleasant things, as if this is what he is under obligation to do. Bill should add that the

G O D

U N F A I R ?

marvel is how much that is pleasant God does currently give, and how much that would be less than pleasant he currently averts, when in fairness we have no claim on such goodness. This is one aspect of his world-embracing “kindness and forbearance and patience” (2:4), the “common grace” that is meant to lead self-satisfied sinners to repentance. And even more marvelous (Bill should declare) is God’s offer to obnoxious offenders like ourselves of justifying and transforming grace in, through, and under his Son, once criminalized and crucified, now exalted and enthroned, Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord.

Fairness in the Light of Grace This grace of God is free though costly—love bestowing on the unlovely a destiny of salvation and privilege. Paul spells it out in sequential stages from 3:21 to 11:36, all against the background of God’s declared wrath against all human perversity which makes grace, as the hymn says, amazing. Justification by faith through the imputing of righteousness on the basis of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice of himself fills 3:21-4:25 and 5:11-21; this is God’s final acceptance of us for a joyful eternity with Jesus, and is thus the ground of our present assurance and hope (5:110). Living holy lives in assured hope through union with Jesus in his death and resurrection and by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and thus experiencing the transformation

predestination apart from Christ, Luther candidly admits, “I…actually get to the point of imagining that God is a rogue.”

But Luther’s angst over predestination was met with good counsel from Staupitz, Luther’s mentor, as he recalls during one of his table conversations: Staupitz said, “If you want to dispute about predestination, begin with the wounds of Christ, and it will cease. But if you continue to debate about it, you will lose Christ, the Word, the sacraments, and everything.”

Luther found in Staupitz’s advice something of great value, namely that all our thoughts concerning election and predestination must be anchored in Christ.

Again and again the reformer passes along the sound advice he received, warning his readers not to “be worried by the many people in the world who are not chosen. If you are not careful, that picture will quickly upset you and be your downfall.” Instead we are to “gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God…In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure.” Only in this way does God’s electing grace become for us a doctrine of great comfort and joy. But even here, Luther still offers us words of caution, “The old Adam must be quite dead before you can endure this matter and drink this strong wine. Therefore make sure you don’t drink wine while you are still a babe at the breast.”

A crucial component of Luther’s exposition of the doctrine of predestination is the distinction between things hidden and things revealed. Based on the text of Deuteronomy 29:29, Luther continually reminded his readers that “The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children.” The Christian therefore should not attempt to seek God in his “nude majesty,” but rather seek him only insofar as he has clothed and revealed himself. Speculating about one’s predestination was dangerous for Luther because it was tantamount to trespassing into God’s secret chambers, whereas focusing on Christ and finding one’s election in him was resting in the revealed things of God. Notice for example how Luther employs this distinction in one of his sermons on John 3:16. Addressing the type of person who says, “I am too great a sinner, and who knows whether I am predestined?” Luther responds by saying, “Look at these words …‘For God so loved the world,’ and ‘that whosoever believeth on him,’ …here no one is excluded. God’s Son was given for all, all are asked to believe, and all who believe shall not be lost, etc.” Luther is not arguing here that the whole world has been chosen, but rather that the offered promise extends to all men. Though we do not have access to the list of names in the Lamb’s Book of Life, we do have access to the gospel promise which God has announced to the world through the proclamation of the gospel. “God has given us His Son, Jesus Christ,” Luther writes, “daily we should think of Him and mirror ourselves in Him. There we shall discover the predestination of God and shall find it most beautiful.” (continued on page 20) S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 19

that God’s grace brings is the theme of chapters 6-8, while Israel’s place in God’s plan of grace is the topic occupying chapters 9-11. In chapter 10, the universality of God’s invitation in the gospel is highlighted. “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (10:9-13).

The letter’s final section is on acting out the ethic of grace, which is self-denying neighbor-love, in a multiracial, multi-cultural church fellowship (12:1-15:13). One incidental implication is important: though in Old Testament times God occasionally inflicted public temporal judgments for sin on whole families, tribes, cities, and nations and used Israel, his people, as his executioners, no form of retributive action, as such, is to have any place in the Christian code. God reserves retribution for the day of judgment, when he will inflict it himself. “Repay no one evil for evil…live peaceably with all…never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (12:17-19, citing Dt. 32:35). Bill must be able to explain this to his friends.

When all deserve to be rejected by the God who in love moves to reconcile them to himself and renew them in his own moral image, thus preparing them for a destiny of delight with himself, we are out of the realm of both

fairness and unfairness. Grace trumps each of them. When the great good given is not only undeserved but contrary to our deservings, we should humbly receive it and give thanks for it, not stand back and complain that in this or that respect it ought to be greater than it is. There is no warrant whatever for the “ought to be” in such complaints.

Fairness in the Light of Glory The entire creation, says Paul startlingly, “waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God [at Christ’s return]. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (8:19-21). The terms “futility” (non-achievement of its own full excellence) and “bondage of decay” (inescapable disintegration) indicate, without going into detail, that powers of chaotic destruction work in the cosmos alongside its intricate interlockings that nurture and enhance human life. Presumably this is the fruit of the curse God pronounced on man’s environment after the Fall (Gen. 3:17-19). The natural disasters and random tragedies rooted in genetics of which Bill’s friends complained would seem to belong here; we can confidently say that no such things will occur when the new heaven and new earth and believers’ resurrection bodies have become matters of fact.

Christian life, then, should be lived as a journey home, in eager hope of the better world that awaits us. Present

(continued from page 19) The distinction between things hidden and things revealed is at the core of Luther’s argument throughout The Bondage of the Will. Referring to Ezekiel 18:21 (“I desire not the death of the sinner”), Luther comments, “For he is here speaking of the preached and offered mercy of God, not of that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients and partakers of his preached and offered mercy. This will is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored.” So from the perspective of God’s revealed will in the gospel, one can indeed say “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). But, from the perspective of God’s secret election, we also need to affirm that “no one can come to [Christ] unless the father has enabled him” (John 6:64). Again from Luther, “Why that majesty of his does not remove or change this defect of our will in all men…we have no right to inquire.”

It’s important here to note the similarities between the views of Luther and those of John Calvin on this point. For example, Calvin writes, “It may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish?” To this Calvin answers that “no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God . . . but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.” And with regard to those who speculate rashly about who is predestined and who is not, Calvin warns that this can become “a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself.” So what does Calvin suggest we do?

We cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election…if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.

Perhaps then, Erasmus did in fact have a valid concern in his criticism of the “irreverent inquisitiveness” that so frequently accompanies any and all discussions of predestination. Here Luther and Calvin are in complete agreement.

The abuse of the doctrine of predestination is not a good argument for its dismissal. Rather, what is needed is careful exposition of this crucial biblical doctrine, along with suggestions for removing the numerous causes of abuse. With regard 2 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

I S

troubles should be taken in stride. “The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (8:18). Nothing that comes our way “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8:39). “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose (8:28). God’s purpose for Christians is holiness and happiness with Christ in glory, and this is the good which, one way or another, he makes all things promote.

Paul states the principle that Christians do and must live by as follows: “…justified by faith, we have peace with God…and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character [literally, approval as a result of testing], and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame…” (5:1-5). With this mindset Paul lived his own tumultuous, battle-scarred life, enduring his thorn in the flesh, his other physical hardships and his constant relational hazards (“danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles…danger from false brothers” [2 Cor. 11:26]), and he teaches all Christians to live their lives this way also. Those who do so, like Paul, are kept wholly free from bitterness, and become unsinkable.

Plainly, the categories of fair and unfair are here once more transcended, this time by the certainty that God sanctifies all troubles as moral training, maturing discipline, and so preparation for glory. Knowing this,

G O D

U N F A I R ?

Christians under pressure become “more than conquerors through him who loved us” (8:37). “If all that I meet / shall turn to my good, / the bitter is sweet, the medicine food” (John Newton).

Here is a further matter for Bill to explain to his friends.

Is Election Unfair?

Those who would accuse God of unfairness commonly go straight to Romans 9, where Paul is arguing that though most Jews in his day rejected Christ, God’s word promising Israel blessing when Messiah came had not failed – that is, proved false. To make his point, Paul affirms the following: 1. Earlier general promises of blessing to and through Abraham’s descendants were later specified by God himself as finding fulfillment in some descendants only, not all (9:6-13); 2. God is free to specify in this way as he wishes, and cannot be accused of injustice when he does so, since he owes mercy to none, and has purposes other than mercy for some, as the Old Testament already showed (9:14-18); 3. As God’s creatures (and sinners into the bargain, according to 1:18-3:20, a fact that Paul never forgets even if his critics do), we cannot deny God his right to appoint contrary destinies in this way (9:19-21); and 4. God has actually called some Jews and some Gentiles to be his people through faith in Christ – “vessels of mercy” displaying his glory – while patiently enduring “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” against whom he will show his wrath later on (9:22-29).

to this issue Calvin boldly asserts, “No doctrine is more useful, provided it be handled in the proper and cautious manner… If men should evade every other argument, election shuts their mouth, so that they dare not and cannot claim anything for themselves.” This is precisely the way Luther reasoned in his response to Erasmus. And it is also precisely the way in which we need to think about the sobering yet wonderful truth of God’s electing grace in our time.

Shane Rosenthal is the executive producer of the White Horse Inn weekly radio broadcast.

In the opening of this article, Mr. Rosenthal’s discussion of the thinking of Erasmus and Luther is derived from Gordon Rupp, ed., Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969) pp. 39,116–117, 137.

Following Erasmus’ initial letter to Luther, the second part of this volume contains the full text of Luther’s Bondage of The Will, translated by Philip S. Watson. Luther’s description of Anfechtungen is taken from Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1953) p. 282 and Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 456, entry 1348.

