Archive December 2005

God is not Mocked (2)

Last time I spoke on Galatians chapter 6 verses 7 and 8. There the apostle Paul tells us, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." These verses imply the disturbing reality that there are people who are indeed deceived about this obvious truth. They are deceived into thinking that God can be mocked, and that one can sow to his flesh and not reap destruction.

There is another place in Paul's letters where he uses the phrase, "Do not be deceived," and if for no other reason than to further our understanding on this passage in Galatians, it will be worthwhile for us to take a look at this other passage. I have in mind First Corinthians chapter 6, and when you get there, you can read with me, verses 9 and 10. He writes, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Here Paul again tells us not to be deceived, and the thing that he does not want us to be deceived about is the fact that "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God." And so we are again faced with the disturbing reality that people can be deceived about something as clear and as obvious as this, so that they would think that the wicked will indeed inherit the kingdom of God. Their thinking about right and wrong, about what pleases God, and about what God requires from them, is the very opposite of what God has revealed.

So lest anyone be confused, and lest anyone be deceived, Paul wishes to make his point clear, and that is the unalterable fact that "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God." Notice that Paul says it twice. He says it once in verse 9, and then after giving us a list of specific types of sinners, he says it again at the end of verse 10. He says again, "the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God." He is saying, "Do not be deceived. Make no mistake about this. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. And don't you dare think differently. The wicked it will never, never, never inherit the kingdom of God. God will not welcome them into heaven, but he will send them to hell to be punished and tortured forever."

And notice that here he does not give us only a list of sins, but he gives us a list of the people identified by the sins. Our society often separates the people from their actions, and if they condemn wickedness at all, they tend to condemn the actions, but excuse the people, perhaps as victims of their upbringing and circumstances. This twisted way of thinking has infiltrated the church and its theology, so that many believers even think that "God hates the sin, but he loves the sinner" is part of the gospel.

In one biblical dictionary, one scholar pointed out that the Hebrews did not separate the people from their actions, but from this premise, he immediately concluded that therefore God hates the sin but loves the sinner. I can't tell you exactly what was happening in his mind when he wrote this, but this conclusion is the very opposite of what the premise produces. You see, the premise came from his studies, but his conclusion came from his ingrained assumption that God cannot hate anyone in any sense. This assumption, of course, came from the world, and is now taught through the church. It was so much a part of this biblical scholar, that although his premise logically demanded the opposite, he blindly assumed that it led to his conclusion.

And this is how many people read the Bible today, they assume that their current beliefs are true and right, so that they think whatever they read from the Bible will lend support to them, even if the Bible teaches exactly the opposite of what they believe, and even if it condemns their beliefs and actions as wicked. Christians also often think this way because they have been influenced by the world. They have remaining sin in their hearts, and their minds are not yet completely renewed by the word of God. So, whether we are examining ourselves or helping somebody else, we must use the word of God to break through this spiritual blindness. This deception is real, potent, and stubborn. And so Paul emphasizes to us twice, that the wicked cannot inherit the kingdom of God. In all your thinking about God, sin, and salvation, don't get this wrong, and don't compromise this point.

If the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God, then who are these wicked people? Is someone wicked because he eats meat? Is someone wicked because he believes in capital punishment? Is someone wicked because he disciplines his children? Is someone wicked because he preaches the gospel, and "imposes" his beliefs on other people? Well, this seems to be what many unbelievers think today. And because the church has been weak in resisting their influence, even many professing believers seem to think so as well.

But Paul tells us who these wicked people are. They are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, and homosexuals. They are the greedy, they are thieves, they are crooks, and they are drunks. In other words, the wicked people are what the unbelievers consider as normal people. The wicked people are the non-Christian people, and those whom non-Christians approve or even glorify.

Do not be deceived. These people will not inherit the kingdom of God. They will not enter heaven. If you are a fornicator, you will go to hell. If you are an idolater, you will go to hell. If you are an adulterer, you will go to hell. If you are a homosexual, you will go to hell. And if you are a fornicator, or an idolater, or an adulterer, or if you're a homosexual, don't think that you will enter heaven that way – that is, without repentance and faith – because you will not enter. You are one of the wicked people that God will send straight to hell when you die.

And the same goes with those of you who are greedy, those of you who are thieves, those of you who are crooks, and those of you who are drunks. Don't think that you can enter heaven that way. You may hope, and you may assume, but God is telling you that you will not enter heaven as an adulterer or a homosexual, and he is telling you that you will not enter heaven as a thief or a drunk. If you think otherwise, then you have been deceived, and you must stop taking comfort in your delusion, but wake up to the truth instead.

It is true that Paul is addressing the church. In verse 8, he says, "Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers." So what Paul says to the Corinthians ought to serve as a severe warning to them. As he says to them in another place, "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves" (2 Corinthians 13:5).

There is one school of thought that maintains that God has one set of requirements for his people, and another set of requirements for those who do not know him. In other words, according to this way of thinking, something like the Ten Commandments were given to the people of God, and so they reason that God never said that the Gentiles could not fornicate and commit adultery, or worship idols. Even some professing Christians believe this and think that God's moral laws have been given to believers only, because they have been saved by grace, and because they have received revelation from God. Certainly, they think, the same set of requirements cannot apply to others.

As a matter of fact, this is just not true. Even in the Old Testament, the prophets hold the Gentiles accountable for breaking God's moral laws, including such things as idolatry and adultery. And Paul says in the first and second chapters of his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles had the law of God written on their hearts. So the same moral requirements have been imposed upon both believers and unbelievers. Fornication, adultery, idolatry, homosexuality, thievery, greed, and all things that the Bible calls sins, are sins for both believers and unbelievers.

We do not have time to make a detailed digression on this issue, but what Peter wrote ought to settle it: "For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, 'If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?'" (1 Peter 4:17-18). So unbelievers are not exempt from God's moral laws, nor are they exempt from believing the gospel, but because, according to God's sovereign and active reprobation, they break God's moral laws and reject his gospel, their damnation is sure.

