The following article was written by Chris Bolt @ ChoosingHats.com

Introduction

In April 1518 Martin Luther was called upon by the Augustinian order of Germany to set out and defend his theology at the General Chapter of Heidelberg. While Luther was rather thoroughly surrounded by controversy he would be presenting the theological ideas which had produced this controversy to those who shared much of his Augustinian thinking. The name of the presentation Luther delivered is the Heidelberg Disputation. The Heidelberg Disputation consists of a number of theses divided between philosophical theses and theological theses. The theological theses are explained in much greater detail than are the philosophical theses. Luther actually overlooks further explanation of his philosophical theses and chooses instead to let them stand on their own whereas after initially stating his theological theses he returns to them in order to further explicate and defend them. Perhaps this is a reason that the philosophical theses are largely overlooked in literature written on Luther. It may also be that theologians do not want to interact with strictly philosophical concepts in Luther and by extension Aristotle or that the philosophers who would perhaps be better suited to address Luther’s understanding of Aristotle are simply not generally interested in Luther as a philosopher. Whatever the reason is for the relative silence regarding Luther’s philosophical theses in his Heidelberg Disputation it is evident that Luther’s theology and philosophy are inextricably connected to one another so that a deeper understanding of Luther’s philosophical theses lends greater insight into Luther’s theology and vice versa.[1]

Heidelberg Disputation

The Heidelberg Disputation is of utmost importance “for understanding Luther’s developed theology.”[2]

Here he not only expanded his theology of sin, grace, and free will, but also offered his own positive theological agenda centered in the “theology of the cross” (theologia crucis). In this formulation of theological method we begin to hear Luther’s distinctive contribution.[3]
Sin, grace, and free will had everything to do with Luther’s theses on philosophy because he found the traditional use and abuse of Aristotle by the Catholic Church to be every bit as mistaken as the theology of the Catholic Church in general and for the same reasons.

Luther had come to think that the trouble with the whole tradition that had developed from Thomas Aquinas was that it tended to be dominated by its opening theological moves. Since the existence of God could be shown rationally or philosophically a style of theology developed that moved too smoothly from what could be known and comprehended clearly in creation to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though Thomas himself was clear that the saving mysteries could not be known by reason, much of the energy of subsequent theology went into these foundational questions.[4]
Sin has such far reaching consequences that the intellect of humanity is affected by it and hence is not trustworthy when utilized apart from the revelation of God. Grace is necessary not only for salvation but also to free the mind from its mistaken philosophical wanderings. Salvation does not come through human reasoning by way of philosophy operating in accord with itself or in accord with unaided and unregenerate human thought. Luther thus went after those places where the faulty and incomplete views on sin, grace, and free will held by the Catholic Church had resulted in faulty philosophy as well. The Catholic Church was essentially basing their theology upon pagan philosophy. Luther believed this to be a completely backward approach and insisted upon having his theology of the cross as the lens through which both philosophy and theology may be correctly understood and used. To do otherwise is to contradict Scripture.

The theologians of Martin Luther’s day were infatuated with imposing unbiblical ideas upon the doctrine of God and the Bible through secular philosophy.

This could obscure what St. Paul had taught so forcefully: the cross of Christ is not a concept compatible with human wisdom and philosophy, but only with deep folly and offense. The cross is not inspiring but a scandal. Therefore the true theologian is not the one who argues from visible and evident things (following Aristotle), but rather the one who has learned from the cross that the ways of God are hidden (des absconditus), even in the revelation of Jesus Christ.[5]
The Heidelberg Disputation is rather well developed with Luther elaborating upon his philosophy and theology by drawing out conclusions from Scripture and showing how the views of different theologians relate to one another and also his own view.[6]

What emerges in this document is Luther’s radically grace-centered theology that sets the righteousness of God not only against the claims of philosophy for wisdom, but also against all the best moral achievement of humanity. It is an appeal to rediscover the sharp voice of Augustine (especially in his controversy with Pelagius), which apparently had become muted even in the Augustinian order.[7]
Of course, Augustine was hardly Luther’s only resource in theological controversy. The words and works of Luther are saturated with biblical thought and he no doubt had passages of Scripture in mind even while writing out his theses concerning philosophy.

Scripture

In 1 Corinthians 1.18-25 the Apostle Paul writes concerning the Gospel or “word of the cross.” It will be shown that Luther alludes to this passage during the course of presenting his philosophical theses when he speaks of becoming “thoroughly foolish in Christ.” The word of the cross which is the Gospel is not perceived as being wise or even reasonable by those who reject it. Those who have received the word of the cross view it as being the power of God and are being saved by it. It is likely that their being saved by the word of the cross is one of the reasons they do view the cross as the power of God. Meanwhile, those who are not being saved but are perishing count the word of the cross as folly. They consider it foolishness rather than power or wisdom and consider themselves to be wise even in their proclamation that the cross is foolish.

Paul quotes from the Old Testament that God will destroy the “wisdom of the wise.” In Paul’s context the “wise” at least includes the Greeks. Aristotle, whom Luther is writing about in his philosophical theses, is thus numbered among the wise of Paul’s passage. In verse 20 Paul asks rhetorically, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” In verse 21 Paul appeals to the wise counsel of God as ultimately behind the placement of human reason in God’s redemptive plan. It is not possible for someone to come to know God through wisdom. Wisdom might be taken to refer more specifically to human wisdom, reasoning, or philosophy. God has determined that the world will not know Him through wisdom. Perhaps the reason for this is the weakness of humanity’s reasoning, the arrogance which often accompanies human wisdom, the uneven inclinations people have toward philosophical understanding, or something else along these lines. Not surprisingly Luther appeared to ground the folly of using reasoning as a path to God in the inability of humanity resulting from sin. The verse does not give a reason for God’s having determined that human wisdom would have the place that it does in His redemptive plan. What the passage does state is that it was wise of God to make things this way. It is “in the wisdom of God” that the world “did not know God through wisdom.”

Paul goes on in verse 21 to explain that while wisdom is not a route to the knowledge of God foolishness is for “it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Paul is following verse 18 and presenting his case from the perspective of those who are perishing and believe that the “word of the cross is folly.” Paul and the Apostles preached what is considered folly, not wisdom, because they preached the Gospel message which is the word of the cross. God is nevertheless pleased in saving those who believe this message that is considered foolishness by the standards of even the wisest reprobate.