For the sound advice Luther has to offer, see Timothy Lull, ed., Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings: “A Sermon on Preparing to Die,” 1519, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989) pp. 644–645; and Luther’s Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, translated by Brother Andrew Thornton, (St. Anselm Abbey, 1983), (www.iclnet.org/pub/ resources/text/wittenberg/german.bible/rom-eng.txt). See also Plass, What Luther Says, pp. 455–456.

Luther’s discussion of Deuteronomy can be found in Luther’s Works, Vol. 2, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960), page 72 (commentary on Gen. 6:18). For more information on Luther’s sermon on John 3:16, see John Nicholas Lenker, ed., Sermons of Martin Luther: The Church Postils, Vol. 3, “Second Sermon on John 3:16,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983, originally printed in 1522) pp. 363–364. Subsequent quotations from Luther in this article can be found in Plass, ed., What Luther Says, Luther’s Letter of Aug. 8, 1545, p. 454; Rupp, Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, pp.

200, 201–202.

Mr. Rosenthal’s quotations from Calvin are taken from Calvin’s Commentary on 2 Peter 3:9; Calvin’s The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.21.1 and 3.24.5; and Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians 1:4.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 21

When the great good given is not only undeserved

glory forever. Amen” (11:36).

May our praise never end. ■

but contrary to our deservings, we should humbly receive it and give thanks for it, not stand back and complain that in this or that respect it ought to be greater than it is. There is no warrant whatever for the “ought to be” in such complaints.

The complaint here is that God appears to appoint destinies arbitrarily, treating human beings as pieces on a chessboard or robots to be programmed, and ignoring the reality of free will which (so it is claimed) is the true determiner of the direction and destination of one’s life.

This, it is said, is unfair, and so indeed it would be if things were as stated – but they are not. Overlooked in this objection is the fact that “the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (8:7). “Hostile” is “enmity” in the Greek; Paul uses an abstract-noun-for-adjective idiom that is the equivalent of italicizing, or capitalizing, for maximum emphasis. His statement is as strong as he can make it: by nature and of their own free will, human beings in Adam, fallen from God and twisted inside, are all adamantly antiGod, in a way that they themselves cannot change. The truth of this must be faced squarely. The idea that left to themselves some might choose a better path than God has appointed for them is cloud-cuckoo-land thinking. There is no divine unfairness, then, in Romans 9.

Nor is there anything unfair about the non-universality of the divine action whereby the heart is changed. This is the action leading to faith that Paul labels calling, and that later theology was to label effectual calling to mark it off from the universal invitation of which Jesus had spoken (Mt. 22:14; see verses 1-14). What we must grasp is that free will (a power of choice free from external compulsion) is a function of the inner essence of a person, what the Bible calls the heart, and it is God’s action in calling that opens the heart so that Christ and his way are freely embraced in response to the gospel invitation. God calls the elect in this sense in order to justify them and so prepare them for glory (8:30, 9:23). This is grace at work.

It is the way of grace, as Paul insists in 11:5-6, to be selective (it extends to “a remnant” of the Jews), but since God owes grace to nobody it is not unfair that he does not bestow it on everybody. What Paul is talking about in 3:21-11:36, and what he praises God for at the close of chapter 11, is not his fairness but his mercy.

So the complaint that God is unfair, which supposes itself smart, is actually shallow; Romans alone outflanks it at all points. Romans shows us the grace of God’s wisdom, and the wisdom of his grace, and sets us praising: “From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be 2 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

J.I. Packer is the Board of Governors’ professor of theology at Regent College (Vancouver, Canada). He is author of Knowing God, Life in the Spirit, A Grief Sanctified, and Keep in Step with the Spirit. In addition, Dr. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.

Redemption Through Christ he second Adam, sov'reign Lord of all, Did, by his Father's authorizing call, From bosom of eternal love descend, To save the guilty race that him offend; To treat an everlasting peace with those, Who were, and ever would have been his foes.

His errand, never-ending life to give To them, whose malice would not let him live; To make a match with rebels, and espouse The brat which at his love her spite avows.

Himself he humbled, to depress her pride, And make his mortal foe his loving bride.

But, ere there marriage can be solemniz'd, All lets must be remov'd, all parties pleas'd.

Law-righteousness requir'd, must be procur'd, Law-vengeance threatned, must be full endur'd, Stern justice must have credit by the match, Sweet mercy by the heart the bride must catch.

Poor Bankrupt! all her debt must first be paid, Her former husband in the grave be laid: Her present Lover must be at the cost, To save and ransom to the uttermost.

If all these things this Suitor kind can do, Then he may win her, and her blessing too.

Hard terms indeed! while death's the first demand: But love is strong as death, to take the upper hand To carry on the suit, and make it good, Though at the dearest rate of wounds and blood.

The burden's heavy, but the back is broad, The glorious Lover is the mighty God.

T

— Ralph Erskine (1685-1752), Chapter 1, portion of Section II, Gospel Sonnets in "The Sermons and Practical Works of Ralph Erskine" (Glasgow: W. Smith and J. Bryce Booksellers, 1778) Vol. 10, pp. 48-58.

Calvinism and Arminianism At-a-Glance Issue

Calvinism

Arminianism

ORIGINAL SIN

total depravity and guilt inherited from Adam

weakness inherited from Adam

HUMAN WILL

in bondage to sin

free to do spiritual good

GRACE OF GOD

common grace given to all; saving grace given to the elect

enabling grace given to all; saving grace given to those who believe

PREDESTINATION

rooted in God’s decree

rooted in God’s foreknowledge

REGENERATION

monergistic

synergistic

ATONEMENT

Christ’s death is a substitutionary penal sacrifice

Christ’s death is a sacrifice that God benevolently accepted in place of a penalty

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

intended only for the elect

intended for all

APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT

by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God

by the power of the Holy Spirit in response to the will of the sinner

ORDER OF SALVATION

election, predestination, union with Christ, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, glorification

calling, faith, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, glorification

PERSEVERANCE

perseverance of all the elect by God’s grace

perseverance dependent upon obedience

Information on this chart taken from the Chronological & Background Charts of Church History, published by Academie Books/Zondervan 1986.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 23

HAS GOD FAILED?

Called by the King Election and Assurance in Romans 9 – 11

“I

believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.” This opening line of the Apostle’s Creed is familiar to us, yet what do we really mean when we use the word Almighty when referring to God our Father? Fearful (Ps. 1:1) or wonderful (Rom. 11:38) come close to describing what we mean, or perhaps even awesome (Eccles. 5:5). Other great creeds and rules of faith in the church use the phrase All Governing, which better establishes the Father’s almightiness in relation to creation. The church bears witness to the almightiness of God as he is presented in Scripture as the Creator, his will as the ultimate cause of all things, and all things as belonging to him. As a result, Almighty God is proclaimed as King—in the most absolute sense—for all of creation is dependent upon him and subservient to him (Ps. 95:1–7). Because God the Father Almighty is our Maker, God is King, dominion belongs to the Lord, and he should be acknowledged as such. This truth is at the heart of the Christian story about God who is calling out from a disobedient and contrary humanity a people for himself, a people to whom God sovereignly chooses to make himself known and through whom God sovereignly chooses to manifest his Kingdom. It is as Charles Dickens narrates in the Christmas Carol concerning the fact that Jacob Marley was dead as a door-nail, “This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate.”

The story to be related is the gospel. It concerns first and foremost the God of the gospel who is the absolute King (not absolute in the sense of being self-insulated, static, and aloof, that would not be the God of the gospel). The God of the gospel is King in the absolute sense of being wholly distinct from us and thereby truly free to be our God, not only as Lord, but also as loving father, brother, and friend. While never diminishing the absoluteness of his divine kingship, God chooses to be God with us and for us (Isa. 57:15). “I will take you as my people and I will be your God” (Exod. 6:7a).

Almighty God is willing and able to be compassionate, merciful, and gracious toward us whom he has claimed

BY

PETER D. ANDERS

2 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

C A L L E D

for his own; and in the freedom of God’s selfrevelation—presenting himself as God for us—he has made us free to respond in assured obedience to him.

This truth is the theological thread woven throughout the Apostle Paul’s Romans epistle, and in chapters 9 to 11 he clearly addresses the topics of election and assurance. For Paul understands that the Almighty God of the gospel is the free, sovereign, and electing God. We will also keep this distinctly in mind as we follow Paul’s astounding argument in this passage in an effort to better understand—with fear and wonder—the key affirmation that our electing God faithfully calls forth his covenant people by the assuring power of his Word given in and through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Issue of God’s Faithfulness ar from being a detached parenthesis in the middle of the letter, Romans 9 to 11 skillfully presents a consistent extension of the great doctrinal treatise of chapters 1 to 8. The section is grounded in Paul’s declaration in the very first chapter: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16). Paul devoted chapters 1 to 8 to an explication of this gospel—from an account of our desperate need, through the gracious gift of our justification in Jesus Christ, to the glorious sanctification of our victorious life in the Spirit. Through all of this, Paul is hinting at the way in which the power of God is working in connection with the gospel for the salvation of humanity, both by what God communicates in it and by what God accomplishes through it. In chapters 9 to 11, what has been implicit is made explicit. The loving and gracious God who has provided so great a salvation is also the Almighty God who faithfully works out this salvation in human history and in human lives.

Yet it is exactly the faithfulness of God that comes into question when one looks at the contrast between the success of Paul’s Gentile mission and God’s covenant people of Israel who failed to accept Christ, even though they were specifically prepared for his coming. Had God forsaken his covenant promises to Israel and extended them to others? While there is considerable debate over the precise theme of Romans 9 to 11, it is generally agreed that a key motive for Paul’s writing is this question of Israel’s unbelief and the concern over the faithfulness of God. Because Paul knows that any uncertainty about Israel’s election as the covenant people of God would call into question the trustworthiness of God’s promise to the Church, it is logical that he should now turn his attention to a defense of the faithfulness of God as the God of Israel, while at the same time offering an explanation of Jewish unbelief and Gentile inclusion in the hope of the promise. In the process, Paul also establishes the critical role that the gospel itself now plays in communicating assurance to the people of God.