But of course, Paul is not saying that only Christians must not be adulterers and homosexuals, for his point is precisely that these people cannot be saved and that these people are wicked, and that these people are unbelievers. He says to the Corinthians, "Why are you acting like the unbelievers? Don't you know that the wicked will not enter heaven? Don't be unclear about this. Don't be deceived about this. Wicked people like fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, and homosexuals will never inherit the kingdom of heaven."

Then, he continues in verse 11, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." He says, "some of you were these people." Of course, he says "some" because although all were sinners, he has not given a complete list of sins or sinners. The point is that the wicked cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, and some of these Corinthians were these wicked people that Paul listed. But they were changed. He says, "But you are washed, you were sanctified, you were justified."

In the Greek, the word "but" appears before each verb, and the same is true with the word "you." The New International Version and the English Standard Version have the word "you" before each verb, but they do not repeat the word "but" before each verb. The more literal translations on this verse are the King James Version, the New King James Version, and the New American Standard Bible. So the proper translation should be, "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified." By repeating the words "but" and "you" before each verb, Paul emphasizes the difference between Christians and non-Christians, the difference between the righteous and the wicked, and the difference between the saved and the unsaved: "The wicked are that way, and they will not enter heaven. But you are this way – God has made you this way – and you will enter heaven." To blur or to deny this distinction is to be deceived.

So there is hope for the wicked, since these Corinthians that Paul is writing to were once such wicked people, but God changed them by his grace. So there's hope for the wicked, but they cannot enter heaven as they are. The deception that Paul is talking about is to be confused on this point. If you're one of these wicked people, there is hope, there is a way out. These sins can be forgiven – you can be forgiven. But that is it, isn't it? To receive forgiveness, you can no longer justify your sins, and you can no longer ignore the fact that you're a sinner. You need forgiveness, and it is found only in Jesus Christ.

Our passage mentions homosexuals, and since this is a much debated topic in our day, I would like to quickly say something about it, and to use it as an example, as we think about the other kinds of sinners that this passage mentions. We do not have a lot of time left, so I cannot be exhaustive about this.

There are a number of arguments by which homosexuals seek to justify themselves. They say, "We love each other." But what is the definition of love? If we define love as the Bible does, as obedience to the moral law of God in our relationship with God and with one another, then the homosexuals do not love one another. In fact, the Bible says that they lust after one another and use one another. They say, "We are not hurting anyone." But what is the definition of hurt? And why is right and wrong judged by whether an action hurts another person? They call their behavior an "alternative lifestyle," and indeed it is, for it is an alternative to decency and righteousness.

They say that they are born homosexuals, so that they really have no choice in what they become. And if they have no choice about it, then it could not possibly be wrong – at least one can never say that it is their fault. But this assumes a necessary relationship between freedom and responsibility, and as I have repeatedly refuted this assumption, showing that it is both unjustified and unnecessary, I would not say anything more about this right now.

But there is something related to this that I would like to mention, and that is the way that many Christians have tried to handle this argument. Because the homosexuals have tried to use scientific arguments to prove that sexual orientation is determined by birth and not by choice, many Christians have tried to deal with them on that level. And so that they have tried to use scientific arguments against the belief that homosexuals are born homosexuals. For example, one battle may be fought over what DNA research can tell us about this.

As in many similar cases in debate, I say that the whole battle is pointless. Rather, I can answer the homosexuals with a plain, "So what?" So what if a person is a homosexual by birth and not by choice? What difference does it make? The question is whether homosexuality is a sin and not what makes a person a homosexual. If a person is a homosexual by birth, then all this means is that God made this person into this particular type of sinner by birth. But this does nothing to change the fact that homosexuality is a sin.

It is indeed possible for homosexuals to change, but this has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetically determined. That point is completely irrelevant. Paul says that the wicked people who will not inherit the kingdom include homosexuals, and then he reminds the Corinthians that some of them were homosexuals, so that they were among those people who could not inherit the kingdom of God. But then he adds that they have been washed, that they have been sanctified, and that they have been justified.

Given the assumption that people's theories about genetics is correct in the first place – an assumption that has no rational justification – it does not matter whether a person is a homosexual by birth. Even if homosexuality is genetic, it makes no difference to God – he can still change the person. Therefore, even if I yield the entire scientific aspect of the debate to the homosexuals, I can still say to them, "So what?"

The homosexuals, of course, go much further than trying to justify themselves, and saying that they're not doing anything wrong. They go on to portray themselves as victims, and then as heroes, and as reformers, as pioneers against discrimination and injustice. Some would even claim that God is on their side all the way, and that he is even behind them and supporting their cause. They have convinced themselves that lust is love, that depravity is decency, and that rebellion is reformation.

The sodomites said concerning Lot, "now he wants to play the judge!" (Genesis 19:9), and this is another argument that the homosexuals use against us. They say, "Who are you to judge us?" Well, I know full well who I am, who we are, and also who they are. I am an ambassador of Christ, sent to preach and to enforce his word with spiritual authority. We are the people of God, and the apple of his eye. And as Paul says, we are even to judge angels, and it would seem that "even men of little account in the church" (1 Corinthians 6:4) should be competent enough to judge a matter as obvious as homosexuality. As for them, we also know who they are – they are the wicked people that Paul says will never inherit the kingdom of heaven, that is, unless they repent and change.

Of course we must not give the false impression that we are teaching salvation by works or by personal holiness. And certainly salvation does not come by just not being a homosexual, but the problem is whether homosexuals admit that they are sinners and that they need Christ at all. The fatal spiritual problem is that they do not admit their sin and their need. Instead, many of them are hardened, and even boast against the command of God, saying that, "We have done no wrong. God is on our side." They say, "Peace, Peace. God will not judge us. We are in the right, and they are in the wrong. We are the victims, and then we are the heroes, and we are reformers. As for these people who oppose us, they are full of hate and prejudice." As long as the homosexuals think this way, they will remain far from the kingdom of heaven.