Verses 22 and 23 describe Greeks or Gentiles as seeking wisdom but finding the preaching of Christ crucified to be folly. What is true for the Greek of Paul’s time is no less true for the earlier Aristotle or any other number of other people for whom the message of the cross is foolishness as compared to the human wisdom some attempt to use in order to come to know God. All people come to the saving knowledge of God not through the means of human wisdom, but through belief in the Gospel. In verse 18 those who see the word of the cross as the power of God are those who are being saved, in verse 21 those who are being saved are those who believe the word of the cross, and in verse 24 those who see Christ as the power and wisdom of God are those who are called from both the Jews and the Greeks. The difference between those who see the cross as foolishness and those who see it as power and wisdom is that the latter are saved while the former are not. The reason that some are saved while others are not is because the saved have believed on Christ. The reason that some Greeks believe while others do not is not because of wisdom, but because of God’s call based in His gracious election. People are ultimately saved not because they are wiser than others, but because they are chosen by God. (1 Corinthians 1.27) Hence the route to the knowledge of God according to the Bible is by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2.8)

Philosophy

In his 29th thesis Luther writes that, “He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ.”[8] In this statement Luther does not dismiss philosophy as such or even Aristotelian philosophy but rather makes a qualification for its use. Failure to qualify the use of Aristotelian philosophy in the way Luther suggests results in danger to one’s soul. In order to both use Aristotelian philosophy and avoid danger to the soul one must “become thoroughly foolish in Christ.” It seems that Luther is here alluding to 1 Corinthians 1.18-25. The prerequisite to using Aristotelian philosophy is becoming foolish in Christ. The interpretation is that while Aristotelian philosophy will not deliver one’s soul it is still useful. Becoming foolish in Christ is having faith in Jesus. Interpreted in slightly broader terms faith in Christ Jesus precedes a right use of reason. This broader interpretation is warranted given the nature of the philosophical theses in the Heidelberg Disputation, the context of Luther’s other works, and the arbitrariness which would be entailed by suggesting that Luther rejected Aristotle alone or thought that other philosophers could be used without danger to the soul and without faith in Christ. While Luther emphasizes the foolishness of following Christ he also points out problems in Aristotle’s philosophy and if nothing else establishes that Aristotle’s philosophy is inconsistent with Scripture. Luther highlights that God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise as exemplified in Aristotle.

Luther continues his philosophical theses by stating in his 30th thesis that, “Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian.”[9] That “becoming foolish in Christ” is properly understood as exercising “faith in Christ Jesus” as mentioned earlier is confirmed by the thirtieth thesis in that Luther states that his use of “fool” is synonymous with “Christian”. Here Luther uses an analogy of a married man. The analogy pertains to the use of philosophy.

Conceivably there are many things that a married man is able to “use” well that an unmarried man is not able to use well. Luther provides the example of the “evil of passion.” That philosophy in general is in view is clear in this thesis and confirms the conclusions drawn from the previous thesis. In order to philosophize well or in order to be a good philosopher one must be a fool which Luther here explains is a Christian. Luther’s use of “fool” mimics the Bible, but it also matches Luther’s tendency to revel in paradox and antithesis. Luther is implying that the fool is wise. It is not just that one cannot use philosophy without danger to the soul without being a Christian, but it is also that the Christian actually uses philosophy better and does so through faith. Presumably faith is the lens through which everything else must be viewed. To put it another way; faith precedes reason and gives way to its rightful use. Philosophical reasoning which is predicated upon faith is something which is useful, does not damn the soul, and can be done well. Over against this the person without faith will find philosophy useless (even if he or she is not cognizant of this fact), damning, and poorly done. These contentions match quite well with the testimony of the passage provided above. Luther is likely attempting to argue from what he has read before in the Bible concerning the philosophical wisdom of the world.

Luther does not argue for his assertions philosophically but he has no need to. If philosophical theses are inconsistent with what Scripture has to say concerning philosophy then they are to be rejected. Luther is showing that traditional philosophical theses accepted by the Catholic Church as a part of tradition are at the very least in many cases inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. Luther provides a number of examples in Aristotle. Luther writes, “It was easy for Aristotle to believe that the world was eternal since he believed that the human soul was mortal.”[10] In this 31st thesis Luther moves on to argue against specific allegedly Aristotelian ideas and starts with Aristotle’s belief that the world was eternal. Luther contends that it was “easy” for Aristotle to believe that the world is eternal. The human soul, by contrast, is mortal. Whatever else this means; Luther is highlighting that Aristotle’s understanding of the world as eternal is in some way consistent with Aristotle’s position that the soul is mortal. For Luther, both the proposition that the world is eternal and the proposition that the soul is mortal are false. Christian theology would have it that the world was created and so is not eternal and that the soul will go on after death. Luther at the very least argues that Aristotle’s views on the nature of the soul and world, while possibly consistent with one another, are nevertheless inconsistent with Christian theology.[11]

Luther next calls the implications of Aristotle’s theory of forms into question in the 32nd thesis. In Aristotle’s theory there are material forms. Luther points out that if the number of material forms is the same as the number of created things then it follows that all created things are material.[12] Following Luther; accepting Aristotle’s theory of the forms appears to lead to accepting that all created entities are material entities. If this is correct then it is certainly inconsistent with particular tenets of Christianity. Luther also mentions that, “Nothing in the world becomes something of necessity; nevertheless, that which comes forth from matter, again by necessity, comes into being according to nature” before moving on to another important point in Aristotle.[13]

In his 34th thesis Luther writes, “If Aristotle would have recognized the absolute power of God, he would accordingly have maintained that it was impossible for matter to exist of itself alone.” It is important to realize that Luther did not believe that Aristotle had come to recognize the absolute power of God. This fact points again to the inability of humanity to come to a saving knowledge of God by way of pagan, faithless philosophy. If Aristotle himself did not make it to the God of the Bible then how can one following Aristotle without first placing his or her faith in Christ ever hope to reach the God of the Bible in his or her own conclusions? Aristotle maintained that matter actually existed of itself alone. The material world had always existed. If it is actually the case that matter has always existed then it is obviously possible that matter has always existed of itself alone. Luther points out that Aristotle’s view that it is possible for matter to exist of itself alone is actually inconsistent with a Christian view. Once the absolute power of God is recognized one cannot continue to hold as Aristotle did that it is possible for matter to exist of itself alone. The world in Aristotle’s view is self-existent while in Christianity only God is self-existent. God alone has always existed and does not depend upon the world in any way. Thus to ascribe eternality to the world is to attempt to attribute to the world characteristics that God alone possesses. Luther continues to find fault with Aristotle in his 35th thesis where he writes, “According to Aristotle, nothing is infinite with respect to action, yet with respect to power and matter, as many things as have been created are infinite” and in his 40th thesis which states that, “To Aristotle, privation, matter, form, movable, immovable, impulse, power, etc. seem to be the same.”[14] Interestingly, Luther gives credit to other philosophers and criticizes Aristotle for having found fault with them. Thus in the 38th thesis Luther pits Aristotle against the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides and claims that the “disputation of Aristotle lashes out at Parmenides’ idea of oneness (if a Christian will pardon this) in a battle of air.”[15] Luther takes another swipe at Aristotle in his 39th thesis by criticizing him for not thinking that Anaxagoras was the “best of the philosophers” if it was in fact the case that “Anaxagoras posited infinity as to form.”[16]

Luther contends in his 36th thesis that “Aristotle wrongly finds fault with and derides the ideas of Plato, which actually are better than his own.”[17] Here Luther not only criticizes Aristotle, but praises Plato. He does so again in the 37th thesis not by first criticizing Aristotle, but by praising the Pythagoreans. The Pythagoreans who developed mathematics and held to the principles of mathematics as making up matter itself (“mathematical order of material things”) are said to have “ingeniously maintained” their philosophy. Obviously Luther was not a stranger to ancient Greek philosophy. He recognized the cleverness of the Pythagorean philosophy and gave Pythagoras credit for it but only as a precursor to exalting Plato’s doctrine of the interaction of ideas as being “more ingenious” than the observations of Pythagoras. In praising Plato in this way Luther implicitly reaffirms the more Platonic teachings of Augustine over against the more Aristotelian teachings of Thomas Aquinas while in the midst of his fellow Augustinians.

