My Archived Writings and Recordings
Thanks again to Felipe at Monergismo.com for his continual labor in translating some of my articles and large excerpts from my books, and of course, also other materials from many excellent Christian writers.
Translation can be hard and tedious work. I don’t know what you English speakers can do for him, but you can probably at least send him a word of thanks and encouragement for the work that he is doing for the Lord and His people. If there is anything else that you can do to help him, I am sure he wouldn’t mind hearing from you.
Anyway, Felipe recently asked me if I have some written and recorded materials that I have not yet made available to the public. In case some of you are wondering about the same thing, here I will share an expanded version of the answer that I gave Felipe:
…In fact, I have years of outlines, letters, notes, manuscripts, and recordings (sermons, lectures, radio programs) that are not yet released. But they are archived in formats that cannot be immediately distributed on the Internet (for example, many of my old sermon outlines are handwritten), and it will take a lot of time to revise and convert them all. And even if we have the resources to hire help to do the conversion, I would want to directly oversee the revisions anyway, so it will take a bit of time before they can be released, if at all.
Some of these old materials will never be released, even if they can be easily distributed, because I have become dissatified with them. This is especially true of the oldest materials — those outlines and recordings that I made during the weekly adult Bible classes I taught when I was in high school.
But then, some of the old materials might be salvageable. Just the other day, my wife asked me about my fairly long and meticulous lecture series on Galatians. This series includes some detailed outlines and audio recordings. And if I am too dissatified with parts of it, I guess I could transcribe the series, revise the whole thing, and publish it as a commentary, since much of the research should still be usable.
Then, there are the lectures series and outlines on Systematic Theology, Christian Apologetics, Logic and Argumentation, the Trinity, Jude, and many others. There should be some reusable materials in all of these.
But again, it will take much time and effort before these can be revised and published. And since I am constantly producing new materials, the old and inferior ones cannot take the priority.
Also see: My Old Books and Sermons
The Reformation Study Bible
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I do have the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV). Is this identical to the Reformation Study Bible for the ESV?
Should I get the commentary you mentioned as well (Matthew Henry)?
The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible was taken and "expanded" from the original The Reformation Study Bible (NKJV, formerly entitled The New Geneva Study Bible) under a different editorial staff. But I found that the "expansion" was often done by just making the same sentences more verbose. The ESV edition of The Reformation Study Bible was taken from the original and made under the same staff and general editor (Sproul). It has been adapted to the ESV.
The ESV edition of The Reformation Study Bible is probably the best, but the notes are similar in the NIV edition. The theological notes are more conveniently gathered in Packer’s Concise Theology.
You should eventually get a more detailed commentary. If you have nothing, then start with Matthew Henry, since he is quite reliable, and his commentary contains useful explanations to the text as well as some devotional applications. It is one of the best general-purpose commentaries, but for advanced studies, you will find that it is not detailed or technical enough.
Also consider IVP’s New Bible Commentary.
Recommended:
The Reformation Study Bible (ESV)
J. I. Packer, Concise Theology
New Bible Commentary (IVP)
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry is available in one volume, six volumes, abridged one-volume NIV, abridged one-volume KJV, condensed edition in a study Bible, and various "compact" editions.
I recommend the six volumes if you are going to frequently consult Matthew Henry (or if you use it to study the Bible book-by-book), or the one volume if you want to save money or space.
I do not recommend the abridged NIV, abridged KJV, or the compact editions. The Matthew Henry Study Bible, however, is not bad as a study Bible.
For the absolute beginner, it would be a great start to have The Reformation Study Bible, and then Matthew Henry in either the one volume or the six volumes edition.
When Other People Fall Away
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
…I am somewhat affected by former pastors who became atheists, Catholics, etc.
We know that faith is a grace-gift of God, but it helps to work out the intellectual issues in your mind.
The Bible teaches us about sin; it gives us examples of the apostasies of long-time professing believers and ministers. And the parable of the sower tells us that some "believe" (false faith) for a while, and then fall away. So, the fact that some professing believers and even ministers fall away from the Christian faith is exactly what we should expect, since it is thoroughly consistent with what Scripture teaches. The falling away of some believers and ministers are examples of the truth of Scripture.