In Romans chapter 1, Paul mentions those who are given over to shameful lusts. He says, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (v. 26-27). And then, he says in verse 32, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

It is for this reason that God's wrath is poured out upon them. Today there are many, including some who call themselves Christians, who might not be homosexuals themselves, but they have taken up the cause to promote acceptance of homosexuality in the church and in society. Some of them might be homosexuals themselves, but they approve and encourage those who are homosexuals. These people will share in the condemnation that God will pour out upon the homosexuals. What would God do with a person who votes to keep a homosexual pastor or to ordain a homosexual?

Sometimes people rightly point out that the Bible condemns all kinds of sins, and not only homosexuality. This objection has been repeated so often, and the church has answered it so weakly, that it has been at times effective in neutralizing the church's condemnation against this abomination. When we are talking about homosexuality, we should insist that it is a sin that will keep a person out of the kingdom of God; in other words, it will send him to hell. Rather than weakening our outrage against this particular sin because of the objection that the Bible mentions many other sins, we should increase our outrage and then broaden it to include all sins.

The truth is that all sins lead to hell, and that any sin would keep a person out of the kingdom of God. If not for the sovereign grace of God, all of us would be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. So let us remind ourselves of the passage from Galatians once again. There, Paul says, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

What is your excuse for putting off spiritual things? What is your excuse for putting off repentance? Hurry, and seek him while he may be found. Some people say to themselves, "He will wait for me. He will be there when I'm ready." Yes, but maybe you won't be there. Maybe you will never be ready. The "prodigal son" came back to his father because "he came to his senses" (Luke 15:17). And Scripture tells us elsewhere that it is the Spirit of God that awakens the elect to his spiritual senses. Some people try to sound clever, and say, "He will forgive me. After all, that's his job." But if we can speak this way about God at all, then it is also his job to condemn people like these. God will not mocked. You cannot make a fool out of him.

Now we are out of time. But before we conclude I would like to mention another kind of deception that we can find in our passage from Galatians chapter 6. Paul says, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction." But you see, Paul does not stop there, for he continues to say, "the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

In our struggle for personal holiness and in our fight of faith, there is sometimes the temptation to become discouraged, or to think that we will not reap God's blessings. But just as the sinner is deceived into thinking that he will not reap destruction, this temptation to discouragement is based on a deception.

So the apostle exhorts us in verse 9, "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Today we are not deceived. We are sure that God is not mocked. We are sure that a man will reap what he sows. We are sure that a man who sows to his flesh, from his flesh, he will reap destruction. And we are not deceived, because we know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. We know and we are sure that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, and homosexuals, as well as thieves, liars, and slanderers, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

So now do not be deceived, for the same principle works in a positive direction as well. If we would not grow tired, if we would not grow complacent, if we would not become discouraged, and if we will continue to do good, and do what God has commanded us to do, then we will surely reap a harvest of life and glory at the proper time. The writer of Hebrews says that "anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (11:6). Such is the nature of true faith, the kind of faith that will sow to the Spirit and reap life everlasting.

God is not Mocked (0)

Here are some introductory comments about the series.

It will be released in two parts. Since this is a transcript of something that was spoken, it will tend to be less formal, less concise, less precise, and there will be some deliberate repetition that I will not edit out.

I would like some comments on this series, not just regarding the content, but also the style and the format. I will not have time to respond to most (or any) of your comments, but they will help me understand your needs and preferences.

Unless there are some special problems, this is the way I would like to continue things here from now on — that is, to post transcripts of short sermons most of the time — since as mentioned previously, this is what I have time for, and this is what some people find very helpful and edifying. Doing this also simultaneously fulfills several ministry needs, as I have also mentioned. 

I would also like some comments on the "Teach the Nations" series, but note that this one is not a transcript.

You can wait until you have read the first part of the new series, or you can email me twice if you like.

And by the way, I am not at all bothered when people write to point out the typos in my writings. I have no time to proofread, so although I try to be careful, inevitably there will be some typos, and so I partly depend on my readers to point them out. However, for your own benefit and enjoyment, please don't go hunting for them, but pay attention to the content.

Thanks.

"Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom" in PDF

"Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom" is now available as a PDF file at:

http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/freewilloffer.pdf

Recommended:

More Than a Potter

Chosen in Christ

Teach the Nations (2)

The Christian Message

Jesus commands us to "make disciples of all nations," and we have seen that disciples are learners. So what are they supposed to learn? When we approach potential converts, what are we supposed to tell them? Now that we have defined the Christian mandate, we must also define the Christian message.

However, before we consider what we are to teach people, we should first consider the fact that we are to teach them. This characteristic of the Great Commission carries tremendous implications that define our entire approach toward non-Christians. The Church today has often failed to confront the world with power partly because it has adopted a philosophy of discourse from the unbelievers that is contrary to the method dictated by Christ in the Great Commission.

One way to indicate a common error that I have in mind is by noting what Christ does not say – that is, he does not say, "Learn from all nations" or "Dialogue with all nations." Some people think that it is less abrasive to give the impression that we are promoting mutual respect and understanding rather than imposing our beliefs on people. Such an approach generates less discomfort and hostility in others, and perhaps some of them will eventually see things our way.

But if we give the impression that we are willing to listen or even learn from non-Christians as we demand that they listen and learn from us, then we are also implying that it is possible for us to change our beliefs upon hearing the non-Christian views. Just as we demand that they abandon whatever non-Christian view that they now hold in order to submit to Christian teachings, such an approach gives the impression that we are also willing, or even with the same level of willingness that we demand from them, to abandon Christianity and adopt non-Christian beliefs.