Theology

Luther’s theology is not wholly separate from his philosophy, and it may be argued that the two are very closely related to each other. Luther views philosophy through his theologia crucis. Parallel to the reasoning of humanity are the works of humanity which Luther explicitly addresses in his theological theses. It is not out of line with Luther’s contention in his theses to take his words pertaining to human ability to be just as applicable to reason as they are to other human works. Luther’s statement that “he who acts simply in accordance with his ability and believes that he is thereby doing something good does not seem worthless to himself, nor does he despair of his own strength” may be modified by replacing “strength” with “reason” without complaint from Luther.[18] Some indeed “strive for grace in reliance on” their own reasoning.[19] That this is not an unjustified move is confirmed by the 19th thesis where Luther writes, “That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20].”[20] Here Luther is explicitly addressing what he also addresses in his philosophical theses. Luther believes that recognizing the invisible things of God does not make one “wise” as Paul still calls the “theologians” of Romans 1.22 “fools”.[21] Heino O. Kadai comments on this 19th thesis.

The “invisible things of God,” His eternal power and deity, cannot be properly derived from a knowledge of things. Luther clearly rejects the Thomistic type of natural theology. But he does not reject a “natural” knowledge of God. As far as Luther is concerned, to move from below to above, from creation to the Creator via analogia entis is not sound theology.[22]
Instead, the person who is to be called a theologian “comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.”[23] Again the folly of the cross is set in opposition to the wisdom of the world. Kadai explains, “Here a contrast is established between the invisible nature of God and His majestic attributes (see Rom. 1:20) on the one hand, and His visible back side of humanity, weakness, and foolishness (1 Cor. 1:25) on the other.”

Further contrast emerges between knowledge of God from His works and from His suffering. A true theologian seeks God were God Himself has hidden His revelation: in the foolishness, humility, and shame of the cross.[24]

Luther continues to develop this insight in his commentary on the 20th theological thesis.

Luther understands 1 Corinthians 1.25 to teach that where humans misused their knowledge of God that they had through works, God provided knowledge of Himself through suffering, and this is how God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise.[25] People must come to know God on His own terms and this is why one must become foolish in Christ prior to using Aristotle properly without danger to the soul. According to Luther, “it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.”[26] One will not reach God through his or her own ability to reason as, “true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 [John 14.6]: ‘No one comes to the Father, but by me.”[27] The attempt on the part of those who would endorse the philosophy of Aristotle as the means of knowledge of God to know God on their own should be contrasted with the knowledge of God which God has already made available.

Using his reasoning power man may seek to know God by way of philosophical reflection or contemplation of created reality. In such cases the goal is the knowledge of God as He is in His naked majesty. Luther knew that such a quest was doomed to failure. Man simply cannot bear exposure to the glory of divine majesty.[28]
God has made Himself available to know through Christ Jesus. Where the “theologians of glory” were seeking knowledge of God through their own works and their own secularized philosophical thinking Luther turned to Scripture and warned that God had made Himself known in Jesus Christ. Knowledge of God is obtained by way of what God has done, and God uses that which the world deems folly to make Himself known.[29] In his 22nd thesis Luther argues that the love of wisdom comes as a result of not knowing yet hating the cross and that the desire for knowledge is only encouraged by the acquisition or pursuit of wisdom but is not satisfied by it.[30] The desire to become wise must be put away if one is to know true wisdom.

In other words, he who wishes to become wise does not seek wisdom by progressing toward it but becomes a fool by retrogressing into seeking folly. Likewise he who wishes to have much power, honor, pleasure, satisfaction in all things must flee rather than seek power, honor, pleasure, and satisfaction in all things. This is the wisdom which is folly to the world.[31]
Conclusion

It is clear just from a brief look at the philosophical theses of the Heidelberg Disputation that Luther did not wholly dismiss reason from theology. Luther’s view of the relationship between reason and faith is quite complex and addressing it ranges well beyond a discussion on the philosophical theses. Bernhard Lohse notes that Luther “could speak very harshly of the arbitrariness of human reason over against revelation.”[32]

Nevertheless, all his theological work reflects an established as well as extensively developed view of reason and its application, so that it will not do simply to emphasize the contrast between reason and revelation. Further, on the basis of Luther’s statements it is necessary to distinguish reason’s tasks within the scientific sphere and the sphere of temporal authority, and reason in view of the relation to God.[33]
Just the brief look at Luther’s philosophical theses show that while he is extremely critical of Aristotle and philosophy in general he also leaves room for them to be used once one has become completely foolish in Christ, as “The service of the ratio is indispensable and necessary, but the danger of overstepping its bounds is always present.”[34] What Luther wants to prevent is giving in to the temptation to set reason up as dealing “autocratically with God’s Word.”[35] Lohse nicely summarizes Luther’s view.

According to Luther, not only in the person prior to the revelation but in the Christian as well the ratio is continually in danger of becoming autocratic and of wanting to judge God’s activity according to its own criteria. This made it impossible for him to describe the spheres of ratio and revelation as merely supplementing each other. His ambivalence concerning a possible natural knowledge of God or its impossibility ruled out the notion that the ratio can as it were develop ideas regarding the doctrine of God that could serve as basis for ideas derived from revelation. Nor can the spheres of ratio and revelation be set in mere opposition to each other. The danger of the ratio’s autocracy exists prior to as well as following revelation.[36]
In the end a discussion of reason in Luther is perhaps somewhat beside the point when it comes to the philosophical theses. What Luther is after in both his philosophical theses and his corresponding theological theses in the Heidelberg Disputation is the necessity of avoiding a theology of glory and striving instead to be a theologian of the cross.

Original article located @ http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=1520

——————————————————————————–

[1] Martin Luther. “Heidelberg Disputation (1518),” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings: Second Edition. ed. Timothy F. Lull. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 47.

[2] Ibid. 47.

[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] Ibid. 47.

[5] Ibid. 47.

[6] Ibid. 47.

[7] Ibid. 47.

[8] Ibid. 49.

[9] Ibid. 49.

[10] Ibid. 49.

[11] Ibid. 49.

[12] Ibid. 49.

[13] Ibid. 49.

[14] Ibid. 50.

[15] Ibid. 50.

[16] Ibid. 50.

[17] Ibid. 50.

[18] Ibid. 57.

[19] Ibid. 57.

[20] Ibid. 57.

[21] Ibid. 57.

[22] Heino O Kadai. “Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” in Accents In Luther’s Theology: Essays in Commemoration of the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation. ed. Heino O. Kadai. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1967), 241.

[23] Luther, Heidelberg, 57.

[24] Kadai, Accents, 241-242.

[25] Luther, Heidelberg, 57.

[26] Ibid. 57.

[27] Ibid. 57.

[28] Kadai, Accents, 240.

[29] Ibid. 240-241.

[30] Luther, Heidelberg, 58.

[31] Ibid. 58.