Also, if you are going to be affected by people converting away from Christianity, then how about considering the fact that many people are also converted to Christianity? It is irrational to be affected by other people’s conversion in either direction, but one could at least be consistent and be affected both ways, instead of being affected only by those converted away from Christianity.
Your doubt is selective — you are letting something affect you in one direction while you are not letting the same thing affect you in another direction. This is doubly irrational. If everyone in the world converts to Christianity, would that make Christianity more or less true? If anything, that would contradict Christianity, since Scripture guarantees that not everyone would be converted.
The point is that your doubt does not arise from rational thinking — it is not that you are too rational; rather, it arises from irrational and selective thinking. Thus you must doubt your doubt. Nothing other than God’s Word can withstand intense skepticism, including skepticism itself. But as it is, your doubt is selective and biased against Christianity.
Also, all of those who fall away from the faith are extremely stupid people who defect for irrational reasons, and whom I can easily crush in debate. But you must learn to do the same.
So, you should rationally consider the various aspects of the situation — the irrationality of your own doubt, the reasons why people fall away (the problem of evil, pursuit of personal lusts and ambitions, etc.), the reality of sin and false conversions, and so forth.
Meanwhile, since faith is a grace-gift, you should continue to pray and study for God to increase your faith and to grant you spiritual stability. You must continue to press hard for holiness and assurance, by using the means of grace (prayer, study, etc.) that God has given to you for precisely such a purpose.
It also helps to deal with doubt within the context of a community of faithful Christians, and under strong spiritual leaders.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm
When There are Multiple Perspectives
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
I have given away your books to Christians on several occasions.
From the comments that I receive from people, it seems that they are quite resistant to certain teachings, although they don’t always explain.
Sometimes their objection is based on the fact that various preachers have different opinions, so that they are unsure what they should believe.
In the case of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, one lady who had attended a Pentecostal seminary said that she once read a book that contained fifty points supporting Calvinism and another fifty points supporting Arminianism. So which should she believe?
She just gave up and said, "I will just forget about the whole thing and still keep preaching the gospel" — perhaps implying that she would stick to Arminianism since, in her thinking, Calvinism somehow eradicates evangelism.
I suppose the doctrine of election would not be the only thing that they dislike, since I affirm many things that are against popular opinion, even if they are biblical and rational.
But if they disagree with something, they must have actual arguments against those points that I make, and these arguments must actually refute me.
Unless they have these arguments, then a stubborn disagreement is dishonest and sinful. When appropriate, you must press this point, since it might not be obvious to them. Truth is not subject to their preference. If their disagreement is strong, unfair, and stubborn enough, it might even mean that they are not really Christians, since they are rejecting the clear biblical truth and insist on believing in what is false regardless of what the Bible says.
Of course, this is true not just when people read my books, but it is true when one reads the Bible or any Christian work. That is, if one disagrees, then he must have a good reason, and if he stubbornly disagrees with what is really a biblical teaching, then it is sinful, and in some cases, it might even indicate that he has never been converted.
You have already implied that a person who claims to be unable to decide based on the fact that there are arguments on both sides nevertheless does not (and really cannot) remain neutral.
In this case, this woman cannot just say that she will give up investigating and "just keep preaching the gospel," since, especially in the case of Calvinism and Arminianism, the very nature of the gospel is the issue being debated. So what is the gospel?
It is foolish to refuse to decide just because there are multiple perspectives. There are arguments for and against many religions. If she cannot decide between Calvinism and Arminianism because there are arguments on both sides, then neither should she be able to decide for or against Christianity. So how did she decide for Christianity, and how does her decision stick?
Also, she says that there are arguments for both sides, but do both sides have good arguments?
For example, Arminians often argue that Calvinism (especially regarding its doctrine of election) teaches something that is unfair. This may carry strong persuasive power for many irrational and careless people, but this does not mean that it is a good argument. As you now know, there are some simple and conclusive answers to this objection. Those people just don’t know about them, or in some cases, refuse to respond to them out of sinful intellectual dishonesty.
In around one minute, I can make up ten arguments asserting that I am the US President, but they won’t be very good arguments. I can say, "I want to be the US President, therefore I am the US President." This is a real argument, just not a good one. Another one: "My mom says that I am a good boy, therefore I am the US President." This is also a real argument, with one explicit and one assumed premise, leading to the conclusion. But this argument is also fallacious and easily destroyed. It is not much harder to destroy every argument for Arminianism.