F

B Y

T H E

K I N G

The Covenant Promise and the One People of God aul develops his apologetic of God’s faithfulness by first contrasting the present unbelief of Israel with their historic privileges and their high destiny as God’s chosen people (9:1–5). He then makes the important statement: “For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel” (9:6b). Here Paul is building on his earlier discussion of the relationship between the Jew and the law where he stated that a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly and real circumcision is spiritual and a matter of the heart (2:28–29). For Paul the true Jew is the child of faith who knows God truly and relationally (4:16; 5:1–5).

Now Paul applies this distinction corporately to the Israel of God (9:6–8), and illustrates his point with an account of the distinctions in Israel’s ancestral history. While Paul in this passage is referring specifically to the contrast between believing and unbelieving ethnic Jews, he also extends this prerequisite principle of inclusion in the covenant promise to Gentiles as well: “including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (9:24; cf.

4:13–17; 9:25–26, 30). Thus, in Romans 9 Paul is affirming the inclusiveness of the covenant promise (now manifested in the gospel of Jesus Christ) for Jews and Gentiles, but only received by believing Jews and Gentiles.

And Paul argues that this distinction between unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, and believing Jews and Gentiles of the promise is made on an individual basis according to the sovereign electing grace of God alone.

Yet how does Almighty God work out his electing grace in human history and in human lives in a way that demonstrates faithfulness to his covenant promises to Israel? Paul argues that it is God’s saving gift of faith that ultimately creates this distinction between the children of God and the children of the flesh (10:1–17; 5:1–5; cf. Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29). He describes those Jews who have this faith as true Israel, those whom God foreknew (11:2, referring back to 8:29), and the remnant chosen by grace (11:5). The important point here is that God has indeed proven faithful to his covenant promise to Israel in that he has maintained an Israel with which he may remain in a covenant relationship; and insofar as it is the covenant of promise, it must have always been with the true Israel of faith. Thus God has remained faithful to (true) Israel as evidenced by the very fact that Israel, the covenant, and the promise continue to exist through faith, which according to Paul’s gospel is now clearly faith in Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of the promise. Furthermore, Paul points out that this is the case even though the number of believing Israel might be as small in the present time as it had been at other key periods of Jewish history (11:2–5; cf. 9:27; 11:7).

Paul maintains that this diminutive Jewish remnant is due not to God’s rejection of the covenant but because, in the mystery of God’s own will, God has chosen to bestow the gift of faith on Gentiles and to incorporate them into

P

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 25

this same covenant with believing Israel (9:24–26; 10:20; The Role of the Gospel in the Assuring Call of the King 11:17–20). Israel of the covenant has not been rejected by ut the question remains, How can I be assured that I God, but rather God has chosen at the present time to am a child of the promise and included as one of the allow the number of his Israel to decrease for his own true people of God? We saw how Paul identifies purposes in salvation history (9:22–25; 10:19; 11:7–10, God’s saving gift of faith as that which distinguishes the 25–27). The historic root of anti-Semitism that sees Israel believing children of God from the unbelieving children of as rejected by God has no interpretive support in this the flesh, and that through the operation of his electing section of Romans. Rather, Paul affirms the primacy of grace God causes this faith to become manifest as that covenant Israel throughout his argument here. He which binds the community of believing Jews and confirms their historic privileges and their high destiny as Gentiles to the covenant promise fulfilled in Christ.

God’s special people (9:4–5), and argues that the Throughout the whole of the epistle Paul has argued that continued inclusion of believing Israel in the covenant faith in Jesus Christ is the only means by which promise will bring great blessings to the world (11:12, 15). righteousness is obtained and thereby the great gift of For Paul, true believing Israel is the root and support of the salvation. The same for both Jew and Gentile, this faith is covenant people that makes described by Paul as a the entire community holy response that includes both (11:16–18). true confession that Jesus is They understood that it is only by the The important point here Lord and heartfelt belief that is that, according to Paul, it God raised him from the dead faith-creating ministry of the Spirit is not believing Israel that is (10:8–12). For, according to incorporated into a new Paul, everyone who calls on working in and through the gospel that Gentile covenant the name of the Lord with this community, but it is the sort of faith will be saved we hear and respond to God’s call with elected, believing Gentiles (10:13). He then links our who are incorporated into response of faith to the a true assurance of mind and heart. and supported by the true indispensable ministry of covenant Israel of God. Far preaching and finally to the from leading to pride, twofold hearing associated with the proclamation of the gospel message itself: “Faith schism, and anti-Semitism, Paul admonishes the Gentiles comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes to recognize this mysterious work of God and appropriately honor the covenant Jew to whom God has through the word of Christ” (10:17). This important point faithfully and graciously given the gift of faith. For Paul, is discussed by John Calvin in his Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans: Gentiles who become prideful against Jews are in danger of revealing the hardness and unbelief of their own heart, And this is a remarkable passage with regard to the which would disqualify them from the promises of the efficacy of preaching; for [Paul] testifies, that by it covenant (11:19–22). In the same way, the unbelieving faith is produced. He had indeed before declared, Jew may come to manifest the electing grace of God with that of itself it is of no avail; but that when it pleases faith in Christ and thus be revealed as part of true the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his covenant Israel. Paul uses himself as an example of the truth of this contention (11:1, 23–24). He states that even power. And indeed the voice of man can by no though the unbelieving Jew may appear to be an enemy means penetrate into the soul; and mortal man would be too much exalted, were he said to have the of the children of God and the gospel of Christ, power to regenerate us; the light also of faith is nevertheless the calling of God is irrevocable, and if they something sublimer than what can be conveyed by have been foreknown by God they will yet be revealed as Israel of the covenant. For, as Paul declares, all Jews and man: but all these things are no hindrances, that God should not work effectually through the voice of Gentiles who have now been shown mercy were man, so as to create faith in us through his ministry. necessarily at one time imprisoned in disobedience (11:32). Therefore, the sovereignty and faithfulness of The reformers sought to follow Paul in linking together God is clearly established for both Israel and the Church. the preacher or messenger of the gospel, the proclamation God has gathered together through faith one holy people or message of the gospel, and the sovereign, life-giving into the glorious covenant of promise fulfilled in Jesus Word of God. In fact, it was Paul’s teaching here on the Christ. The mystery of God’s electing and saving will can twofold hearing—that we “hear” God’s own free and only lead the entire covenant community of faith to sovereign voice by the power of the Spirit in and through respond obediently with humility, awe, gratitude, and our hearing the proclamation of the message of the praise before the wise and gracious triune God who is gospel—which played a key role in the Reformation’s King—the architect, initiator, sustainer, and consummator breakthrough thinking about the intrinsic authority of of so great a salvation.

B

2 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

C A L L E D

God’s self-revelation. The reformers taught that unless the hearer of the gospel message came “face to face” with Jesus Christ through his Word made living and powerful by the Holy Spirit, the hearer would not respond in faith and true Christian life could not begin. They understood that it is only by the faith-creating ministry of the Spirit working in and through the gospel that we hear and respond to God’s call with a true assurance of mind and heart. As Martin Luther argued, the gospel gives us what it promises—Christ “for me” means that Christ is given to our minds and hearts through a faith that hears his voice in the gospel. For this reason, Luther quipped that the ears are the most important organ of a Christian! Thus, fides ex auditu (faith by means of hearing) maintains an important place in traditional Reformation theology.

Paul goes on to qualify this principle of twofold hearing in the four verses following Romans 10:17. He sets out the guilt of Israel in that they did hear and should have understood the proclaimed word of Christ, yet did not believe. In light of this, Romans 10:18 should be interpreted as countering the possible misunderstanding that hearing the gospel message inevitably produces faith.

Israel did in fact hear and understand the message, but instead of responding in faith, they responded with the disobedience and contrariness of unbelief. The spiritual condition of Israel does not come from a lack of opportunity to hear the gospel or a lack of understanding of its content and prophetic context, but must be traced to a dullness of mind, and a stubborn and rebellious spirit such as seen in the times of Moses and the prophets and as described by Paul in the first three chapters of Romans. It is evident that for Paul saving faith originates in the gospel proclaimed, yet not all the hearers of the message respond in faith. The ultimate reason why one hearer will come under the faith-creating and assuring ministry of the Holy Spirit in association with the proclamation while another remains unaffected is in the secret council of God’s own sovereign electing will. This seems to be Paul’s intention for placing this discussion of faith in the context of Romans 9 to 11 that deals specifically with the sovereignty and faithfulness of God over the history of salvation. The difficult teaching of Paul here is most profitably understood against the theological background of the absolute kingship of God. Trusting in God’s almighty and faithful character, we can lay aside our efforts to make this teaching more acceptable as we expect the eschatological vindication of God’s profound and perfect justice. As Martin Luther argued, the seemingly unjust “hidden God” whom we now see working in the world by the light of grace, will ultimately by the light of glory be shown to be the same as the “revealed God” in Jesus Christ. Our faithful God calls us in and through the gospel to believe and take comfort in this promise now.

Thus Paul calls the word of Christ, or the message of the gospel, the “power of God for salvation” (1:16), which is the power of his Spirit (1 Thess. 1:5). It is by the sovereign ministry of God’s Spirit that God’s Word is “at work”

B Y

T H E

K I N G

producing faith in a believer and making her or him assuredly live by it (1 Thess. 2:13, cf. Rom. 8:14–16; 1 Cor. 2:4–5). According to Paul, the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed by the preacher and heard in a twofold way because of “the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The assuring manifestation of individual election is established by this word of divine power alone—by which Almighty God calls into being the things that do not exist and works what he commands (Rom. 4:17; 9:11, 25; 1 Thess. 5:24).

