theocentric522 on Xanga

Weblog

Thursday, 04 December 2008

"I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace." ~Apostle Paul (Acts 20:24)

Wednesday, 05 November 2008

Quote from Al Mohler (Day After Election):

"...Beyond this, we must commit ourselves to pray for this new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We are commanded to pray for rulers, and this new President faces challenges that are not only daunting but potentially disastrous. May God grant him wisdom. He and his family will face new challenges and the pressures of this office. May God protect them, give them joy in their family life, and hold them close together.

We must pray that God will protect this nation even as the new President settles into his role as Commander in Chief, and that God will grant peace as he leads the nation through times of trial and international conflict and tension.

We must pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of our crucial concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.

Without doubt, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must expect to be frustrated and disappointed. We may find ourselves to be defeated and discouraged. We must keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up nations and pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think as unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.

America has chosen a President. President-Elect Barack Obama is that choice, and he faces a breathtaking array of challenges and choices in days ahead. This is the time for Christians to begin praying in earnest for our new President. There is no time to lose."

Sunday, 02 November 2008

going, going...gone (very soon).

Just in case you're wondering...I'm transferring my entries elsewhere...I'm in the process of making my own website. Time to time, I might post something here. I'll let y'all know the specifics later. goodbye! =D

Friday, 31 October 2008

Face of an Angel?: Mystery of Acts 6:15 tackled.

When Stephen met his accusers, before finally being killed by them, Luke tells us that those seated in the Sanhedrin looked intently at his face and saw that he had a face of an angel (6:15). Only thing we are now faced with is the nagging question of its meaning.

Unfortunately, no one really knows--though we have some reasonable suggestions by good commentators. Darrell Bock, for instance, says that Stephen had “the appearance of one inspired by and in touch with God” and that it was Luke’s way of saying that Stephen was innocent (pg. 274, Acts).

Moreover, both Bock and Matthew Henry suggest parallels with Moses’ radiant face or Christ’s transfigured face (Ex. 34:29-35; Luke 9:29). Although the parallels are attractive and intuitive to some extent, they lack explanatory power of the Sanhedrin’s lack of typical response (fear) that is demanded by either Moses-type or Christ-type encounters. Furthermore, even angels can provoke terror in men, especially when light of God’s glory accompanies them (Luke 2:9). Still yet, NLT renders 6:15 to say, "[Stephen's] face became bright as an angel's." Perhaps Luke means something else entirely.

So then a thought: what if Luke simply means Stephen had an angelic or cherubic face? This might take the fantastic out of the verse, but here, Luke would simply mean that Stephen’s face showed certain calm and even joy in the mist of fearful opposition.

We recall, for instance, Achish’s words to David, “From the day you came to me until now, I have found no fault in you, but the rulers don't approve of you…I know that you have been as pleasing in my eyes as an angel of God” (1 Sam. 29:6-9).

This is also how John Calvin understands Acts 6:15!:

“Luke says that Stephen appeared like an angel; this is not spoken of his natural face, but rather of his present countenance. While the countenance of those arraigned are commonly pale…Luke teaches that there was no such thing in Stephen, but appeared in him a certain majesty. For the Scripture uses analogy of angels in this sense; as 1 Samuel 29:9; 2 Samuel 14:17; 2 Samuel 19:27.” (This quote, taken from Vol. 36 of Calvin’s Commentaries has been edited)

2 Samuel 14:17: “…for my lord the king is like an angel of God in discerning good and evil.”

2 Samuel 19:27: “My lord the king is like an angel of God; so do whatever pleases you.”

So then, "face of an angel" seems to indicate something that would least provoke fear or terror; and so, it would more likely indicate Stephen's calm demeanor which may have been seen as defiance to some and possibly what exasperated the Jews even more.

Since this description in Acts 6:15 is unique to the NT, we would do well not to wildly speculate or build our whole theology. For now, I stand with Calvin that “face of an angel” would parallel more David before Achish than Moses or Christ or even an actual angel.

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Is Election Pinned Against Faith?: Arminian Misrepresentation of Unconditional Election

So I've been reading F. LaGard Smith's book called, "Troubling Questions for Calvinists...And All the Rest of Us." Once I finish reading this book, I plan on writing a long critique/review. For now, let me say a few words about Smith's misrepresentation of Calvinist's teaching on unconditional election.

First, Smith says this about Calvinist's assumption:"Given God's sovereign control over all things, man must not be seen to have any truly independent choice regarding his own salvation" (pg. 25). Yet by stating this about Calvinism, he reveals his own assumption. Namely, that our choices are independent, especially regarding salvation. Yet scriptures like these come to mind:

"For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
"For from him and through him and to him are all things" (Rom. 11:36).
"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil. 1:29).
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (Rom. 9:17).

Indeed, we all have assumptions...but the question is, are our assumptions informed by scripture?

Smith's assumption about faith colors his reading of Calvinist writers and leads him to misrepresent them. Take for instance this statement by Smith: "...for all intent and purposes, the elect were saved by God's eternal predestining decree long before the point of one's personal faith (as it is most easily seen in Calvinism's insistence that we are unconditionally elect)" (emphasis his, pg. 28).

Yet all Calvinists I know teach that unconditional election itself is NOT all of salvation, but rather God's election is unto salvation. This means that God elects us unto all that is necessary for salvation like regeneration, faith, etc. This is no pure assumption by the Calvinist. Again the Bible teaches that those God "predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" (Rom. 8:30). And justified--not by works--but by faith alone (Rom. 3:28).

So is it not possible for God to choose a person unconditionally--that is, not based on foreseen faith--yet His sovereign choice is what leads that person to repent and trust in God? For Smith this is an impossible option since faith is something that is "truly independent."

Loraine Boettner is quoted as saying this: "The redemption of the soul is infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen" (pg. 28). Then Smith says, "That's not just election, but redemption. Which is to say salvation."

Is this really salvation by divine election pinned against salvation by faith or even by repentance? Is it not the same as what the Scripture says about our redemption in Ephesians 1:4-8, namely that our redemption is determined not based on anything foreseen in us, but based on His own good pleasure?

Then we look up at what Loraine Boettner said in context. This is from his book, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (phrase quoted by Smith in bold):

"Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: 'Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills...'

"The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated."

Notice that this section in Boettner's book is on salvation of those who die in infancy. This strikes me as a highly relevant context.

Boettner quotes B.B. Warfield who says, "their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice" but also that "their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit." This is exactly what Calvinists, including Boettner, affirm; that God unconditionally chooses men, women, and infants unto salvation. This is what Boettner says few pages before this section: "Foreseen faith and good works, then, are never to be looked upon as the cause of the Divine election. They are rather its fruits and proof. They show that the person has been chosen and regenerated."

Smith's logic goes like this: man's choice and faith are "truly independent." God's unconditional election would nullify that independence. Therefore, if Calvinism is true, man is not truly saved by faith. But Bible teaches that we are saved by faith. Therefore, Calvinism is false.

In other words, Calvinism is false because Arminianism is true. =D