In any case, it would be supremely stupid for someone to say that now she is unsure whether I am really the US President, since there are arguments on both sides!
So, one of the things that we should do with people who say that they cannot decide between Calvinism and Arminianism because there seems to be arguments on both sides is to sit down with them and actually examine those arguments.
Your task would then be to show that Arminianism doesn’t really have even one good argument in its favor. The truth is specific and exclusive, and there are no good arguments for falsehood. So it is not good enough if Calvinism wins ten points and Arminianism wins two — if you handle things right, Calvinism should have all the points and Arminianism should have zero.
This also applies when it comes to scriptural arguments. If Calvinism is true and Arminianism is false, there should not be even one verse of Scripture that supports Arminianism. We affirm Calvinism not because there are more biblical passages that support it, but because all relevant biblical passages either explicitly teach it, or are at least consistent with it, whereas there are no biblical passages that teach Arminianism.
Nevertheless, in a book in which there are fifty arguments supporting Calvinism and fifty supporting Arminianism, there would be probably quite a few bad arguments for Calvinism among those fifty points, and some of those bad argument will be based upon inconsistent Calvinism. Whatever the reason, all bad arguments for Calvinism should be discarded. But then, if you will examine the fifty arguments for Arminianism, you should be able to easily destroy them all.
It makes no sense that a person should be confused about an issue just because there are multiple perspectives. For every truth, there is logically an infinite number of possible falsehoods or deviations relating to it.
For example, if the truth is 1 + 1 = 2, then, we can deviate from this by saying 1 + 1 = 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, and so on to infinity. This is the case regarding any truth. It is a sign of an irrational and unstable mind to be bothered just because people disagree and offer arguments for different views.
On the other hand, even if everyone agrees on something, it doesn’t mean that the position that they agree on is correct. So, whether something is popular or controversial is rationally irrelevant.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Not Enough "Faith" to be an Atheist?
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
(The following is taken from an email correspondence.)
In the context of defending Christianity, believers sometimes would say something like, "I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist." Even some presuppositionalists abuse the word by saying that every worldview must begin by taking its first principles on "faith."
However, this is both biblically false and strategically unwise.
When non-Christians make the accusation that we affirm Christianity based only on "faith," they are not using the biblical definition of the word, but by it they mean something like, "belief by pure assumption without any rational justification." Some Christians then make a rational case for Christianity, and conclude, "It takes even more faith to be an atheist, and I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist."
When used this way, faith means mere credulity, and this implies that Christianity is affirmed by credulity, only that it takes even more credulity to be an atheist. This unbiblical use of the word encourages our audience to have a little credulity, so that he will become a Christian, but not too much, lest he becomes an atheist. But if this is what "faith" means, then why not renounce all credulity and have no faith at all?
The problem is further aggravated when Christians assert in the same context that faith is not mere credulity, but that it is rational. But if we plug this back into the statement, "I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist," then it becomes an admission that atheism is more rational, which is exactly what we denied when we first said, "I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist."
In the biblical context, faith is always a good thing, and it is always good to have more of it. But suddenly, in the very context of defending "faith," we assert that atheism must also begin with "faith," and that atheists in fact have more of it, since it takes even more "faith" to be an atheist.
Then, in the same discussion or debate, we also say that "faith" is rational, and that the atheists don’t have it at all because it is a gift of God. Or are we saying that a little of this divine gift would make us Christians, but a lot of it would make us atheists?
If we are using the biblical definition — if we are talking about the kind of faith that we have and want our hearers to have — then, the truth is that if I have any faith at all, even as small as a mustard seed, I would not be an atheist. The atheist has no faith, not more faith. If we are using the biblical definition of the word, then if you have any faith at all, you are already a Christian.
So, this use of the word "faith" may seem clever to some, but it is in fact unbiblical, foolish, confusing, and self-defeating. At least in the context of a biblical discussion, we should never use the word this way, that is, to denote credulity.
Rather than saying, "I don’t have enough of a good thing to be an atheist," we should say, "I don’t have enough of a bad thing to be an atheist." Thus, it is much more appropriate to say, "I am not stupid enough to be an atheist."