Keeping it distinctly understood that God is the Almighty King, we read Romans 9 to 11 with fear and wonder. For our electing God faithfully calls forth his covenant people by the assuring power of his Word given in and through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Lord declared, “I know my sheep and my sheep know me” (John 10:14). We truly are his sheep. We are fallen, confused, and even fearful; but the voice of our Shepherd, the voice of the King, can neither be muted nor mistaken (John 10:2–5). In the midst of our need, our confusion, and our fear (in spite of it!) we search for his voice and we hear it in the preaching of the gospel . This is our assurance, we hear his voice. He speaks life to us, without which our lives make no sense at all. Something wonderful indeed comes from this story: the faithful King speaks to us, and what he speaks saves us, leads and teaches us, and assures us. Paul was right to conclude this great section of his Romans epistle with praise: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever.

Amen” (11:33, 36). ■

Peter D. Anders is adjunct professor of theology at Azusa Pacific University (Azusa, California).

In the preceding article, Prof. Anders has quoted from John Calvin in his Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, ed. and tran. by John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. XIX, various translators (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1843–55, reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 401. Brackets were added. All Scripture references in this article were taken from the New Revised Standard Version.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 27

INTERVIEW f o r

d i a l og u e

i n

and

out

of

our

circles

An Interview with Jerry Walls

Arminian In the interviews that follow, the editors of Modern Reformation asked a series of five questions to two able defenders of their respective systems: Robert A. Peterson, Calvinist and professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri; and Jerry L. Walls, Arminian and professor of philosophy at Asbury Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. Both men are used to this sort of dialogue: Walls is a coauthor of Why I Am Not a Calvinist (InterVarsity Press, 2004), and Peterson is a coauthor of the companion book, Why I Am Not an Arminian (InterVarsity Press, 2004).

In order to understand the practical effects of both systems, the questions asked concern areas of church life and pastoral practice that are sometimes overlooked during theological discussion. Not every question that could be conceived was asked. But these questions might help make this discussion more meaningful for the thousands of pastors and laypeople who wrestle with the implications of their beliefs and practices.

1. How would you describe Arminianism to someone unfamiliar with the term or the theology?

The heart of what distinguishes Arminianism from Calvinism is a profound difference in how the character of God is understood. Arminians hold that since the very nature of God is holy love, God unconditionally loves all of his creatures and sincerely acts to promote their true flourishing and well-being. That is why Arminians reject the Reformed doctrine of election as unthinkable, for that doctrine holds that God unconditionally chooses to save some, while passing over the rest, thereby consigning them to eternal misery. A God of unconditional love would never pass over any of his lost creatures in this fashion.

Since God is holy, however, a right relationship with him is not unconditional. To be rightly related to God, we must love him, trust him, and obey him. As we come to love and trust God, we come to experience the love of God more and more and to know him better and better. But since we are free, we may choose not to trust him and even decline his offer of a loving relationship. So even though God’s

2 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

love is constant and unconditional, as that is his very nature, our experience of that love depends on our faith and obedience.

What this points up is that Arminians have a different understanding of how God has chosen to exercise his sovereignty in our world, and a correspondingly different view of human freedom, than Calvinists do. Calvinists typically hold that God is sovereign in the sense that he determines everything that happens, including our choices. Thus, for the Calvinist, freedom means that we willingly do whatever God has determined for us to do, even though we could not will or act otherwise. In this understanding, freedom and determinism are compatible.

In the Arminian view, by contrast, freedom and determinism are not compatible. Sovereignty means that God is in control, but he does not normally determine our choices.

Since he is in control, his kingdom will come and he will defeat evil.

But if we are not part of his kingdom in the final reckoning, this will be due to our free choice to reject his love and grace, not because we were not among the unconditionally elect.

Now the point I want to empha-

size here is that these differences with respect to sovereignty and freedom flow from the even more fundamental difference concerning God’s character. We can see this if we consider an extremely significant implication that follows from the Calvinist view that freedom is compatible with determinism, namely this: God could save everyone without overriding anyone’s freedom.

Indeed, he could determine all persons freely to love, worship, and obey him at all times. In fact, however, as the Calvinist sees it, God has determined that some will freely come to Christ and some (perhaps the majority) will reject his grace and be lost forever.

Here is where the Arminian view of God’s character is profoundly at odds with the Calvinist view.

According to the Arminian understanding of God’s character, he would never, as a matter of sovereign choice, determine sin, evil, and ultimately eternal misery for any of his creatures, let alone for vast numbers of them. This is not to (continued on page 30)

An Interview with Robert Peterson

Calvinist

1. How would you describe Calvinism to someone unfamiliar with the term or the theology?

Calvinism is that branch of Reformation theology and practice that derives from the reformer John Calvin, as distinguished from Lutheranism and Anabaptism, to name two other tributaries of the Reformation. The major influences on Calvin’s thought were the Bible, Augustine, and Luther. I will summarize some of the accents of the theology that bears his name today.

Some of these accents are shared by Bible-believing Christians of other traditions.

Calvinism has a high regard for the Holy Scriptures, and regards the Bible as the chief authority for theology (what we believe) and ethics (how we live). It bows to the testimony of Scripture that fallen human beings are unable to save themselves and are utterly dependent upon the free grace of God for salvation.

Calvinism extols that grace of God by emphasizing his freedom in all aspects of salvation, from his gracious

choosing of a people before creation, to his making full atonement for their sins in Christ, to his opening their hearts by his Spirit, to his preserving them for final salvation at the resurrection on the last day.

Calvinism holds to a high view of the church and regards its sacraments as means of grace parallel to the Word of God. It thus differs from Rome’s too high view of sacramental efficacy but also from believers who hold that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ceremonies of profession and remembrance, respectively.

Calvinism views all of life under the Lordship of Christ. Following the Dutch Reformed tradition of Abraham Kuyper, most Calvinists pray and work for the transformation of human cultures through the worldwide spread of the gospel and its attendant concerns for justice and mercy.

Calvinism believes in the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, the eternal suffering of the lost in hell, and the eternal joy of the resurrected righteous in the immediate presence of the Trinity on the new earth under the new heaven.

2. What different kinds of comfort do you think a Calvinist and Arminian pastor would offer to a Christian who is struggling with his or her faith?

(See answer to #4.)

3. Where in the practice of Christian living do you think Calvinism proves more beneficial than Arminianism?

(See answer to #4.)

4. What are the benefits of pastoral counseling from a Calvinist pastor?

What is “lost” in pastoral counseling from an Arminian pastor?

These questions are so similar, that I will address them together. I do not want to overemphasize the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism and thereby distort the Bible’s teaching and harm the unity of the church. Conservative Calvinist and conservative Arminian Christians and pastors have the most important things in common, including belief in: the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, the Holy Trinity, our need as sinners of divine rescue, the necessity of God’s grace for salvation, the orthodox view of the person of Christ, the necessity for persons to trust his death and resurrection for salvation, the indispensability of the Holy Spirit for a fruitful Christian life, and more.

I will begin, therefore, by affirming that believing pastors of both traditions would in their counsel offer struggling Christians listening ears, compassionate hearts, and holy hands lifted in prayer. Both would use the Word of God as their primary means of bringing comfort.

Both would look beyond their resources to God for help and both would hold Christians responsible for their sinful attitudes, speech, and behavior. Both would thus urge struggling believers to repent and trust God in order to live a healthy Christian life.

But there are differences.

Arminian pastors have to reckon with the possibility of the struggling person committing apostasy and so falling away from Christ, perhaps beyond repair. Calvinist pastors do (continued on page 32)

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 29

Interview with Jerry Walls (continued from page 28) deny that God could have created a world in which he determined all our choices. No doubt he could have. But Arminians hold that if he had chosen to determine all things, the world would be a very different place than it is. If God determined all things, the world would not be full of sin, evil, and misery.

The fundamental issue here is therefore not a matter of God’s power (what God could do) but a matter of his character (what he would do). God would not determine any to be lost if he could save all without overriding freedom.

2. What different kinds of comfort do you think a Calvinist and an Arminian pastor would offer to a Christian who is struggling with his or her faith?

This is a great example of a practical issue that brings into sharp focus the profound differences between these two theological traditions. It is a well-known fact that believers in both traditions sometimes struggle with their faith and wonder about the status of their relationship with God, sometimes doubting whether they are even saved. The theological interpretation of this doubt varies considerably, however, due to the very significant differences in their theology.

To oversimplify, the Calvinist doubt can be summed up in the question, Does God really love me? whereas for the Arminian the question can be summed up, Do I really love God? The Calvinist disquiet, which flows from the doctrine of unconditional election, is a fear that perhaps one is not really elect after all, that one is a victim of the dreaded “false hope” that Calvin warned against. The Arminian anxiety, which flows from the doctrine of conditional election, is a fear that one is not responding appropriately as God requires in terms of faith or obedience.

Now what is interesting is that 3 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

both traditions have highly developed doctrines of assurance, and that both appeal to similar things to encourage wavering Christians.

Both cite the promises of the gospel, both emphasize the importance of the witness of the Holy Spirit, and both urge that believers can “make their election sure” by cheerfully obeying God and walking before him with a good conscience. Part of the difficulty, of course, is that some of these factors, such as cheerful obedience and good conscience, are somewhat subjective. In addition to these subjective considerations, believers struggling with their faith need objective grounds for assurance.

Now the objective ground of our salvation is the death of Christ. But it is precisely here that important differences emerge. These differences crystallize in the Calvinist doctrine that Christ died only for the elect or, at the very least, died for the elect in a very different sense than he died for the rest of the world.

Now given that none of us can be in a position to know whether or not another person is truly elect, a Calvinist pastor cannot with good conscience assure a struggling person that Christ died for him or her without claiming to know more than his theology permits. What a struggling believer most needs to be assured of is that God loves him, that Christ died for him, that God truly desires his salvation, and that God’s grace is at work in his life.

Given the Arminian view of God’s love, the Arminian pastor is able to say all of this without equivocation.

A Calvinist, however, cannot say this without claiming to know more than his theology warrants.

The certainty that God loves us and Christ died for us and makes available to us the resources of his grace provides great encouragement to a believer who is struggling with his faith. It is God’s love and grace that enable us truly to believe and obey God. We love him because he first loved us, as John tells us.