If we give the impression that in every encounter with non-Christians, we are seeking mutual understanding, and that at every encounter it is possible for us to abandon Christianity, then either our faith is false or we are liars. That is, if you are sincerely prepared to abandon Christian beliefs every time you speak or debate with a non-Christian, then you are already a non-Christian. True faith believes that Christianity is the truth, and not only that it is the best option out of what you have encountered so far in your life. Consider the Chinese saying: "Riding on a cow to look for a horse" – you stay with what you have while looking for something better. This is contrary to biblical faith, which affirms that we have already found and embraced the ultimate truth in Christ, and there is no chance that we are wrong about it. On the other hand, if there is in fact no possibility that you will consider the non-Christian views as true, or to abandon Christianity, then it would be dishonest to give the opposite impression.

Therefore, when I approach an unbeliever, I am not going to lie to him and let him think that I am personally interested in his ideas, or that we are two seekers trying to discover the truth that is "out there" somewhere. I know that I have already found the truth, that Christ has revealed the truth to me, and granted me faith to believe it and be transformed by it. So I am interested in the unbeliever's ideas only for the purpose of refuting them, and to adapt my presentation to anticipate objections and misunderstandings.

Jesus sent me to teach the unbeliever the truth, to tell him what I know, and not to insinuate or negotiate him into the truth. Still less am I there to seek the truth along with him. I am on a mission, not a quest for truth – I have already found the truth, and that is what I am there to tell him. This does not imply that I must be mean and hostile. Depending on the person and the situation, I might be gentle, or I might be forceful, but I am not going to do anything less than to tell him what to believe and how to behave in accordance with Christ's teachings.

Of course this is offensive to the unbelievers, and doubtless also to many who consider themselves believers, but it is the Great Commission. Or do you think that the unbelievers are supposed to support the Great Commission, giving it their approval and cheering us on? No, those heading for destruction are scandalized by the gospel. Only those whose hearts God has prepared will welcome and embrace, not only the message of evangelism, but the very act of evangelism as well.

One problem is that many believers are too self-centered in their thinking – they go because they want to go, because they want to share something useful with others. They do not operate on the basis of an external and objective spiritual authority. To illustrate, if as an ambassador you visit a foreign nation with the possibility of defection already in mind, then from your perspective you are not carrying out a mission at all, but you are there to gather information and weigh the advantages for yourself. Although you think that you are better off staying with your side, you are willing to entertain other options. On the other hand, I go to the unbelievers because Jesus sent me, and I am there to deliver a message, to tell the people what my King requires of them. There is no possibility of compromise or defection, and I would be a miserable herald to allow a contrary impression.

So in the Great Commission we are to teach, and not to learn from or dialogue with unbelievers. But then, Jesus does not say that it is the United States that will teach all nations, but it is the Church that must teach all nations, including the United States. Therefore, we must disciple the United States also. This nation is a vast and hard mission field. It is vast because many people are not Christians, and it is hard because many of them think that they are. The Great Commission is relevant everywhere, even in the United States, and even in the Church.

Now we must consider the message itself. Subordinate to and explanatory of "make disciples" are the commands to baptize and teach. We will focus on the teaching aspect, so that we cannot take time to discuss the significance of baptism in the Great Commission. This does not mean that I think baptism is unimportant to the Great Commission. A full study of this passage ought to explain its significance and its role in making disciples, but this is not a full study.

Nevertheless, we can say this: Water baptism cannot save anyone, and it happens only once to a person, whereas it is the teaching of the gospel that leads to conversion and maturity, and it is to be a constant and lifetime pursuit. Thinking about its role and implementation in the Great Commission will take up what time we have left. Again, this might highlight the importance of teaching, but it does not diminish the significance of water baptism.

Our passage specifies at least two things that must characterize our approach as we disciple the nations:

First, our message must be Christian. We make disciples "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Notice that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit each receives a definite article, indicating a clear distinction between the three, but the word "name" remains in the singular, indicating their essential unity and equality. The grammatical construction is such that if the Father is God, then the Son and the Spirit must also be God, and that if the Father and the Son are persons, then the Spirit must also be a person.

So the grammatical construction strongly suggests a Triune Deity, if it does not prove it altogether. Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest on what we can derive from this verse alone, but it is the consistent teaching of the whole Bible. Right now, the point is that the Christian religion is one in which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinctively three but essentially one, and in which the Son is God and the Spirit is a person. This makes our religion very specific and exclusive, and among other things, it is this doctrine of the Trinity that makes it Christian.

And if disciples are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how can we make disciples without affirming and teaching the Trinity? We must recognize it as one of the controlling elements in a distinctively Christian theology. Furthermore, if disciples are to be baptized in this name, it seems impossible to recognize those who deny the Trinity as Christian disciples at all. To say that it is crucial for the Christian message to be Trinitarian is also to say that it is crucial for the Christian message to be truly Christian in the first place.

This first requirement alone effectively excludes Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all similar groups that claim to be Christian but that deny the Trinity, as truly Christian. But this is just one requirement, and not the only one, so that even if a group appears to be Trinitarian, it still does not necessarily make it a Christian group. For example, Roman Catholicism affirms the Trinity, but on every other essential issue it contradicts Christianity, whether we are talking about hamartiology (sin), soteriology (election, justification, sanctification), ecclesiology (church government, biblical authority, the sacraments), or eschatology (purgatory, heaven, hell). Catholicism is a thoroughgoing opposition to Christianity – the two must never be identified or united.

Second, our message must be comprehensive. Jesus says that we are to disciple the nations by teaching them "to obey everything" that he commanded. This is, again, why we say that a disciple is a total student, since it is not enough for us to teach people to memorize the teachings of Scripture, but we must also make sure that they obey all of them.

We cannot limit the "everything" in "everything I commanded you" as referring only to the red-letter portions of the Gospels, as the whole of the Gospels reflect the teachings of Christ, and not only the direct quotations. We cannot limit "everything" even to the Gospels themselves, since Jesus acknowledged the authority of the Old Testament and taught from it. Then, he told the disciples that he had "much more to say" (John 16:12) to them that they could not yet bear, and that he would later send the Holy Spirit to transmit from him to them these additional teachings (John 16:13-15).