It also follows that we should never say, "We all have to begin from faith." No, we don’t. We all begin from some first principles as the logical starting point of all our thinking. Christians affirm Scripture as their starting point by faith-reason (a divine gift of assenting to truth that is eminently rational), but non-Christians affirm their various false and irrational first principles by their wickedness and credulity.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Dress Code at the Church
(The following is an edited email correspondence.)
As you might be aware, one of the unofficial rules at [name of church] is that one must dress really nice when coming to church. They argue that since one usually dresses his best for an important function, the same principle should be applied when meeting the Almighty.
My church also teaches the same. However, I don’t necessarily follow it for several reasons:
(1) I think that it’s legalistic.
(2) Romans 14:5 says that "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
(3) The Bible never says that Jesus and his disciples had to dress in a noble manner when attending the synagogues.What do you think of my reasoning?
I agree that the Bible does not directly require one to dress really nice to church.
A similar argument to the one you mentioned is to say that Old Testament worship prescribes beautiful clothings and ornaments for the priests, and since Christians are now the priests of God in Christ, we should also dress nice when going to church.
However, this is a misapplication of the ceremonial commands, and a bad misapplication at that. For even if the ceremonial commands were to apply, why is the principle to "dress nice" as opposed to dress exactly as the Old Testament prescribed for the priests? (For more on the Law and its application, please see my The Sermon on the Mount and Commentary on Ephesians.)
So the issue is not whether there is a direct command for dressing nice at church; however, there are at least two other issues to consider.
First, one of your chief concerns should be to edify other people.
Romans 14:5 does say, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind"; however, you should not forget verses 15 to 19:
If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
You should strive to help faciliate worship, and to avoid drawing attention to yourself. When going to a church consisting mostly of poor people who do not have nice clothes, you should not dress too nice so that you will not stand out too much. But if you have the means, you should not dress too badly to a church where most people dress well, again, so as not to stand out too much. Of course, there are other reasons why people dress differently besides economic factors, but the principle is to avoid drawing undue attention to yourself.
A person who walks in love does not insist on his rights, but rather thinks about how he can contribute to the edification of other people. However, I would oppose any accommodation that amounts to an idealogical compromise, or an implicit approval of unbiblical thinking.
For example, a person does not have to dress exactly like today’s teenagers or to use their slangs and expressions to preach to them. Just dress and talk in a way so as not to allow these things to get in the way without compromising your own biblical beliefs. The church should influence culture instead of letting culture influence it.
If wearing baggy pants and talking like a barbarian will make the difference between heaven and hell for my hearers, then I will gladly accomodate. But it is usually enough to just dress casually and avoid pretentious language. Those who are so obsessed with looking and sounding exactly like those they are trying to reach are often distracted from the actual message that they should be preaching, which is where the power lies afterall (Romans 1:16).
Some people end up compromising the very precious words of God, so that the Bible itself can become The Word on the Street (Zondervan) — a "paraphrase" so abominable that you would give anything to have people read The Message or Revolve instead.
We can only accomodate people to a certain point, after which we must, by the authority of God, demand that they follow us, as we follow Christ. If they refuse to abandon their unbiblical and brutish ways of thinking and living, then it means that they are reprobates, foreordained to damnation.
To reach today’s teenagers, some people go as far as putting on nose rings and dyeing their hair. This is unnecessary, since the power is really in the gospel message, which is the means by which the Spirit confronts, convicts, and converts the hearers.
At least in some cases, the truth is that some professing believers simply enjoy the secular culture — the clothes, language, music, etc., and this is their excuse to embrace the world and still call themselves Christians.
As I have stated several times in my books, some people say that they will go to parties and dinners, and to associate with unbelievers, in order to reach them, "just like Jesus did." However, they do not even mention the gospel most of the time, even after an extended relationship with the unbelievers. The truth is that they in fact enjoy doing what the unbelievers do, and talking about what the unbelievers talk about. And while they are having fun, they are lying to themselves and to others about their true motive. This is carnality with a mission, only it is much more about the carnality than about the mission.
Of course, I mention teenagers above only as an example. The same principles apply whenever we attempt to reach any people group.