The worst case scenario for the Arminian is that he has, in fact, lost his faith and broken his relationship with God. But even then, God still loves him and wants the relationship to be restored. For a believer who is struggling with this worst case scenario, the reminder that God loves us and by this very love empowers us not only to have faith in him but also to love him in return, is just the assurance he needs. By contrast, the worst case scenario for the Calvinist is that he is not elect after all and is the victim of a false hope. If his worst case scenario is true, there is no word of hope for him and he will be lost forever.

In short, it is far more devastating to doubt that God really loves us than to doubt that we really love God. And the doctrine of unconditional love is a far more powerful resource for helping struggling believers than the doctrine of unconditional election.

3. Where in the practice of Christian living do you think Arminianism proves more beneficial than Calvinism?

First, there is a difficulty for Calvinism in the practice of evangelism that is similar to the problems their theology poses in the matter of Christian assurance. The difficulty stems, again, from the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and the related notion of limited atonement. Frankly put, there is no meaningful sense in which Calvinists can claim that God loves the nonelect. These are persons that God could save, without overriding their freedom (as Calvinists understand freedom). God could move on their hearts and make them willingly repent and come to Christ. But he has chosen instead to pass over them and consign them to eternal misery.

Since we are not in a position to know who among the unconverted are elect, the Calvinist evangelist cannot proclaim, without equivocation, that God loves the unconverted. The good news, in other words,

must be carefully qualified and muted, if Calvinists are to be true to their convictions.

Second, because legal metaphors have tended to dominate Reformed theology, salvation has primarily been understood in terms of forgiveness and justification. Arminian and Wesleyan theology, by contrast, highlights sanctification and transformation. Wesleyan theology is thus better situated to do justice to the Trinitarian nature of God and the personal nature of our relationship with him. Again to simplify, it is the difference between seeing salvation primarily as a pardon by an offended monarch whose justice has been satisfied, and seeing salvation primarily as a transforming relationship with a loving Father, through the atonement of the Son, and the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit.

4. Do you think there are any challenges in Christian living unique to Arminians—that is, challenges that Calvinists do not face (or, do not face as often)?

The Wesleyan emphasis on sanctification and transformation can become a legalistic burden or a performance-oriented perfectionism if it is forgotten that the transformation God requires is a gift of grace that is the overflow of a loving relationship. When the relational dimension is forgotten or ignored, Christian discipleship can become a joyless demand or a heavy task.

5. What are the benefits of pastoral counseling from an Arminian pastor? What is “lost” in pastoral counseling from a Calvinist pastor?

Many of the toughest cases that pastoral counselors deal with have to do with the problem of evil and suffering. The big challenge is how to discern the will of God in all of this.

To make the point more concrete, let us take a particular instance of evil, one that counselors in our society unfortunately have to deal with all too commonly, namely, a case of sexual abuse inflicted on a child by a relative, say an uncle. Suppose a

young woman has come to her pastor with painful memories of such abuse, that she has struggled in relationships with men, and has had great difficulty in her efforts to develop healthy attitudes toward sexuality and intimacy.

Now this is a difficult case regardless of one’s theology. However, I would contend that Calvinism makes such hard cases even worse.

For given the Calvinist account of sovereignty, God determined things to happen so that these painful events would happen exactly as they did. God could have determined this woman’s uncle to have treated her with love and respect— and to have done so freely—and thereby to have nurtured healthy attitudes in her. But he chose instead to determine things so she would be abused and experience the painful humiliation and shame that she did.

Now given this account of things, it is hard to say that God is really against evil, that it is really against his will. This is what is lost in counseling by a Calvinist pastor, if he is true to his principles. If God determined things in such a way that the woman’s uncle abused her, but could have determined her uncle freely (in the Calvinist sense) to have nurtured her in a healthy way, then it seems clear God preferred for the abuse to occur. Such a picture of God, I would contend, is neither theologically sound nor healthy from a counseling perspective.

Again, such cases are difficult regardless of our theology. Anyone who has a robust view of God must admit that God permitted this terrible event under the reins of his sovereign control. But there is a vast difference between saying that God permits such things as part of the price of freedom (as Arminians understand freedom), and saying God determines such things.

The Arminian pastor can assure this young woman that even though God did not will this abuse to occur, he can redeem it and bring good out of it. We can trust God

that he will not allow any evil to occur that will prevent him from achieving his ultimate loving purpose of conforming us to the likeness of Christ and restoring us to a perfect relationship with himself.

God’s creative grace can bring healing and beauty out of tragic evil and crushing pain. We can say this while strongly condemning the abuse as something hateful to God that he would never will to happen.

In short, I think Arminian theology allows us to hold together a realistic view of evil and tragedy along with a robust view of God’s sovereignty and healing grace.

Jerry L. Walls is professor of philosophy at Asbury Seminary (Wilmore, Kentucky). His most recent books include Heaven: the Logic of Eternal Joy (Oxford University Press, 2002); Why I am Not a Calvinist (with Joseph Dongell, IVP, 2004); and The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy (co-edited with Gregory Bassham, Open Court, 2005).

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 31

Interview with Robert Peterson (continued from page 29) not reckon with that possibility because they believe in the preserving grace of God that will not let his people go (John 10:28–30; Rom. 8:28–39; Heb. 7:23–25). Calvinist pastors would remind believers that God is the Lord of the (Abrahamic/ New) covenant he has made with his people. He has committed himself to them in Christ and will never abandon them (Heb. 6:13–20). This means that there is always hope for believers, no matter how much they may struggle.

In fact, their very struggling with sin is evidence of their possession of the Holy Spirit of God and their yearning for final salvation (Rom. 8:23). If they repent and draw near to their heavenly Father, they will find forgiveness and cleansing (1 John 1:8–10). This is because he has promised to forgive and draw near to them who humble themselves before him (James 4:6–10).

Calvinist pastors, then, can better minister confidence, perseverance, and comfort to parishioners with the Word of God’s sovereign grace (Acts 13:48; 18:9–11; 2 Thess.

2:13–15; 2 Tim. 2:10).

Calvinist pastors, like Arminian ones, delight to extol God’s grace; both much prefer to speak of grace than to confront professed Christians with their sin. But both regard such confrontation as a biblically mandated and therefore important aspect of their ministry.

They thus would both urge perseverance and warn parishioners that those who sow unbelief and disobedience are in danger of reaping destruction. But the two diverge when they describe the threatened destruction. Pastors of both traditions acknowledge the possibility of persons who made false professions of faith suffering God’s wrath on Judgment Day (Matt. 7:21–23).

But, once again, because of their reliance on God’s sovereign grace, Calvinist pastors would not threaten true believers with condemna3 2 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

tion. By contrast, Arminian pastors, because of their belief that human freedom can override God’s sovereignty, sometimes would warn believers that if they persist in sin, condemnation may result.

Calvinists here appeal to Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 11:27–32 concerning the Corinthians’ abuses at the Lord’s Supper. If they judged themselves, God would not judge them (v. 31). But eating and drinking without discernment results in judgment (v. 29). And, in fact, that is exactly what many Corinthian believers have done and as a result have reaped weakness, illness, and death (v. 30). It is important to note, however, that even God’s visiting the wayward Corinthian believers with death does not result in their being damned. Rather, “When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (v. 32). God’s fatherly punishment of his children may even involve taking their lives, but he does not put them out of his family.

Thus Calvinist pastors, eager to promote covenant fidelity, sometimes warn their flocks of the dangers of sin. But they do not include threatening them with the loss of salvation as one of their resources. On the other hand, Arminian pastors sometimes could appeal to the fear of the loss of salvation to keep their flock in line. But such an appeal, if Calvinist exegesis of Scripture is correct, is improper and harmful to the sheep.

5. Do you think there are any challenges in Christian living unique to Calvinists—that is, challenges that Arminians do not face (or, do not face as often)?

Here again the first thing to say to avoid theological distortion and sectarianism is that believers of all stripes face many of the same challenges. These include saying yes to God and no to sin, walking in the Spirit rather than the flesh, loving God wholeheartedly above all else and loving our neighbors as we

naturally love ourselves, having a proper zeal for worship, fellowship, and witness, and living in the light of our Lord’s return.

Frankly, however, Calvinists historically have had unique challenges to Christian living. Chiefly, the major problem has been the error of hyper-Calvinism. This way of thinking starts out right and goes wrong. It correctly affirms the biblical view that God is the only Lord of all and that he exercises absolute sway over all of his creatures, including human beings (Ps. 33:10–11; 103:19; 139:16; Isa. 14:26–27; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:36).

But then it elevates human reason over Scripture in drawing conclusions from God’s absolute control that the Bible never draws by downplaying human freedom and responsibility. Ironically, hyperCalvinism—when it appeals to rationalism—is similar to its theological opponent, Arminianism.

Anthony Hoekema, when affirming that Scripture teaches God wants all human beings to respond to the call of the gospel, highlights the irony: The Bible teaches … that God seriously desires that all who hear the gospel should believe in Christ and be saved. The same Bible also teaches that God has chosen or elected his own people in Christ from before the creation of the world. To our finite minds it seems impossible that both of these teachings could be true.

A kind of rational solution of the problem could go into either of two directions: (1) To say that God wants all who hear the gospel to be saved; that therefore he gives to all who hear sufficient grace to be saved if they so desire; this grace is, however, always resistible; many do resist and thus frustrate God’s design.

This is the Arminian solution, which leaves us with a God who is not sovereign, and

which thus denies a truth clearly taught in Scripture. (2) The other type of rational solution is that of [Herman] Hoeksema and the HyperCalvinists: Since the Bible teaches election and reprobation, it simply cannot be true that God desires the salvation of all to whom the gospel comes. Therefore we must say that God desires the salvation only of the elect among the hearers of the gospel. This kind of solution may seem to satisfy our minds, but it completely fails to do justice to Scripture passages like Ezekiel 33:11, Matthew 23:37, 2 Corinthians 5:20, and 2 Peter 3:9.