[32] Bernhard Lohse. Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development. ed. Roy A. Harrisville. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 196.

[33] Ibid. 196.

[34] Ibid. 204-205.

[35] Ibid. 204.

[36] Ibid. 203.

Some words in the Bible can be somewhat ambiguous. Usually it has more to do with the modern context of the word than the author’s use. Either way, we often end up with a problem reading the Bible today. What does this word mean in it’s context?

Sometimes the problem can be huge, and can send your theology in a completely wrong direction. As a matter of fact, some cults are built entirely on a few words being misunderstood to mean something they don’t.

Today we’ll concentrate on a word that makes a big difference. If it’s understood one way, God is completely reactionary to what human beings do; and the other way, makes God the proactive initiator of salvation based on nothing in man.

That word is “foreknow”.

Foreseen Faith

There is a theological system that hangs on a doctrine of foreseen faith. That is that before creation, God looked into the future and saw who would believe in Jesus. The ones whom He saw would believe are the ones He chose to save. This, according to the subscribers of the doctrine (we’ll call the doctrine “simple foreknowledge”), is what the Bible means when it talks about “the elect”. So election is not based on God’s sovereign unconditional choice, but election is a conditional reaction to God’s foreknowledge of future events.

I’m convinced this doctrine would not exist if it weren’t for two texts:

“To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:” -1 Peter 1:1-2

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

In both of these texts the proponents of simple foreknowledge believe that “foreknowledge” and “foreknow” are actually shorthand for “foresee who would believe in Jesus”.

Defining Our Terms

Let’s look at the word foreknow. What does the word mean? Can it have multiple meaning? Is there a more obvious meaning in the contexts? Let’s do a little work (Though this study would be better done in the original Greek, I think the translated word is straightforward enough for those who don’t know Greek, like myself, to grasp the issues.)

Simply defined ‘fore’ means previous, and ‘know’ means have knowledge of. So the simplest definition we can conjur is ‘previously have knowledge of’. Good start.

Biblical data also shows us that ‘know’ can also have a few other connotations.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” -Jeremiah 1:5

Here the parallelism demonstrates “before I formed you in the womb” is to “before you were born” as “I knew you” is to “I consecrated you”. So we see that know can mean set aside, or consecrated.

“It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought…” -Hosea 13:5

Here the Bible uses ‘knew’ to speak of God’s providential care for Israel in the wilderness. Know can mean ‘care for’.

“I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” -Matthew 7:23

In this text Jesus certainly isn’t talking about bare knowledge, but some kind of intimate relational knowledge. It’s not that He didn’t know of the false professors that cast out demons in His name, it’s that he wasn’t their Savior by relationship. So know can also mean ‘intimate relationship’

The Bible uses this word often to portray sexual intercourse as well. “Adam knew Eve”(Genesis 4:1), “Cain knew his wife” (Genesis 4:17), “Elkanah knew Hannah his wife” (1 Samuel 1:19).

I’m comfortable collapsing all of these alternate definitions into a general concept of intimate, relational, love.

So here are the definitions we have to work with for foreknow:
1. have previous knowledge (simplest definition)
2. previously have intimate love for (more complex, but very Biblical)
3. previously see faith exercised in (not a definition of the word, but believed to be shorthand)

Working With Our Definitions

Since 1 Peter 1:1-2 simply states that election is based on foreknowledge, we’ll concentrate on Romans 8:29, since the text gives us an order, and a result. Whatever conclusion we arrive at will also apply to 1 Peter.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

Let’s replace the word foreknew with out definitions, and see how each one fares.

1. For those whom he [had previous knowledge of] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Ok, so we have an omniscient God who can see all things, and all people. Good. The obvious problem is that that God had previous knowledge of everyone, and since there is no delineator to narrow it down, we’d be saying that all people are predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus. Unless we’re Universalists, this will not do. Next!

2. For those whom he [previously had intimate love for] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Now we see a cohesive, if not offensive, thought. It would appear, as in Matthew 7:23 that God has an intimate love for a specific group of people, that he doesn’t share with all people (depart from me I never knew you). If this is the correct understanding it would gel very well with God’s election of Israel over against all other nations, and the New Testament talk of the Church being God’s “elect”. Look what Paul says about the same predestination in Ephesians:

“In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…” -Ephesians 1:5

3. For those whom he [previously saw would believe in Jesus] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…

Again, unlike the first definition, we have a mostly cohesive thought. The first problem is just the simple flow of the sentence. We’re coupling a completely passive verb (observing) with an active verb (predestining) and linking them with “also”. This is not the way cause and effect is communicated. We don’t say “those whom he observed, he also did something with”, we’d say “those whom he observed, he in turn did something with.”

Secondly we’re trying to force the idea of foreseen events (personal excercise of faith) into a context of foreknown people. It doesn’t say God would know what they would do (true as that may be), it says He knew them.

The much bigger problem is that the word “foreknow” simply can’t be defined by such a loaded definition. It would have to be proven with more Biblical data, that the author was implying something so in-depth as a foreseen decision, and uses a single word for brevity. But again, there is no other Biblical data to build this doctrine. The expanded definition is built, circularly, on the very texts that require the expanded definition to give the desired result. Until it can be proven that ‘foreknow’ should actually be understood as ‘foreknow who would have faith’, it makes no sense to understand it that way. The only reason anyone would do so is because of a tradition passed down to them by a theology needing the word to have such a definition.

Definition 2 is the only one that can be used meaningfully. Now let’s try this definition in the other text, 1 Peter 1:1-2.

“To those who are elect… according to the [previous love] of God the Father…”

Perfect. We see God actively electing a people based on the love He had before the foundation of the world. Sounds very similar to:

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— …” -Ephesians 2:4-5

The Killer Text

I’ve demonstrated that only one definition of the word ‘foreknow’ can confidently be used in this context. Now you may ask if the actual word ‘foreknew’ is used in any other place in the new testament in a way that can support the definition I’ve concluded.

Paul, only 3 chapters later in Romans uses this exact same word in a way that makes it abundantly clear that this is the proper way to understand this word in context.

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For 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.” -Romans 11:1-2

Paul is not talking about foreseen faith. As a matter of fact he’s talking about national Israel who largely DO NOT believe. Paul is explaining that God has not turned His back on His fore-loved people.

Now, it should be noted that while this demonstrates the meaning of the word, it’s not being used in the same context. One group He’s fore-loved and elected as His chosen people under the old covenant (and has not abandoned them now). The other group He’s fore-loved and elected for salvation in Christ. Those “who are loved by God and called to be saints…” -Romans 1:7.

Romans 11:1-2 demonstrates that Paul does not use ‘foreknew’ as shorthand for ‘foreseen faith’, but that he is speaking of unconditional electing love. He is referring to a special kind of love that God does not have for all people. He is referring to a purposed choice God made before the creation of the world to love a people because of “nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-” -Romans 9:11

Now with this amazing fore-love in mind, let’s see what God does with these people.

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” -Romans 8:29-30

God chose a people based solely on His good pleasure and love, then he guaranteed those people would never see the flames of Hell. All of salvation is the active work of the Lord, alone. Even His foreknowledge.