Paul explained that he spoke "in words taught by the Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:13), and that what he wrote was "the Lord's command" (1 Corinthians 14:37). He said that he proclaimed "the whole will of God" (Acts 20:27) and held nothing back. An important passage from Colossians explains his thinking. There he writes, "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me" (1:28-29).

The apostle was not interested in preaching the bare minimum, nor was he aiming to produce people who were barely Christians. He was interested in presenting everyone "perfect in Christ," and it was to this end that he labored. In fact, according to the Great Commission, the bare minimum that we must teach all nations is everything – the whole biblical revelation, and all that is Christianity.

One of the most important things for the Church to realize at this hour is that the Great Commission is certainly not "evangelism," that is, in the narrow way that we often use the word, but it is to "make disciples," to baptize them in the Triune name and to teach them everything that God has revealed in the Bible. "Evangelism" is just one of the first steps on the way to fulfilling the Great Commission. Thus a church whose primary objective is "evangelism" is also a church that defies Christ's Great Commission to his face. To make one's main focus "evangelism" is to refuse to obey the better part of the Great Commission.

Although he was not as harsh, Lloyd-Jones was just as clear on this point in one of his sermons on Romans:

'The gospel of his Son' does not merely mean evangelism – and I think you will agree that this needs to be emphasized at this time. I think there is a real danger at present that all the energy of the church should be given to evangelism. Does anybody misunderstand that, or think I am saying that there should be no evangelism? I am saying the exact opposite. All I am saying is that the activity of the church should not be only evangelistic. I think there is a real danger at the present time that the emphasis on evangelism may become an exclusive emphasis, with the church always evangelizing, and stopping at that. That way lies disaster. No! The gospel of God's Son starts with the evangelistic message, but it does not stop there. It goes on to teach – and, indeed, teaching is a part of the evangelizing if it is to be true evangelism. Indeed, let me put it like this – all the profound doctrines of the Epistle to the Romans come under the heading of 'the gospel of his Son'. All is the good news from beginning to end, and nothing must be left out. (Romans, Chapter 1: The Gospel of God; The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985; 219-220.)

Today, the world is unfamiliar with Christian teachings. We cannot assume that our hearers possess any biblical knowledge, and still less can we assume that they already agree with us on certain points and that we only need to address the differences. This is because unbelievers really have no biblical knowledge, but usually many prejudices, assumptions, and misunderstandings. This applies even to those living in a nation with a Christian heritage like the United States. It applies even to the Church, as it seems that nowadays you cannot even assume monotheism with many of those who claim to be Christians.

Therefore, it is not enough to preach "The Four Spiritual Laws" or some other message that is incomplete and disconnected with the whole system of biblical revelation. Of course God might convert a person with much less, but right now we are not considering what God can do, but what we have been told to do.

So, in general, the best way for you to approach an unbeliever is to first provide a summary of the whole biblical worldview, adapting the length and depth of the presentation according to the amount of time available. Then, as Providence arranges additional opportunities, you must extensively expound on the points that you mentioned in the summary.

Notice that this actually makes "evangelism" the first step to a complete discipleship program. Now if the person refuses to believe, he would probably terminate the discussion at some point. But if God has chosen him for salvation and opened his heart, then at some point in your teaching program, this person will be converted. Although some things might need to change in how you relate to him, there would be no drastic shift in your program, since he would already be on the discipleship track. It matters little whether conversion takes place at your first discussion, or whether it happens months later after many discussions – the main thrust of the method remains the same.

What topics must we address in our preaching? With Jews who claim to believe the Old Testament, you can include a presentation of biblical theology, or a "history of redemption" aspect in your message. If we go into this, it will take up the rest of our time, so I will just refer you to Acts 7 for Stephen's example. However, most of the people that you will face, including those who claim to be Christians, will be wholly unfamiliar or even hostile to the biblical worldview. Therefore, you will need a logical outline that covers the main topics. A good example of this is found in Acts 17:22-31.

As I have previously produced a detailed exposition of Acts 17 in my Presuppositional Confrontations in which I defended my interpretation of the passage, I will not repeat what I wrote, but will assume here what I have established there. In addition, since our goal is to derive a simple outline for our presentation of the Christian message, we will ignore some of the details in the passage, such as the citations from pagan poets, as I have also addressed these in my exposition of the passage.

Paul started by saying that he would tell his hearers what they did not know. Thus he declared the message from a position of authority and knowledge, as an official herald of God, and not as just another confused seeker on the quest for truth. He found the truth in Jesus, but his hearers had not. He knew the truth, but his hearers did not, and he was there to teach them.

But how did Paul know? How did he learn the truth? By the sovereign grace of God, who opened his spiritual eyes, he learned it from the Scripture and from the revelation of Jesus Christ. Now we have the same Scripture that he had, and we also have what he learned from Christ and wrote down for us. Therefore, we have the same message, the same knowledge, and the same fullness of revelation.

When we speak to unbelievers, we speak from the Scripture, and thus a position of prophetic and apostolic authority, and a position of knowledge. The non-Christians are in a position of wickedness and ignorance. This is offensive to the unbelievers, but it should not be so to Christians. And if this offends you, the Great Commission will not make sense to you, and will go against the sensibilities of your unrenewed mind, and you will not be able to properly obey it.

Then, on this foundation, we observe that Paul's message coherently touches on a wide range of topics: theology (idolatry, God, creation, providence), anthropology (creation, common descent, cultural mandate), hamartiology (ignorance, repentance, judgment), christology (election, resurrection), soteriology (calling, repentance), eschatology (justice, judgment, resurrection). In other words, Paul spoke on God, man, sin, Christ, salvation, and the consummation (which includes the resurrection and judgment).