Hyper-Calvinism errs when in the name of emphasizing God’s control it downplays the need for Christians to pray and evangelize.

Hyper-Calvinism maintains that because God has sovereignly chosen to save people, evangelism is unnecessary. Contrary to the claims of hyper-Calvinism, Scripture teaches that Christians are to evangelize, and that for at least four reasons: First, we should share our faith in obedience to God’s Great Commission. We are responsible to obey God’s commands, not only when we can figure out his ways, but even when we remain in the dark. It is the part of God’s servants to obey, whether or not they understand their Master’s mind.

Second, we are ignorant of many things that God knows, including the identity of the elect. God knows those whom he has chosen, but we do not. The only way that we know that people are chosen for salvation is when God draws them to salvation in the gospel. This is why 1 Thessalonians 1:4–5 says: “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.” Since we do

not know the identity of the elect, we freely share the gospel, trusting God to bring people to himself.

Third, we evangelize because God is absolutely sovereign in all aspects of salvation. Scripture and experience teach that God uses means to accomplish his ordained ends. Consider our physical health and well-being. We do not regard God’s sovereign protection of us as an excuse for our not exercising human responsibility to take care of ourselves. Rather, we live responsibly by eating, sleeping, and getting exercise, all the while putting our final confidence not in ourselves, but in God’s sovereign control of our lives.

It is the same in evangelism.

God alone is Lord. God the Father sovereignly chose people for salvation before creation (Eph. 1:5).

God the Son sovereignly redeemed them in his death on the Cross (Gal. 4:5; 3:13). God the Holy Spirit sovereignly enables people to call Jesus “Lord” in truth (1 Cor. 12:3). We cannot choose people for salvation, die on the cross, or open hearts to the gospel. Nevertheless, God has told us to witness, and if we are faithful, we will obey his command. And as we do, we are using God’s ordained means to his ends. He has planned to use the means of person-to-person evangelism to accomplish his end of drawing his people to salvation.

Fourth, instead of stifling evangelism, belief in God’s supremacy in salvation invigorates it. God’s sovereign grace assures us of results.

We can be led by the Spirit to pray for or witness anywhere in the world with a confidence that God has people there. Twenty years ago I smiled when I heard that a group of students at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, where I taught, was praying for the country of Albania. Why did they choose Albania? They chose the most difficult mission field in the world to glorify God’s grace. Then Albania was an officially atheistic country, complete with a museum to athe-

ism. In my heart I thought the students were foolhardy at best and were spiritual show-offs at worst.

Well, it turns out the joke was on me. God heard the prayers of my students and many other people and with the downfall of Communism in Europe, the doors of Albania opened to Christian missions. In the same place where the supposed monument to the complete victory over God stood, the museum of atheism, the gospel was preached. My students were more consistent in their application of the Reformed theology that I taught them than I was. God’s sovereign grace transcends all boundaries, political or otherwise. And his grace guarantees results.

Hyper-Calvinism, when it discourages prayer or evangelism, is unbiblical and is therefore to be rejected. I commend to readers J. I. Packer’s helpful book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which steers clear of the extremes of hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism and beautifully sets forth the Bible’s teaching that God is sovereign and human beings are responsible.

Robert A. Peterson is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO) and author of Calvin & the Atonement (Christian Focus, 1999), coauthor, with Michael Williams, of Why I Am Not an Arminian (InterVarsity Press, 2004), and is currently completing a manuscript on predestination and free will (forthcoming from P&R Publishing).

Prof. Peterson’s quotation from Anthony Hoekema is taken from Hoekema’s Saved by Grace (Eerdmans, 1989), p. 79.

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 33

REVIEWS wh at ’s

b e i n g

r ead

The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist

T

here are few theological topics that have been the source of more specu-

tions, namely that he approaches the study of the Antichrist from lation than the doctrine of the Antichrist. A perusal of the shelves of the perspective of a Reformed Christian committed to amillenalmost any Christian bookstore will reveal literally dozens of titles dedi- nialism (13). He also explicitly notes those who have influenced cated to identifying his view the most, men such as Meredith Kline, G. K. who or what this Beale, Geerhardus Vos, B. B. Warfield, Richard Bauckham, “Antichrist” is. Most of and F. F. Bruce. these titles are written The first chapter of the book introduces the subject of by popularizers of the the Antichrist and explains the Christian fascination with dispensationalist the topic as well as the reasons for the importance of the method of biblical doctrine. Chapter 2 is devoted to an examination of Old interpretation. In fact, Testament forerunners to the Antichrist, while chapter 3 one of the best-selling outlines some basic New Testament hermeneutical princifictional works in modples such as the “two age” model of eschatology and the ern memory is the Left phenomena of “double fulfillment.” Chapters 4 to 6 then Behind series by Tim deal with the doctrine of the Antichrist in the Epistles of LaHaye and Jerry John, the Book of Revelation, and 2 Thessalonians respecJenkins. These books tively. Chapter 7 provides an overview of the history of use a fictional narrative the doctrine of the Antichrist from the early church fathers to present the dispento the present. In the final chapter, Riddlebarger summasationalist interpretarizes his conclusions. There is also a brief appendix on the tion of the rapture, the date of the writing of the Book of Revelation. tribulation, and the In his chapter on the Old Testament background to the The Man of Sin: Uncovering Antichrist. For many doctrine of the Antichrist, Riddlebarger provides context to the Truth About the readers, the line the discussion that is often ignored in studies of this topic.

Antichrist between this fictional He explores the way in which Old Testament figures such

by Kim Riddlebarger plot and what the as Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar and intertestamental figBaker Book House, 2006 Bible teaches has ures such as Antioches IV Epiphanes were representative 222 pages (paperback), $15.99 become increasingly persecutors of God’s people. Also included in this chapter blurred. It is, therefore, refreshing to read a book on the is a helpful discussion of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy subject written by someone who stands firmly within the Weeks (Dan. 9) and Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning Gog Reformed tradition and who carefully avoids fanciful conand Magog (Ezek. 38–39). jectures.

Riddlebarger’s own conclusions about the Antichrist are Kim Riddlebarger is the pastor of Christ Reformed based on his study of the epistles of John, the Book of Church and a cohost of the White Horse Inn radio proRevelation, and 2 Thessalonians. He concludes first that gram. He is also the author of the well-received book A the church faces two threats associated with the Antichrist.

Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Baker, One threat is the series of antichrists throughout the histo2003). In A Case for Amillennialism, Riddlebarger sets forth ry of the church who deny the incarnation. The second a biblical argument for the amillennial understanding of threat is “the repeated manifestation of the beast througheschatology. In the present book the focus is more narrow, out the course of history, taking the form of state-spondealing with only one facet of biblical eschatology. sored persecution of Christ’s church, which will finally culRiddlebarger clearly states his own theological presupposiminate in an end-times Antichrist” (167–168). Paul refers

3 4 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

to this end-times figure as “the man of lawlessness.” The state-sponsored persecution will take a form similar to that of the first-century imperial cult—the worship of the state and its leaders. According to Riddlebarger, the vision of Revelation 13 is a reference to the “imperial power of Rome and the worship of its emperor,” but he also argues that “the first century Roman Empire does not fully exhaust the meaning of the vision” (102). He argues that the vision in Revelation 17 provides evidence for a future manifestation of the beastly system of imperial worship.

The “mark of the beast” then is the renunciation of Jesus Christ and worship of the state and its leaders.

One of the most helpful sections of the book in today’s context is the overview of the history of the doctrine of the Antichrist. From the earliest centuries onward, Christians have been convinced that theirs was the final era of history. Even the most sober and careful of biblical scholars have fallen victim to the tendency to set dates for the end.

A careful reading of the history of such speculation should serve as a warning to us all.

One does not have to agree with every detail of Riddlebarger’s exegesis to appreciate the contribution of his book. For those seeking a careful and sober presentation of an amillennial understanding of the Antichrist, this work will prove to be a most helpful resource.

Keith A. Mathison Lake Mary, Florida

The Worship of God Edited work of essays, various authors Christian Focus Publications, 2005 240 pages (paperback), $17.99 One of the most significant decisions taken by the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) was the action of the third General Assembly when the Assembly declared: “The Directory for Worship is an approved guide and should be taken seriously as the mind of the Church agreeable to the Standards. However, it does not have the force of law and is not to be considered obligatory in all its parts.” This statement titled a “Temporary Statement” has become permanent, altered only by making binding the chapters on professions of faith and baptism and the Lord’s Supper eight years after the statement was adopted. According to this writer’s perspective, this decision reflected a desire to avoid an all out donnybrook over the issue of whether the invitation system would be allowed in PCA worship services.

(This in itself is telling as a practice, which though now all but dead, showed the powerful impact of revivalism on Presbyterian worship at the birth of the denomination.)

There are fateful decisions in the life of every denomination. In the Presbyterian Church in America one thinks of the significance of the decision to do missions in part by entering into cooperative agreements with other denomi-

SHORT NOTICES The Sense of Call: A Sabbath Way of Life for Those Who Serve God, the Church, and the World

by Marva J. Dawn Eerdmans, 2006 327 pages (paperback), $16.00 Many good books have been written on the task of church ministry.

A lesser number of good books have been written on the value of keeping the Sabbath. In The Sense of the Call, Marva Dawn has given us what may be one of the very few good resources that realize the two are essentially linked.

It is no secret that Christian workers—be they pastors, church officers, missionaries, or lay volunteers—experience a high degree of burnout. Dawn wisely notes that this tendency comes not just from the rigors of their work, but from the war-weariness that results from confronting a culture indifferent to God—sometimes even within our own churches! In an approach refreshingly opposite the glut of “Christian” self-help books, she begins her prescription for Christian service burnout by focusing our attention on the power of Christ’s work on the cross.