Balance and Mystery

There is much talk in today’s Church about being balanced. While this is a healthy idea, there are many ways to understand balance. Do we mean balance in terms of giving room to both sides of Biblical teachings, or are we recommending some idea of doctrinal agnosticism?

It’s nearly impossible to get into any kind of meaningful conversation about doctrine today without hearing something like, “People have been arguing about these things for centuries. Who are we to think we’ve figured it out.”. Is God mysterious?

“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever…” -Deuteronomy 29:29

While appealing to mystery is necessary when we talk about God and His ways (The secret things belong to God.), we have to be careful not to pull the mystery card prematurely. We have to look at all that the Bible tells us about a topic, so we’re sure we understand what’s being said (The things that are reveled belong to us). Then, where the Bible stops, we stop and worship the God who is beyond our comprehension.

Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty – the Seeming Paradox

The issue at hand is the idea that while God is sovereign, meaning that he orchestrates all events in time for His purposes, man is also held accountable for what he does or doesn’t do. This should strike us as paradoxical.

If God is making everything happen, how are we still doing anything? Or conversely, if our choices are real, and subject to God’s judgement, how can God be orchestrating those choices and events? The Bible seems to simply present both of these ideas, says they’re true, but doesn’t tell us how exactly they work together. So we’re left with an appeal to the mysterious power of God.

Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty in Salvation – The Misunderstanding

This correct doctrinal paradox of responsibility and sovereignty seems to have flowed over into categories today, that it was never intended for. And it appears, for the sake of political correctness, mystery is being appealed to in areas that the Bible is not mysterious.

Today’s ‘autonomous free will’ oriented Church has taken historic orthodox language and misused it to help it’s own faulty theology. A misrepresentation of the conversation is the result.

Today we find preachers teaching that since the Bible teaches that we have to come to Christ to be saved, this means that man has a free will, but the Bible also teaches that God is in control… and this is mysterious. They’ll produce verses that indicate a universal gospel call, commanding all men to come, using them as proof texts to demonstrate free will.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” -Matthew 11:28

“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve…” -Joshua 24:15

“…And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” -Revelation 22:17

So, there is undoubtedly a free offer to all men to come to Christ. And they go on to demonstrate that God is also in control of these things:

“…having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” -Ephesians 1:11

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” -Romans 8:29

Some will rest here, simply saying “Man has free will, and God is sovereign… we just have to deal with it.”(which is admirable, especially when we consider the more common alternative).

Usually at this point the ‘free will’ preacher will redefine predestination and election, and teach that God simply foreknew who would believe, and elected them based on their choice. Sadly, they don’t realize that they’ve actually left their original argument at this point, they’ve rejected mystery, removed God’s choice and set up man’s choice as the sole deciding factor. No more paradox… just an unbiblical doctrine of foreknown decisional salvation.

Human Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty in Salvation – All the Biblical Data

We’ve already established the parts that modern free will Christianity has right:

1. Christ has made a free offer to all men to be saved, and man must come to be saved.

2. God is in control (to varying degrees, depending on tradition), and he is working all things to the council of his will.

But we can’t simply rest here and attribute to point 1 the idea that man is free to choose, until we’ve weighed all the data. Is man free to accept or reject this offer? Jesus says no.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” -John 6:44

“…no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” -Matthew 11:27

Paul supports this idea of man’s inability to obey God and come to Christ:

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” -Romans 8:7-8

“…no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.” -1 Corinthians 12:3

The Bible’s ACTUAL teaching is that yes, a free offer is made, but no one CAN come unless they’re first chosen, enabled, drawn, and enlightened to truth of the gospel. An inward change, by God, is necessary. And until that change occurs man is unable to come.

Is man responsible for the choice he makes concerning Jesus? Yes.

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” -John 3:18

Is man able to actually choose Christ, apart from the electing, regenerating grace of God? No.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” -John 6:65

“…but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” -John 10:26

Conclusion

We need to clarify terms that seem to have been cross. Human responsibility to believe (clearly taught in scripture) is not the same as human ABILITY to believe (strictly taught negatively in scripture). So as far as free will… we have none. We make choices, but our will is bound to our sinful nature.

The question of how God and man work together in salvation is not a paradox. ALL of salvation is God’s doing, as man is incapable of contributing. Every part of our responsibility being fulfilled is a gift from God to His people. Man and God DO NOT work together in salvation. Man is a passive recipient of God’s free gift, then man exercises the faith he’s been gifted.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” -Ephesians 2:8-9

The paradoxical discussion of mans’ responsibility and God’s sovereignty was never about ‘free-will’. it’s about how we can keep from being puppets, when God is the orchestrator of everything. How are we accountable, when God makes everything happen? When we correctly understand the argument we ask the obvious (Biblical) question:

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” -Romans 9:19

The question is profound… but the answer is heavy and glorious, and should press the unbiblical concept of free will in salvation out of us, as we’re humbled like the creatures we are.

“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” -Romans 9:20-21

Here, my friends, is where we rest. In God’s right to do what He wants with what’s His. Mysterious as it all may be.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” -Ephesians 2:8-9

The idea that in order to become born again, we must first express faith in the gospel, is a popular one. Most Churches today teach that you must choose Jesus, then the Holy Spirit will come in and make some changes in you.

I would like to take a moment to think through this process logically, and see if it is a Biblical concept, or one that simply helps support certain traditions. I invite comments and further discussion, as I feel it’s an incredibly important topic.

Here are a few of the limitations of man in His natural, unregenerate state. Before we are born again:

• we can not submit to God, or do anything pleasing to Him.

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” -Romans 8:7-8

• the gospel is foolishness to us.

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing…” -1 Corinthians 1:18

• we do not seek for God

“no one understands; no one seeks for God.” -Romans 3:11

With these concepts in mind. Let’s think through what it would look like for a man to believe in Jesus for his salvation, before the Holy Spirit is indwelling that man.

The Scenario

There you are. A sinner, that suppresses the obvious truths of God around you (Romans 1:19-20). Someone comes to you and shares the gospel. They tell you a story about God becoming a man, and dying for anyone who will believe in Him, then coming back to life and ascending into Heaven. Unless you are some exception to the human race, you aren’t interested in seeking this God (Romans 3:11), and this story is sheer nonsense to you (1 Corinthians 1:18).

At the very most, you’ve received information about a religion. You need to make a decision between the Christian religion, the Jewish one, the Muslim one, the Buddhist one, and the secular worldview that everyone else believes. Your gospel-preaching friend shares some historic facts about Jesus, which are nice, but he’s obviously biased. There is no real supernatural help (other than any help God already gives to everyone equally) until you make your profession, so you’re on your own to weigh the facts. Now, let’s say your friend is a good salesman, and is rather persuasive.

Now he commands you to repent and believe the gospel. He’s asking you to do something very strange. You’ve heard what is no more than a fairy tale to you, and in reality, you don’t really believe it. You need to take an absolutely blind leap into darkness and place your trust in something that your mind is convinced is not actually there. You need to lie to yourself, to your kind friend who brought you the message, and indeed to Jesus Himself, and say you believe that Jesus died for you, and rose again.

So you accept the superstition and decide to try it. You recite what is really no more than a God-ordained magical incantation. THEN the Holy Spirit comes in. He basically turns the magical spell into a true statement, and now you REALLY believe Jesus because of your born again experience and all the other applied work of the Holy Spirit.