This resembles a standard systematic theology outline, not only when it comes to the topics covered, but also the order in which they are addressed. Contrary to one objection against systematic theology, the discipline is not arbitrary, but biblical and logical. Of course the topics interpenetrate, and of course no presentation – adapted to the situation, the audience, and the speaker – is completely "clean" and rigid, but it is unmistakable that Paul gave a presentation of what we would call systematic theology. And this is the answer to what we must include in our preaching, and how we should organize it.

Such an outline is most useful in directing a positive presentation of Christian theology, but we can also translate it into philosophical terms to make it even more adaptable. It might look something like this: epistemology, metaphysics, morality, soteriology, and eschatology.

Why would we need a philosophical outline? In a positive presentation of the faith, there is indeed no need for it; in fact, the theological outline would be better for that purpose. However, the theological outline cannot be directly used to engage the unbeliever in that he might not have the corresponding categories in his thinking. A person who has never heard of Christ is not going to have much of a christology; however, he is most likely going to have a view of right and wrong (even if he believes that there is no right and no wrong), and an opinion on what is the solution for the wrongs in humanity – that is, what it is that will "save" humanity. At least when pressed to think about it, he might also have a view concerning the final fate of humanity, individually and corporately speaking.

Thus a philosophical outline is broader, and can guide the engagement between the biblical worldview and the unbelieving worldview. It can direct the positive presentation of the biblical worldview, as well as to guide the believer in asking the right questions and mapping the unbelieving worldview, for the purpose of refutation. But I will repeat that the theological outline is superior for a positive presentation of the biblical worldview, as it is more detailed and specific, and useful in ensuring a complete and coherent presentation.

Yet another outline can be derived from Acts 17. Even if it is unnecessary to reduce our outline to a simpler one, this one is useful if for no other reason than that it is easy to remember: authority, reality, morality, and mortality. The "authority," of course, refers to the controlling epistemological principle that produces and restricts the rest of the system. To discuss mortality is to discuss the person's view of death, of the end, and where the preceding items of his philosophy lead him.

Again, although one may roughly follow such an outline in a monologue, a rigid plan is usually not possible in a conversation. Each topic implies the others, and the discussion will roam back and forth between these major issues. For example, if the non-Christian's view of reality denies an incorporeal soul, then this will affect his view of mortality, and probably even morality. And if he denies the soul, we can ask him, by what authority does he know?

The outline can also facilitate engagement. For example, if the unbeliever affirms the authority of science, how does this relate to your belief in the authority of Scripture? Does scientific authority refute biblical authority? If so, how? Or is science itself in trouble, so that it has no authority to tell us anything about reality, morality, and mortality? So the interrelatedness of the topics is not a problem, and a strictly linear discussion is unnecessary, as long as each major area is eventually covered in some depth.

Teach the Nations (0)

TITLE: Teach the Nations

SUBTITLE: Lectures on the Great Commission

TEXT: Matthew 28:18-20 

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

OUTLINE

Introduction

1. The Great Commission (v. 18-19a)

2. The Christian Message (v. 19b-20a)

3. The Abiding Presence  (v. 20b)

INTRODUCTION

The Church is the gathering of God's people. These people come together because of the sovereign election and providence of God, and they come together around a common creed and a common cause. They should not be a group of people who are just drifting through life, waiting for death, for this describes the pitiful existence of non-Christians, from which our Father has delivered us by his grace through Christ.

This common creed and common cause must not be reduced to almost nothing, just so that they may remain common among God's people. But Christ is the one who defines our creed and our cause. It is around his creed and his cause that true Christians unite. Those who reject his creed and his cause betray their false profession.

The creed and the cause of Christ are not minimal, but meaningful, substantial, and detailed. And for the Church to remain a faithful and effective community of God's people, it is imperative for it to have a firm grasp regarding its creed and its cause, its doctrine and purpose.

Only by knowing the doctrine that it must promote can the Church remain faithful, distinctive, and retain its purpose and identity in this world. And only by knowing the mission that it must fulfill can the Church remain effective, focusing its resources and designing its activities and outreaches with this proper end in view. Moreover, when the creed and the cause of the Church are specifically spelled out, it becomes easier for individuals within the Church to align themselves with its doctrine and purpose, and this in turn makes them more faithful and effective as individual believers.

Therefore, in what follows, we will direct our attention to the passage in the Gospel of Matthew commonly called the Great Commission. From this passage, we will consider the creed and the cause of the Church as they were first declared to the apostles by the Head of the Church.

Although the first recipients of this commission were the apostles, it was never meant to begin and end with them. Rather, the apostles laid the necessary foundation, and in the course of their ministries, they taught others and commanded them to continue the mission, and so that they would in turn teach others, who would also teach the generation after them.

We will divide our discussion into three parts, and in these three parts, we will consider the charge, the message, and the power of our Lord's command to teach all nations everything that he has commanded.

Foreknowledge and Predestination (2)

The following is taken from Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Malachi (PDF, p. 26-34):

S. M. Baugh also uses this verse to illustrate the meaning of God's foreknowledge in the Bible:

Another remarkable example of divine foreknowledge is expressed in Jeremiah 1:5, where God says to Jeremiah: "I knew you before I formed you in the womb, I consecrated you before you emerged from the womb; I have given you as a prophet to the nations." The first two lines are closely parallel in the number of syllables and word order…But how can God have known Jeremiah before he was even conceived? Because he personally fashioned his prophet, just as he had fashioned Adam from the dust (Gen. 2:7), and just as he fashions all people (Ps. 139:13-16; Isa. 44:24). God foreknew not only the possibility of Jeremiah's existence – he knows all possibilities indeed – but God foreknew Jeremiah by name before he was conceived, because he knew how he would shape and mold his existence. Given this Old Testament background, we can understand why in the New Testament we have no extended discussion on the nature of God's foreknowledge. There was no need.