This work is not only an atonement for past sins but is the basis of our hope for the future in the glorious call to the Kingdom. Understanding the basis and goal of our calling is the first step toward courage for ministry. Dawn then surveys the means of grace provided by God to encourage and strengthen the servants in his vineyard: resting, ceasing, feasting, and embracing.

As one who has experienced his share of ministry burnout, I found The Sense of the Call to be immensely encouraging. Rooted firmly in biblical wisdom, encompassing a full-orbed picture of God’s call that rejects worldly means for Christ’s work, Dawn’s book is a beautifully engraved invitation to God’s feast table. It is a reminder that God is not only the one who calls, but also the one who supplies all the needs of those he calls.

—Mark Traphagen

(continued on page 37)

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 35

nations and with parachurch organizations. Or, one might think of the decision to join National Association of Evangelicals, or to effect joining and receiving with the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, or to begin the process of expelling the Christian Reformed Church from the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council, or not to have a delegated Assembly, or to adopt rules that severely limit debate, or the establishment of the Permanent Judicial Commission. But the decision taken thus far that may prove to be the most far reaching in affecting the character of the denomination may be the decision regarding the Directory for Worship. As Dr. Morton H. Smith says in the book here under review, “This was an unprecedented action. No previous Presbyterian denomination had adopted a part of its Constitution in such a provisional way” (96).

The state of worship across the denomination today is at best diverse and at worst chaotic. One can experience something akin to a high church Anglican service, a charismatic service, a traditional Presbyterian service, a seeker service, a postmodern service, not only in the same denomination but conceivably in the same city. There is absolutely no uniformity or predictability for the visitor or newcomer to the town. Who knows what one will encounter when entering a worship service of a congregation of the PCA? Depending on one’s convictions and experience some may find themselves unable to participate because they find the service hopelessly irrelevant or beyond the concessions that conscience can charitably make.

This diversity or chaos has profound implications for the church’s doctrine, practice, and unity. This assumes that one even conceives the primary gatherings of the church as occasions of worship, which is not a safe assumption.

Proponents of the older, cruder revivalism and of the newer, more sophisticated seeker services will sometimes admit that the focus of the service is not on God but on our felt needs. But, since most still call the primary services (one cannot say “Lord’s Day service” since the main meetings may be held on Saturday night or any other convenient time) worship services, we will treat these meetings as in some sense worship.

Worship affects doctrine because of its simultaneous reflection of the view of God that already exists and its magnetic pull on one’s view of God toward the God who is worshiped. Worship affects practice for, as the golden calf incident shows, the worship of even the true God by forbidden practices will spill over from worship to moral practice.

But for the present the greatest challenge is to the church’s unity. If the PCA member moving to a new town finds he or she cannot worship in the local PCA congregation(s) because they violate his or her conscience, then we have a very big problem indeed. The problem is experienced even by the church’s ministers and elders when they find it excruciatingly difficult to participate in some services or parts of services at General Assembly. How long can people who cannot worship together stay together?

If public corporate worship is the primary purpose of the 3 6 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

church’s existence, the highest human activity on earth, the greatest privilege of the redeemed, and the nearest thing to heaven experienced in this world, then it would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of worship of the church for the theology of the church, the practice of the church, and the unity of the church. Whoever wins (and, yes, we know that we should desire “win-win” rather than “win-lose” outcomes) the worship wars will determine the theology, practice, and parameters of the church.

The Worship of God is a collection of lectures and sermons, most of them given at the 2003 Spring Theology Conference at Greenville Theological Seminary. Like most collections the quality of chapters is uneven, but overall it is a helpful contribution in defense of historic Presbyterian worship which is centered on God, full of the Bible, regulated by the Scriptures, and edifying to the soul.

Among the notable contributions are two chapters by the Rev. Terry Johnson. The church owes gratitude to God and thanks to Mr. Johnson, for he has, perhaps more than any other, called the church back to biblical, apostolic, Reformed worship by mediating the work of Hugh Olds Oliphant to working ministers. His handbook Leading in Worship ought to be close to every Presbyterian minister’s hand and frequently consulted (though one hopes that the user will substitute the language of the English Standard Version in place of the New American Standard). Here Mr. Johnson contributes a spirited defense of the regulative principle and a needed admonition to those committed to the principle to remember that worship is not a matter of right forms only but also of right hearts.

Dr. Morton H. Smith, now retired professor at Greenville, provides what one has come to expect of him during his long and distinguished service as a teacher of theology, an excellent summary of the history of Presbyterian worship, especially its developments in North America. Anyone who wants to participate intelligently in the current discussion will need to read Dr. Smith’s chapter unless he already possesses a working knowledge of the subject. This chapter reveals that Dr. Smith’s octogenarian tree is yet green.

Perhaps worth the price of the book is Dr. Robert Godfrey’s comparison of contemporary worship, especially its music, with the Psalms (one of two contributions). In this writer’s evaluation Dr. Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary California, has provided a charitable, balanced, yet devastating critique of praise and worship songs and their forbears, the songs that came out of the Second Great Awakening. The power of the combination of lyric and tune upon the whole of the human soul makes the music we sing a far more critical matter than is often realized, and Dr. Godfrey helps us to face and respond to that reality. Dr. Godfrey’s chapter succeeds in remaining grounded in Scriptures and history without being stuck in the mud of provincialism and quaintness.

Dr. Joseph Pipa, president of Greenville Seminary, contributes a sermon and a lecture. The survey of Reformed liturgy is insightful and demonstrates that the distance

between the rubrical liturgies and discretionary liturgies is not so great as is sometimes supposed and that there is a fundamental harmony among all the historic Reformed liturgies. Dr. Pipa contributes his own liturgy, which follows the Westminster Directory for Worship while being enriched by other Reformed liturgies from Scotland and the Continent. This whole chapter is marked by a broadness of scholarship and spirit that avoids the narrowness of the Independents in favor of a Presbyterian catholicity.

For those interested, there are two chapters that debate the cases for exclusive psalmody and for biblical hymnody.

There is also a chapter on the propriety of choirs contributed by a recent graduate of the seminary.

Shall Reformed theology survive, thrive, and, please God, win? It depends largely on whether Reformed worship is both maintained and revived in the twenty-first century. The way people worship determines for them who God is. Calvin got it right when he saw the contest between the Roman church and the Reformed as a war about worship and not merely doctrine: “[T]he whole substance of Christianity…is a knowledge first of the mode in which God is duly worshiped.”

Rev. William H. Smith Jackson, Mississippi

POINT OF CONTACT: BOOKS YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE READING Gilead

by Marilynne Robinson Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004 256 pages (paperback), $14.00 “Have you read Gilead yet?” a neighbor asked enthusiastically, approaching me in our city neighborhood. I told her I had just started Marilynne Robinson’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel.

My friend, a physician from a Unitarian background, went on to describe why she loved the book. The aging protagonist, Reverend John Ames, resonated for her because of his wise counsel to his young son. My neighbor admitted that parenting can elicit mixed motives, and personal ego (continued on page 38)

Short Notices (continued from page 35)

Living the Resurrection: The Risen Christ in Everyday Life

by Eugene H. Peterson NavPress, 2006 151 pages (hardcover), $16.99 The Christian enjoys vital union with the Lord Jesus Christ.

In his death, we die to sin. In his resurrection life, we now live. The church needs a widely accessible book that explores these truths. However, Living the Resurrection is intended to fill quite a different gap. Modern Evangelicalism often ignores or collapses the Christian life, focusing primarily on the entry point of conversion and the end point of entrance into heavenly life. Peterson addresses this problem by means of a common theme throughout his writings: spiritual formation. Beginning from the Resurrection accounts, Peterson points to the power of Sabbath, Lord’s Supper, and baptism to combat the deadening influences of monotony, individualism, and professionalism. While not quite the book for which I hoped, Living the Resurrection successfully links spiritual formation to everyday life through the means of grace that remain underappreciated in much of the American evangelical scene.

—Matthew Harmon

Spiritual Birthline: Understanding How We Experience Spiritual New Birth

by Stephen E. Smallman Crossway/Good News Publishers, 2006 176 pages (paperback), $12.99 Whether as a shield against any external challenge or as a rigid pattern required of all, spiritual experience is open to numerous abuses.

In this small volume, pastor and author Stephen Smallman provides a refreshing approach to the central spiritual experience of new birth that is both biblically informed and pastorally sensitive.

Spiritual Birthline renews for our own day the classically Puritan practice of tracing God’s activity within one’s own heart.

—Matthew Harmon

(continued on page 39) S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 37

(continued from page 37) often plays too large a role. She admired how careful and deliberate Ames was in this important task.

Why has Gilead, a quiet, slow-paced novel set in rural Iowa in 1956, captured the imagination of twenty-first century readers from urban professionals to heartland believers? Perhaps literary critic James Wood, writing in The New York Times Book Review, answers this question best when he calls the novel “a beautiful work—demanding, grave and lucid …Robinson’s words have a spiritual force that’s very rare in contemporary fiction.”

It is rare, indeed, to feature a minister as a protagonist who is not a stick figure of goodness or a Sinclair Lewis— type Elmer Gantry. Instead, John Ames is a 76-year-old man of faith who has grown in spiritual maturity as he has aged. When I finally came to the last page of Gilead, I cried.

Tears certainly cannot be the aesthetic standard by which to judge a great work. (After all, I cried reading Erich Segal’s Love Story 30 years ago.) Rather, I knew I would miss Ames and the journey we had taken together.

Robinson deftly structures the novel as a series of letters Ames writes to his young son. As death approaches from a heart condition, Ames feels compelled to share who he is and what he has learned in his life. Ames has lived in Gilead, Iowa, for most of his life. It is here that he ministered for 40-plus years after inheriting a Congregational pulpit from his father. His first wife died in childbirth. He labors on alone taking on the spiritual and physical burdens the best he can. The rhythms of the weeks and years in the life of a church are evoked in the letters. When Ames moves from his reflections on the past to presentday observation of his son, he is filled with wonder. He comments with great elegance on the way he plays with friends and helps his mother.