Is this really how we think it works? Is salvation initiated by a hokus-pokus prayer or confession that gets God to do something? Or is the order that the modern Church has come to embrace actually reversed? Is it actually God who opens your eyes first, followed by your true confession of faith?

What Does Scripture Have to Say About It?

“Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.” -1 Corinthians 12:3

Scripture tells us that until we are indwelled with the Holy Sprit, it’s impossible for us to make a true confession of faith. We are not told to blindly profess a lie, but that once God has given us His Spirit, we, without exception say “Jesus is Lord”.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” -John 6:44

Again we see that we are incapable of coming to Jesus without God’s doing the work.

“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” -John 3:3

Once again we see the absolute limitation. We “cannot see the kingdom of God”, until we are born again.

We are so spritiually deaf, blind and indeed dead (Ephesians 2:5) that we need to be brought to spiritual life BEFORE we are able to believe, and be saved.

“everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” -1 John 5:1

Even for a moment old believer, they have been “born of God” – past tense.

No Spritual Limbo

One easy misunderstanding that may come from this kind of language is that there is actually some amount of time that a person is regenerated, and hasn’t expressed faith in Christ yet – sort of in between stage. This is not the case.

Regeneration and the subsequent faith are instantaneous in time. Scripture never puts any time in between the two, because they are a package deal

Here’s a helpful way to think about it: Regeneration and faith are like a light switch and a light bulb. God is the one who proactively flips the switch on, and you, the bulb then produce the light of faith. So when I say ‘regeneration precedes faith’ I don’t mean in a temporal sense, but I mean that God makes you spiritually alive first… and a ’spiritually alive’ person necessarily has faith.

The Implications of a Right Understanding

Why does it matter which comes first? The answer is very simple. If we understand who produced the faith in us, then the right person gets the glory for it.

If YOU, in your spiritual sensitivity and wisdom, saw that this gospel business made sense, when all the rest of the world reject it, you deserve some commendation. At least in part, your whole time in Heaven is based on that smart decision you made to choose Jesus. Some of the glory God demands in salvation would go to you.

If, as the Bible tells us, GOD chose to have mercy on you, open your eyes to Him, and give you the gift of faith… then all the glory goes to it’s rightful place. Let’s not attempt to share in God’s glory. Let’s praise God for opening our eyes by grace alone, and not by our own doing or willing (Romans 9:15-16).

Let’s praise God for his Sovereign regenerating work, and not see it as a threat. Because without it, none of us would ever come to Him.

“And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”" -John 6:65

Sorry for the late post today, but I have a good one. This song is called “The Godhead”. In 4:19, Flame takes on a journey of the Trinity controversy in the early church all the way up to modern day controversies. This is a song of information and transformation. A song to study and a song to worship! For we understand that God has revealed Himself as the Trinity and should be worshiped and praised as such. It’s very important that we are knowledgeable on these issues. So that, if anyone opposes us we can have an answer. But more importantly, so that we can know God rightly in order to worship Him rightly.

Verse 1:
God eternally exists
as being three in His personages
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and each person is
fully God and there is only one God who subsists
so chew on this/ cause this is meat and I’m certain of this
His prerogative could have been to conceal Himself
but we serve a God who has chose to reveal Himself
to be certain of who we servin’ let’s search the text
because it’s urgent that we worship Him for who He is
the topic of the Trinity should evoke some emotion
for those who are chosen
and also for those who oppose it examine close He’s distinctive in His entities
that’s why we contend for the Trinity in serenity
we have no Christianity if God is not triune
in that case we are were saved by whom
then creation was made by whom
then redemption was made by whom
the consummation will take place by whom

Hook: Pastor Joe
/T-R-I-N-I-T-Y/ It’s the trinity/ it’s the trinity/ oh blessed trinity

Verse 2:
If we could peer in the past and see a system called dynamic monarchianism
another system modalistic monarchianism
before the session we gone focus on one of the isms
modalistic monarchianism
get to the core or the center where the belly is
popularized by a guy named Sabellius
trying to fight for the position of monotheism
traditionally held by Jewish in they religion
and that’s true but he started trippin’ in his position
and said that God manifested Himself in different
modes at different times this is real twisted
that’s why a bishop named Athanasisus had resisted
in a meeting in Nicea in 325
A.D. where they debated was Jesus God
and if He was, was He the Father the first time
Jesus the second/ and Holy Spirit the third time
while affirmed that the Father is God
that the Son is God
and the Holy Spirit is God
good that ain’t gone solve it
cause the problem is this
it’s the simultaneousness
that he denied

Hook

Verse 3:
Modalism is back and its now packaged as Oneness Pentecostalism
and its growing in numbers now like the cost of living
and when they hear this I’ll be labeled a Pharisee
but the Assemblies of God already labeled it heresy
in the 20th century when it first emerged
and ever since its birth its been hurting the church
in conclusion a myriad of questions I ask
cause its confusing and steering away at the masses
I pose to you question number 1
you mean to tell me that the Father is the Son
well who was He praying to in the garden of Gethsemane
I guess you’ll say He was prayin’ to His deity
so you sayin’ that His human side
is prayin’ to His divine side
that is Father
In that case then there are two beings
in the person of Christ is that what you are seeing
no that’s not the scriptures that’s confusion
and it takes stabs at the hypostatic union
and that’s that the one Jesus
is 100% man and 100% God
not 100% Father and 100% Son

Hook

If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

Taken from A Defense of Calvinism by C.H. Spurgeon

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. -Jn 6:63

It is God who reveals the gospel to us through his spirit. If we count on our flesh to bring us salvation we completely avoid the gospel all together and we end up as either religious, moralistic, legalists on one side, or irreligious, hedonist, pacifist, relativists on the other.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. -Jn 1:14

II. The Gospel is Not Moralism/Legalism |The Religious

• They say, “I am more acceptable to God because of my accomplishments.”
• They believe a moral person derives his/her rules for morality from a holy God so, this way of living will lead to 1 of 2 things:

a) Self-Hatred because our flesh cannot obtain Gods requirements for holiness

b) Self-Worship because you think that through your own hard work have obtained the requirements for holiness

• Reality is, being this religious will never bring you to full joy and worship of Christ because you are too busy being happy when you feel like you’ve done good and too sad when you feel like you’ve done wrong, you are too busy worshiping yourself to even consider Christ and His gospel.

III. The Gospel is Not Relativism | The Irreligious

• They say, “God, if he exists, is accepting of whatever is truth to you.”
• They believe that everyone should determine what right and wrong is for them.
• They cannot believe that God is just and wrath comes with that justice, everyone goes to heaven, because 1 Jn 4:8 and 4:16 are the only two verses of the bible that they know. “God is Love and only Love”
• You might ask this person “What did that love cost your God?”