J. A. Thompson translates the verse as, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you intimately; Before you were born I set you apart," and comments, "The verb, yada, 'know,' often carried considerable depth of meaning in the OT, for it reached beyond mere intellectual knowledge to personal commitment. For this reason it is used of the intimate relations between a man and his wife (Gen. 4:1)." Huey writes, "Here it involves a choosing relationship (Gen 18:19; Deut 34:10). The Lord was thinking about Jeremiah before he was born. At that time God had already designated Jeremiah to be a prophet."

Of course, a personal relationship is impossible without intellectual knowledge; otherwise, one would not even know with whom he is having a relationship. But the point is that God's foreknowledge, in a salvific context, refers to a relationship established by his sovereign choice. Therefore, God's foreknowledge refers to his predetermination about persons and events, including the election of individuals for salvation. For God to foreknow someone is to set his affection on that person, even before he is born. It is this meaning of election and favor that Romans 8:29 seeks to convey.

Even when it comes to prescience, we cannot think of God's knowledge as a passive reception of information; rather, even the content of God's prescience is completely determined by his will. God knows all future things because he determines all future things. As Jesus says, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father" (Matthew 10:29, NIV). Knowledge does not "happen" to God as an addition to his mind, but since he is the one who determines all events, and he knows his own thoughts, then he also knows all future events, because he knows what he has decided will happen. Therefore, even divine prescience is not a passive knowledge of something that will happen apart from God's predetermination, but prescience is in fact his knowledge of what he has decreed will happen. Since this is the case, the Arminian can appeal to neither foreknowledge nor prescience to support his theology.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, "In the case of God, to know, being an act of will, means to make an object of concern and thus carries the nuance 'to elect.'" The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says, "God's foreknowledge stands related to his will and power. What he knows, he does not know merely as information. He is no mere spectator. What he foreknows he ordains. He wills it."

J. M. Gundry-Volf writes,

Rather than referring to speculative or neutral knowledge (i.e., knowledge of who will believe), the Pauline notion of divine foreknowledge is understood by many interpreters as a knowing in the Semitic sense of acknowledging, inclining toward someone, knowledge which expresses a movement of the will reaching out to personal relationship with someone…This kind of knowing is illustrated by the meaning of the Hebrew yada, "to know," in texts such as Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; and Jeremiah 1:5…In Paul's use of proginosko the aspect of pretemporality is added to the Hebrew sense of "know" as "have regard for" or "set favor on." The result is a verb which refers to God's eternal loving election.

Then, in its article on this subject, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says the following:

Arminian theology, in all its variant forms, contends that God's foreknowledge is simply a prescient knowledge, a knowing in advance whether a given person will believe in Christ or reject him. God's election, therefore, is said to be simply God's choice unto salvation of those whom He knows in advance will choose to believe in Christ. God foresees the contingent free action of faith and, foreseeing who will believe in Christ, elects those because they do. But this is destructive of the biblical view of election. In biblical thought election means that God elects people, not that people elect God. In Scripture it is God who in Christ decides for us – not we who, by making a decision for Christ, decide for God.

Reformation theology has contended that the divine foreknowledge contains the ingredient of divine determination. The Reformers claimed that God indeed foreknows who will believe, because believing in Christ is not a human achievement, but a divine gift imparted to men by God's grace and Spirit. Thus God's foreknowledge is not merely prescience, but a knowledge that itself determines the event. That is, in Reformation thought what God foreknows He foreordains…

There are…scriptural passages in which foreknowledge quite explicitly carries the meaning of foreordination. In Peter's speeches in Acts, what Peter says about the predestination of the crucifixion of Christ in 4:28 is almost identical with the meaning of prognosis in 2:23. What happened to Jesus, says Peter, took place according to "the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." Foreknowledge here echoes the idea of God's counsel or plan in 4:28, reflecting that foreknowledge is an ingredient of that determination which made the death of Christ certain. God foreknows the death of Christ because the crucifixion was His planned determination…

That God's foreknowledge contains the idea of divine determination does not rest merely on a few biblical texts but reflects a truth about God that comes to expression in a variety of biblical concepts descriptive of the unique and mysterious character of God's actions. God's foreknowledge is itself a form of determination which accounts for the reality of that which is divinely foreknown…As in God's foreknowledge, all of these divine actions are reality-imparting, blessing-bestowing divine actions, which as such predetermine. He who creates (or recreates) by that very fact determines in advance…

God's foreknowledge is far from mere prevision or prior intellectual awareness; even its ingredient of determination is a expression of blessing. In biblical usage God's foreknowledge does not relate to whatsoever comes to pass, to an all-comprehensive divine will. Foreknowledge relates to matters beneficent and salvific…The Bible uses the words "foreknow" and "predestinate" in a salvific context and with a salvific meaning…

In biblical thought, divine foreknowledge includes the idea of foreordination to salvation and we may not enlarge the meaning of either term to include "whatsoever comes to pass." To give it a large coverage is to include those whom the Bible describes as those whom God does not know, as in Jesus' disclaimer, "I never knew you" (Mt. 7:23).

Now that we have clarified the meaning of foreknowledge, we should apply it to Romans 8:29-30, which I will quote again: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Baugh writes:

The classic Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29, that God's foreknowledge of faith is in view, is clearly reading one's theology into the text. Paul does not say: "whose faith he foreknew," but "whom he foreknew." He foreknew us…in Romans 8:29, predestination is not dependent on faith; rather, God predestines us on the basis of his gracious commitment to us before the world was…Perhaps another rendering better expresses the concept behind Romans 8:29: "Those to whom he was previously devoted…" This again, is not to say that God's foreknowledge is devoid of intellectual cognition; to have a personal relation with someone, such as a marriage relation, includes knowledge about that person…God has foreknown us because he fashioned each of us personally and intimately according to his plan…That Paul refers to this concept of a committed relationship with the phrase whom he foreknew in Romans 8:29 is confirmed by the context…Further confirmation of "foreknowledge" in Romans 8:29 as referring to a previous commitment is found in a nearby passage, Romans 11:1-2, where proginosko can have only this meaning: "God has not rejected his people, has he? No way! For I also am an Israelite…God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." As in Romans 8:29, the objects of foreknowledge are people themselves rather than historical events or a particular person's faith…The Arminian notion of "foreseen faith" is impossible as an interpretation of God's foreknowledge in Romans 11:1-2, and, consequently, in the earlier passage, Romans 8:29, as well. The latter explains that God initiated a committed relationship from eternity with certain individuals whom he predestined for grace.