Far from being polemical, Ames’s writing is winsome on every page. He is a rich, full-bodied character. I was reminded of Jane Austen’s remark about her Pride and Prejudice character Elizabeth Bennet: “I must confess that I think her as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print.” Bravado aside, I’m confident Robinson could make a similar claim for Gilead’s hero, John Ames. And she would have many readers agreeing with her.

The writing is extraordinary—lyrical and poetic. For instance, speaking of his earthly existence, Rev. Ames tells his son, “I know this is all mere apparition compared to what awaits us, but it is only lovelier for that. There is human beauty in it. And I can’t believe that, when we have been changed and put on incorruptibility, we will forget our fantastic condition of mortality and impermanence.”

And reflecting on the rhythms of a life of faith, Ames writes, “Every day is holy but the Sabbath is set apart so that the holiness of time can be experienced.” Besides these more abstract reflections, Ames has observations on Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Barth, and many more theologians.

Marilynne Robinson was recently named the director of the prestigious Iowa Writer’s Workshop, the school where she has taught for many years. (The workshop’s alumni 3 8 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

include another great religious writer, Flannery O’Connor.) With Gilead, Robinson has succeeded masterfully in accomplishing what literature at its best achieves.

She allows the reader to “see feelingly.” And because Robinson’s literary canvas here evokes many deep spiritual realities, the novel is well worth reading. I would recommend it to anyone, but it is a “must read” for readers of this magazine.

Ann Henderson Hart Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

By Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner William Morrow, 2005 230 pages (hardback), $25.95 My reading list of late has ranged from The Kite Runner, to P. D. James mysteries, to Team of Rivals on Lincoln’s administration. Business-related books rarely make it on my list, and the last book on economics I cracked was for a course in undergrad. So why did I persist to the last page? This book delivers on the hype.

Economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen Dubner produced a fast-paced, page-turning treatise on a subject few would normally consider entertaining.

Freakonomics has been on the New York Times bestseller list for 46 weeks and counting, selling steadily at number six on Amazon.com, and was published in The Chronicle for Higher Education’s Fall list of what’s being read on college campuses.

But more than entertainment, Freakonomics achieves its stated goal: “What this book is about is stripping a layer or two from the surface of modern life and seeing what is happening underneath.”

Through a series of provocative, and sometimes unseemly questions, the economist and the journalist approach a number of topics: “What Do School teachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?,” “How is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real Estate Agents?,” and my personal favorite, “Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?” While reviews have ranged from pegging this book as a promotion of both liberal and conservative agendas, the truth lies somewhere in between. It lies in what they call “the hidden side of everything.”

The underlying world view is presented up front: “Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life”; “The conventional wisdom is often wrong”; “Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes”; “Experts…use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda”; and “Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world less so.”

The economist makes it clear he believes there are three “kinds of incentives: social, moral, and financial. From there he goes on to say that “Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work—whereas economics represents how it actually does work. Economics is above all a science of measurement.”

Yet despite all the warnings, I think the authors fell into some of the same traps they exhort readers to avoid. Some of the correlations look to be based on very small data pools. While it’s amusing – and possibly true – to think that most drug dealers would make more working at McDonald’s, it’s hard to see how this can be derived conclusively from one mid-level, college-educated, Chicago drug dealer’s accounting book of his foot soldiers sales and earnings.

In the area of debunking field expertise, realtors and child-safety experts take a pretty hard hit. Frankly, I’m happy to use experts in fields other than my own. Just as I don’t want to spend time baking my own bread, sewing my own clothes, or fixing my car, I was happy to have a realtor do the time-consuming research needed when I bought my home. Sure, we could all put in the hours needed to handle a number of tasks, but because I rely on experts in other fields, I have time to entertain, read, participate in Church life, reach out to neighbors, spend time with friends and family, etc. And because people rely on my expertise, I have a job that let’s me do the things I love and in turn frees them up to do what they know and love.

One of the hardest hitting, and possibly most-misunderstood chapters judging by reviews on Amazon’s web site, is the one on the correlation between the enactment of legalized abortion through Roe v. Wade in 1973 to the decline in crime, particularly in urban areas, in the 1990s, when presumably these children would have come of age.

The data provided in the book does not address differences in abortion rates in urban versus suburban areas, nor between ethnic groups. There is an unspoken leap that Roe v. Wade resulted in the prevention of the birth of stereotypically crime-prone urban adolescent males. And while the economist is quick to point out that abortion is not a statistically effective way to reduce crime, no matter where you fall on the issue, the staggering number of abortions in the United States is heartbreaking.

As a Christian reading this book it was hard not to see the evidence of our total depravity and opportunities for spiritual discussions. Whether it was selling bagels at the office, dealing drugs in the ‘hood, or Sumo wrestling, people invariably lie, cheat, and steal. The statistics offer entry points for discussion as to why that is so. And of course, that is where the hope of the gospel comes in.

So while you may not agree with all of the conclusions, when you’re done reading this book, you’ll think differently about numbers. And that really was the point.

Short Notices (continued from page 37)

Science and Grace: God’s Reign in the Natural Sciences

by Tim Morris and Don Petcher Crossway/Good News Publishers, 2006 368 pages (paperback), $14.99 A pervasive story dominates Western society. Through the scientific advances of modern civilization, humanity has been liberated from the shackles of religious superstition. Science and Grace exposes the far more complex story of modern science against the backdrop of the Enlightenment. In fact, the very Enlightenment project that undergirds that story is now in philosophical and scientific crisis.

Tim Morris and Don Petcher, however, go far beyond a critique of materialistic atheism. Instead, they build constructively upon the tradition of Christian dissent from the Enlightenment project found in authors such as Blaise Pascal, Charles Hodge, and Abraham Kuyper. Setting the practice of science within a trinitarian and covenantal framework, they point the way forward for a constructive Christian approach to science worked out from a consistently biblical worldview.

—Matthew Harmon

Diana S. Frazier Book Review editor, Modern Reformation

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 6 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 39

FAMILY MATTERS r e sou rces

fo r

homes

Engaging the Children Among Us

S

ome churches keep their children in the worship service by default. They may

could begin his sermon by encouraging the chilthink they lack the resources or the personnel for a children’s church, so they dren to listen for three specific things in it. do not offer one. Our children are too important to deal with by default. While I When he gets to each of those things, he could advocate keeping children in the church’s worship servcall the children’s attention to them. Or, as he preaches, ice, it is with the understanding that the church will do he could ask questions designed to keep the children lisits utmost to find ways to engage them in its worship. tening, or incorporate stories or examples they will be Children will find much in a worship service difficult, likely to understand. and some things incomprehensible. The church that Pastors, busy with study, preaching, and developing intentionally chooses to include its children in its wormen to be church leaders, often fail to consider the ship must invest time and energy in doing just that— importance of preaching to include children. Is it including its children. acceptable to have as much as a third of the congregaSinging alongside their parents each Sunday, children tion listening to a sermon without understanding it? will develop a familiarity with the hymns the church has Catching our children early and teaching them, by pracsung over the centuries. What richness of devotion and tice, to give attention to God’s Word proclaimed has theology lie between the covers of our hymnbooks! tremendous implications for the church’s future.

However, hymns often use words and syntax that do not Some churches provide a children’s bulletin (I call make sense to a child as she sings. How helpful children them worship guides), handed to children as they enter would find it if the music leader would choose one the service. These can be very helpful, as long as they hymn in each service to focus on, calling attention to are built around what is actually happening in that day’s some of its words and defining some of the harder ones. service. Giving children something to do instead of lis(Adults would no doubt appreciate this as well, since, all tening is counterproductive. If someone in the church too often, we sing in “automatic pilot” mode, paying can get access to the pastor’s sermon notes, a few simple inadequate attention to what we sing.) Our church has questions can be asked on the worship guide that will a “hymn of the month” that we sing every Sunday help children to listen and pick out key points. A quesmorning for a month, giving us time to grow familiar tion or two about the morning’s hymns will help chilwith it and to learn to love it. dren focus on their content. To include the children in Admittedly, a children’s sermon can interrupt and disthe church’s life, worship guide questions might include, tract. Yet, a good children’s message will not interrupt What family had a baby this week? (if that is being the service’s flow with a completely different topic, but announced) or, In what country does the missionary will focus on a main point of the pastor’s sermon. Its who is with us this morning work? To encourage the purpose is to explain or illustrate that main point on a children’s efforts at participation, someone might give child’s level. When done well, a children’s sermon not them a sticker or a small piece of candy in exchange for only will not distract, but will enable children to better their completed worship guides when the service is over. understand the portion of God’s Word proclaimed that Creative thought could bring forth other ideas to day. Thus, whole families will be able to discuss the serhelp include the children among us in our worship. The mon together later. To prevent interruptions in the worimportant thing is that we not be content with requiring ship, children do not need to come down to the front for them to sit with us and keep still, but that we seek to the children’s message; they can listen to it from their engage them in our worship now and teach them to parseats. Whether it is the pastor or someone else, the perticipate more fully in the future. son who presents the children’s sermon should have both a clear grasp of the pastor’s point to be explained Starr Meade is author of Training Hearts, Teaching Minds: and the ability to communicate clearly and concisely to Family Devotions Based on the Shorter Catechism (P & children.

R Publishing, 2000).

Other ways exist for helping our children listen with attention to the preaching of God’s Word. The pastor

4 0 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M A T I O N . O R G

Know What You Believe and Why You Believe It. The Romans Revolution continues on the White Horse Inn

FUTURE BROADCASTS: ■ ■ ■ ■

September September September September

3: Zeal According to Knowledge 10: The Word is Near 17: Has God Rejected His People?

24: Christianity vs. Islam

Now airing on over fifty stations nationwide, go to www.whitehorseinn.org to find a station near you or to listen anytime online!

FEATURING

Michael Horton | Kim Riddlebarger | Ken Jones | Rod Rosenbladt www.whitehorseinn.org