IV. The Gospel Is Not Only The Beginning

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. -1 Cor. 4:15

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? -Gal 3:1-3

…Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing—as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth. -1 Col. 1:5-6

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. -Phil 1:6

I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. -Phil 4:12-13

If we apply the gospel, Christ crucified, to everything in our life then we can be like this. High or low, rich or poor, if the Gospel is central than our joy can be eternal because His sufficient Grace through the gospel is eternal.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is summed up in these two verses of scripture.  That Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised back to life three days later, thus conquering death which gives us the hope that we too if we are found in Christ when we die will be raised to be with Him forever. While these two verses are a summation of the truth of the Gospel, and are of first importance,  it doesn’t tell the whole story…

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” – John 1:1-3

These verses are so rich in themselves and there is so much that we can talk about just in these scriptures but I want to focus the fact that in the beginning God made everything.  Specifically, all things were made through Jesus (the Word) and without Jesus nothing was made that was made. Everything was made by Christ.  the heavens, the earth, everything in the earth including the seas, the trees, all creeping things, as well as man and woman.  He created the garden of Eden for Adam and Eve, and God gave them charge over everything in the garden as well as the whole earth. – Gen. 1:28-30.

God gave them one command.  ”And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” – Gen. 2:16-17.  They could freely eat of any tree within the garden, but there was ONE tree that was forbidden to them.  Just like us today, we always want what we can’t have.  We can never be content with what we have.  Not only did they have no doubt hundreds of trees they could eat off of… but they had the privilege of being in the presence of Almighty God Himself, living in perfect harmony with the Creator of the universe!

We then read that the Serpent came by and persuaded Eve to eat of the forbidden tree.  Then she went to her husband and lured him into the deception of eating the fruit also.  - Gen. 3:1-7.

This is no small thing.  This tragic event has HUGE implications… I think too many times we tend to minimize what actually happened here in the garden of Eden that day.  It is not the fact that they ate the fruit from a certain tree that is in view here.  What IS in view is that Adam and Eve, our first parents, sinned against an infinitely holy God, transgressed the commandment of the God who had made them and gave them everything they had.  They decided that their way of doing things was so much better than God’s way.  Essentially, they were the ultimate authority… not the God who had created them.

Then we read on…   To the woman He said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.  Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  And to Adam He said,  “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” – Gen. 3:16-19.

and also we read… ‘Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.’ – Gen. 3:22-24.

Not only were they punished in the sense that woman would have pain in childbearing, and man would have to work the ground and earn his living by the sweat of his face… but God said that they would die physically.  It doesn’t end there though.  Notice that God drove them out of the garden, from His presence, and placed cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life.  This is a picture of the SPIRITUAL death that they will now experience.  Notice that they would never be able to earn their way back to God by making up for the wrong they had done.  They couldn’t go back and regain a good standing with God by undoing what they had done by eating of the tree of life on their own.  That way was now blocked. God would have to provide another way… IF He chose to do so.  I say IF because God did not have to.  He could have left them in their condition.  He could have left us all in our sinful state.  He is under NO obligation to rescue anyone.  He would be perfectly just in condemning us all to hell eternally.  Why is the punishment so severe? You might ask.  Well because of the nature of the Person whom they and we have offended.  God is infinitely HOLY, and thus the punishment for breaking His commands should be of an infinite nature.  God is righteous and just, we are unrighteous and full of wickedness.  “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;  Who can know it?” – Jeremiah 17:9.

From the time of Adam on, man would continue to try and find his own way to get back to God.  Man, sinful in nature because of the fall would never again be right with God.  God’s Word says that our nature since the fall has become enslaved to sin.  Romans 6:6, John 8:34, Romans 6:17, Romans 6:20.  This means that we can do nothing but sin. Nothing.  You might find this hard to believe since there are many “good” things that humans do all over the world.  There are hospitals, orphanages, shelters for the homeless, young men who help the elderly across the street… (well, there used to be anyway.)  Sure people do good things, I recognize that.  Remember that God doesn’t look on the outward, but on the inward.  He looks at the heart, its motivations and intentions.  The scripture says that, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” – Romans 14:23b.  Also, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” – Rom. 8:8.  And, “without faith it is impossible to please him…” – Heb. 11:6a.  What we can take from these scriptures is that nobody can please God apart from faith, and that everything that is not done by faith in Christ is SIN. So naturally this has to mean that if a person does not have faith in the Son of God everything they do is from a heart that is sinful by nature… enslaved to sin.  This has disastrous implications when it comes to humans trying to work their way to God or do things for God for merit on their own.  This is why there is absolutely NOTHING that we sinful, wicked humans can do to merit salvation.  Apart from saving faith in Jesus Christ, we are left without hope.  We are on our way to hell.  God would be totally just in sentencing us to such a punishment for our open rebellion toward Him everyday.  Reflect upon God’s Word:  “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” – Rom. 3:10-18.

We deserve Hell…

“BUT GOD, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Even when we dead in our trespasses… enslaved to sin… at enmity with God… without saving  faith toward God, God rich in mercy because He loved us made us alive by His grace and raised us up with Him to show forth the riches of His grace in kindness toward us.  He saved us.  It is not our own doing, it is His gift to us so that no one may boast.  And He planned for us to walk in good works (from faith) before everything began!

But how were we saved?  On what basis?

In accordance with God’s plan of redemption set forth from before the foundation of the world (Acts 4:27,28), God the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world in human form, the form of a lowly servant, born of a virgin.  He fulfilled all of the Law for us, keeping all of God’s commandments, living a totally sinless life.  He was betrayed by the Judas Iscariot, given into the hands of the Jewish religious leaders of the day and ultimately given up to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate to be nailed to a cross for a crime that He did not commit.  He suffered and died a horrible, shameful death on the cross for our crimes… all of our sin, our open rebellion, our hatred for God, all of it was laid on Jesus and He took it willingly as a substitutionary atonement for our sins.  He died for us, so that we who repent and trust (believe) in Him might live with Him!  You see, God was able to render us justified because of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.  He died a death that we should have died.  Our sins were transferred or imputed to Him, and His righteousness (or sinless perfection) was transferred or imputed to us so that when we stand before God after we die we will be welcomed into the presence of God on the basis of the work of His Son Jesus Christ.  After He died He was buried in a tomb and on the third day He rose from the grave and eventually ascended to heaven to the right hand of God thus triumphing over the power of death for us so that we who are found in Jesus can hope to triumph over death and live eternally with Him!  What a great God!! All those who believe this… who believe in Christ’s atoning work on their behalf and repent of their sins will be saved.  We do not work to merit favor with God any longer… but we rest in the Son, trusting that what He has done is sufficient for us! THIS IS THE GOSPEL.

In summary, God made us, and instead of finding our joy and satisfaction in Him we broke His commands and decided that our way was better.  We try and try to get back to God by trying to earn favor with Him using our own methods.  We deserve hell and God would be perfectly just in letting us go there but instead God was pleased to send Jesus to be a ransom for His people.  He was sinless and yet suffered, died, and was buried. He rose again three days later and conquered death for us.  Through repentance from sin and faith toward God we are saved on the basis of Christ’s substitutionary work.

Repent of all your wickedness and place your faith in Christ for salvation today!

I’ve been a Christian for 7 years. I’ve learned, I’ve grown, I’ve wondered. I came to believe a lot of things that I took for granted, but never thought too much about. But less than a year ago, God showed me something.