On this verse, Calvin writes, "But the foreknowledge of God, which Paul mentions, is not a bare prescience, as some unwise persons absurdly imagine, but the adoption by which he had always distinguished his children from the reprobate…he foreknew nothing out of himself, in adopting those whom he was pleased to adopt; but only marked out those whom he had purposed to elect." F. F. Bruce agrees: "God's foreknowledge here connotes that electing grace which is frequently implied by the verb 'to know' in the Old Testament. When God takes knowledge of people in this special way, he sets his choice on them."

John Murray explains:

It needs to be emphasized that the rejection of this [Arminian] interpretation is not dictated by a predestinarian interest. Even if it were granted that "foreknew" means the foresight of faith, the biblical doctrine of sovereign election is not thereby eliminated or disproven. For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates…The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage. On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that "foreknew" refers to the foresight of faith…Many times in Scripture "know" has a pregnant meaning which goes beyond that of mere cognition. It is used in a sense practically synonymous with "love," to set regard upon, to know with peculiar interest, delight, affection, and action…There is no reason why this import of the word "know" should not be applied to "foreknow" in this passage, as also in 11:2 where it also occurs in the same kind of construction and where the thought of election is patently present…It means "whom he set regard upon" or "whom he knew from eternity with distinguishing affection and delight" and is virtually equivalent to "whom he foreloved."

Thomas R. Schreiner holds the same view:

Some have argued that…God predestined to salvation those whom he saw in advance would choose to be part of his redeemed community…According to this understanding predestination is not ultimately based on God's decision to save some. Instead, God has predestined to save those whom he foresaw would choose him…It is quite unlikely, however, that it accurately represents the meaning…in Rom. 8:29 the point is that God has predestined those upon whom he has set his covenantal affection. Note that the object of the verb…is personal, "those whom"…God set his affection upon.

Douglas Moo likewise argues for this position:

In [Arminianism] the human response of faith is made the object of God's "foreknowledge"; and this foreknowledge, in turn, is the basis for predestination: for "whom he foreknew, he predestined." But I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation…The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage…the three others besides the occurrence in this text, all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" – in the sense of intellectual knowledge, or cognition – but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine, before" (Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2)…That the verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of "know" is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object. Paul does not say that God knew anything about us but that he knew us, and this is reminiscent of the OT sense of "know…."Moreover, it is only some individuals…who are the objects of this activity; and this shows that an action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb. If, then, the word means "know intimately," "have regard for," this must be a knowledge or love that is unique to believers…This being the case, the difference between "know or love beforehand" and "choose beforehand" virtually ceases to exist.

Therefore, as the Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says, "In Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the apostle Paul's use of the word foreknew means 'to choose' or 'to set special affection on.' The electing love of God, not foresight of human action, is the basis of His predestination and salvation."

At this point, some Arminians object that if foreknowledge does not mean prescience but foreordination, then why does Romans 8:29 say, "whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate"? That is, if "foreknow" means what the Calvinist says it means, then does not the reference to predestination become redundant? As Godet says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, "Some have given to the word foreknow the meaning of elect, choose, destine beforehand…but what is still more decidedly opposed to this meaning is what follows: He also did predestine."

This is a stupid and amateurish objection. It is a desperate and futile attempt to escape the conclusion that we have so firmly established. In fact, only the most incompetent would make such an argument after carefully examining the passage, or even just having read verse 29 to the end. The entire verse says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Paul is telling us that whom God has chosen for salvation, he has also predestined the same people "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Foreknowledge in this verse refers to God's election of individuals to salvation, while predestination reveals the specific purpose or end that God has designed for his elect.

Thus Gundry-Volf writes:

Paul distinguishes between divine foreknowledge and divine predestination in Romans 8:29: "those whom he foreknew, he also predestined." While foreknowledge denotes the exercise of God's will to establish a special relationship with those whom God graciously elect before all time, predestination expresses God's appointing of them to a specific goal before all time…In Romans 8:29 this goal is conformity with the image of the Son, a reference to the final salvation of the elect…Foreknowledge as divine choice is thus the basis of predestination to glorification with Christ…Foreknowledge does not have to be understood as foresight of faith in order to be distinguished from predestination.

Wuest recognizes that foreknowledge in this verse refers to God's sovereign election of individuals, and so he translates verse 29 and 30 as follows:

Because, those whom He foreordained He also marked out beforehand as those who were to be conformed to the derived image of His Son, with the result that He is firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, those whom He thus marked out beforehand, these He also summoned. And those whom He summoned, these He also justified. Moreover, those whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The GNT translation says, "Those whom God had already chosen he also set apart to become like his Son, so that the Son would be the first among many believers. And so those whom God set apart, he called; and those he called, he put right with himself, and he shared his glory with them."

Without additional arguments, we have also refuted the Arminian interpretation of 1 Peter 1:2. The verse says that we have been chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Of course this is true, since foreknowledge means foreordination. Peter is saying that our election for salvation is based on God's sovereign decision – that is, his foreordination or foreknowledge.

Calvinism is repulsive to many people who claim to be Christians. But as Charles Spurgeon said, Calvinism is nothing other than biblical Christianity. Thus if you do not affirm Calvinism, you do not affirm biblical Christianity. If you call yourself a Christian, then you are obligated to affirm and promote Calvinism, and to denounce and refute Arminianism.

Notes

See Commentary on Malachi