There is a solid Christianity that has been fought for, that people have died for. There have been Church councils, and controversial men, who stood up to revolt against corrupt practices, and unbiblical doctrines. We aren’t left in the dark to figure Christianity out all over again. The truth has been opened to, and passed down to us by, Saints past.

Not only has reformed theology opened my eyes to new things, but it’s cleared up so many thing that I believed, but I never really understood.

10. My Sin

I knew I was a sinner. I knew I needed to be forgiven. But just how much of a sinner, I had no idea. Sometimes I would say, “Wow, I didn’t sin much this week.”.

Now I know that it’s quite possible that I have never, for a second, obeyed the command “Love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength.”. I never took seriously Jesus’ words that looking at a woman with lust is to commit adultery, or that hating a man in your heart is murder. I ignored the fact that Jesus said “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” -Matthew 5:48

I finally understand that I sin every day, every hour… on some level I sin every moment of my life. This is how sinful I am. But God! Oh how merciful He is to such a sinner.

9. God Works All Things for My Good

This seemed like a nice idea, God works stuff out in the end. I don’t need to worry too much, because God can clean up the messes and put it back together.

But once I understood sovereignty, it all changed. God doesn’t just react to what people are doing, or the messes that pop up in life. He is “working all things” for the good of His people. He orchestrates everything, and my life isn’t left to chance for a split second. Nothing surprises Him, not because He knows it all, but because He’s actually in control.

8. Why We Pray for the Lost

This is something everyone does. We pray for our family and friends to be saved. We say things like “soften their hearts” or “reveal yourself to them”. It’s not something I ever thought about as incosistent with my beliefs, but now I see how strange it was.

If God couldn’t override people’s free will, how could He save them? How could He do anything different than the 100% He was already giving everyone, waiting fo them to make their decision. What does it mean to “soften a heart” other than “do more than You are doing to change their mind”?

Now I can pray fervently for God to override a family member’s sinful will, because I know that it’s their only hope. If God can’t touch our wills, we all go to Hell. God, destroy their will, and MAKE them love You, so they can be saved from Hell!

7. There is Now No Condemnation

I was always on the fence on the “can we lose our salvation?” question.  I’d seen and heard of epic backsliding and people who walked completely away from faith. So it only seemed logical that there were certain sins that could push us too far away from God.

The Bible says nothing in all of creation can separate us from the love that is in Christ, let alone the very thing he died to forgive. The gospel teaches that everything, past, present, and future is forgiven. So what could undo the work of Jesus and make us accused again?

Now I understand that sins aren’t counted against me, anymore. God convicts me to cease from sinning, but the condemnation and marks against me have been paid for. I’m truly free.

6. Jesus Took My Place

The idea that Jesus was in my place on the cross was another nice thought, and was truly my object of faith. But I believed He took everyone’s place on the cross, even people who would be in Hell. What kind of assurance can I find in a substitution that didn’t help such a large number of people it took the place of?  What does it mean to die in someone’s place, if not that they are pardoned?

I understand, now, that Jesus was laying His life down for His sheep… perfectly. Not one of the people who’s place He took on the cross will be in Hell. Anyone who does end up in Hell has not been atoned for.  Jesus truly, perfectly, and finally took my sins on Himself, not because I applied His blood to myself, but because the Father placed my sins, specifically, on His Son.

5. The Necessity of Prayer

I used to pray. I would pray especially hard when I messed up, or when something was completely out of my control. When I knew there was nothing I could do about a situation, I’d give it over to God. Other than that I’d pray very generally that God would help me in my life.

Reformed theology has opened my eyes to the truth that I am completely helpless. I’m 100% at God’s mercy. God could, if He wanted, take the faith out of my heart tomorrow. I’d wake up, shake my head, and say, “Wow, that Christianity faze was weird.” and get right back to my sinful life. God promises to never do that, but that’s how much we are  at His mercy.

I NEED God to live, I need him in every area because I’m powerless without Him. He’s the power that makes me flea from sin, help people, open His word, and even pray. Yes, we should pray that God would give us the desire to pray. God is truly our strength, so we must pray without ceasing if, or we are relying on our powerless flesh.

4. Being Born Again

When I look back, I don’t even know how I would have defined being born again.  I knew it was a change, maybe a feeling. I definitely knew that you needed to be born again to be saved, and I even knew the moment it happened to me. What it was, though, I’d be hard pressed to answer.

Oh boy! I could tell you now. It is the supernatural change of a God-hater into a God-lover. It’s the work of God to change a man’s entire nature. We are set free from slavery to sin, and made slaves of righteousness. We are new creations. Without it man can not believe the gospel or repent. Praise God for the free-will smashing new birth!

3. The Holy Spirit

What a mystery the Holy Spirit was. I believed in the trinity. Father – The one who calls the shots. Son – The one who came to earth to die for sin. Holy Spirit – um… it’s like a mist, that like… is everywhere. Kinda like the wind, I guess. And it… helps us.

Praise God for His Holy Spirit! The third Person of the trinity that works in God’s people. He’s IN me! It’s amazing! He’s the One that produces the fruit, the One that makes me understand the Bible, the One that makes me cry “Abba, Father!” The Holy Spirit confirms to my spirit that I’m in Christ. He perfects my broken prayers and praises. Without God’s Spirit inside us, we’d never know God.

2. The Necessity of the Gospel

I would, from time to time, share my faith. I would talk about how Jesus died, but the most important thing I was seeking was a decision. Offensive parts of the gospel, about sin and wrath… those don’t make people want to accept, so I’d minimize them. I would let people know that Jesus wanted to make them happier, and fulfill their lives, certainly not that He demands their submission and will take away their rights.

Now I know that apart from the clear, complete gospel, nobody can be saved. Anybody who signed a decision card or said a prayer based on a promise of ,”The Bible tells us that we can know where we go when we die. Come to Jesus and He’ll forgive you.”, is not going to heaven. They were deceived. People must hear about their sinfulness, the forgiveness on the cross, and the repentance God requires. This is how we are saved, through the gospel.

1. The Meaning of the Universe

God’s creation, I would guess, was an experiment in free-will. How will people respond to God becoming a man and dying? God was trying His hardest to save as many people as possible, but inevitably some would go to Hell, since it was their decision. Jesus died to make salvation possible, and God was going to be eternally frustrated by all the people that He loved who would be in Hell for eternity. In the back of my mind, I always had a theory that God would forgive them all and bring them into Heaven in the end, and we’d all rejoice.

Oh, how glorious God’s plan truly is. God’s number 1 priority is to show off His majesty and be glorified. God is beautiful, and when we see His beauty and respond in worship, we are fulfilling our entire purpose.  When we fail to love God, we are spitting in this glorious King’s face, and we will be punished.

The purpose of this creation is for God to demonstrate His power and mercy. The fall of Satan and Adam are all part of this amazing story. God’s righteous hatred toward sinners will display His awesome power for eternity. God became a man and redeemed mankind from His own wrath. All who He has mercy on will worship Him for eternity because of this amazing love displayed on the Cross. Heaven will be the most amazing pleasure imaginable, fulfilling the purpose of  creation. We will worship God, forever, because we’ll know what we were saved from. He displayed love beyond our comprehension! Praise God!

Can We Know God? – Tanner Barfield / Les Lanphere