Second, the Bible says in Hebrews 13:17:
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Assuming that your pastor is not some raging heretic or evil villain, this verse alone should settle the issue. For practical issues such as the dress code, if the pastor says you should wear nice clothes to church, then wear nice clothes to church. Do what the pastor says to make his job easier. It is as simple as that.
Although I do not think that there is a direct biblical argument or requirement for dressing nice to church, I would regard a pastor’s desire to develop his congregation into decent, disciplined, and organized people a valid one, as well as his desire to present Christians to outsiders as clean and orderly individuals, rather than slobs and bums.
I should not need to mention this (but sadly, I do) — it is wrong for women to dress like whores both inside and outside of the church.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Real Spiritual Revival
The following is adapted from a message that I sent to a friend a long time ago. I am posting it here because of its relevance to two previous blog entries: Real Spiritual Power and Pentecostalism and Cessationism.
— /// —
In connection with our discussion on revival, here are several relevant passages from the Bible:
2 Kings 22:11–23:3
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us."Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District.
She said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’
Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’"
So they took her answer back to the king.
Then the king called together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. He went up to the temple of the LORD with the men of Judah, the people of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets — all the people from the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the LORD. The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD — to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all the people pledged themselves to the covenant.
Nehemiah 8:8-9, 13, 9:3
They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and scribe, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, "This day is sacred to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep." For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law.On the second day of the month, the heads of all the families, along with the priests and the Levites, gathered around Ezra the scribe to give attention to the words of the Law.
They stood where they were and read from the Book of the Law of the LORD their God for a quarter of the day, and spent another quarter in confession and in worshiping the LORD their God.
These passages describe the spiritual revivals under the leadership of Josiah and Nehemiah. They demonstrate that true revival involves a revival of a book, namely, the Bible. True revival entails a renewed interest in the Bible and a renewed obedience to its teachings. It can, as in the above two cases, occur without a manifestation of charismata, although it can certainly be accompanied with it. But a revival of charismata without a revival of "the book," then, cannot be considered a true revival, since that which we are "revived" about would remained undefined. We might feel "revived," but would not know what we are so revived about. In reality, it is only a revival of the flesh.
So, if in a "revival," the people involved do not have renewed interest in reading, understanding, and obeying the Bible, then it cannot be a true or long-lasting revival. It may mean that God is generous with spiritual gifts, but the people’s hearts have not really turned back to him. One cannot turn back to God without turning back to "the book," since even the meaning of turning back to God is defined by "the book." No revival can even say that it emphasizes repentance but not doctrine, since repentance is a doctrine (Hebrews 6:1, etc.), and it, again, remains undefined unless you turn back to "the book."
Thus the power of God is not unleashed in or by stomping, yelling, barking, crying, falling, or foaming at the mouth, but it is released as the mighty hammer of God even as a minister calmly reads the Scriptures to the people, "making it clear and giving the meaning," and providing the occasion and the means by which the Spirit of God performs all that he pleases. And when the people will stand "for a quarter of the day" to hear the Word of the Lord, and "another quarter" in confession and in worship, then we shall know that the true revival we have longed for has already started.
The Imprecatory Psalms (6)
Here is perfect hatred expressed against the enemies of God. It is the hatred each of us should have to properly honor our holy God. You need to ask yourself right now, "Are Christ’s enemies my enemies?" If they are not, you do not love the Lord as you should! (111)
God’s army in every place needs the war psalms of the Prince of Peace. The Christian church has lost its military vision because the pulpit has been ashamed of the battle cries from the Psalms. (77)
We must be candid enough to acknowledge that to pray for the extension of God’s kingdom is to solicit the destruction of all other kingdoms. This is the unique prayer life of the disciples of Christ. When we pray as Jesus taught us, we cry out to God for His blessings upon His church and for His curses upon the kingdom of the evil one. As Harry Mennega succinctly stated, "Advance and victory for the Church means retreat and defeat for the kingdom of darkness." (52)
Prayer and preaching are the powerful weapons that overcome the world! We pray for the destruction of the evil empire, and through these prayers God brings down the very gates of hell in the name of Jesus Christ. Where do we learn to pray like this? From these very prayers that have been cast off as "out-of-date," "devilish," and "inferior" — the imprecatory psalms. That’s why we must faithfully preach from these psalms and pray them in the Lord Jesus Christ. (89)
And God will hear our prayer in Jesus’ name. He can be trusted to bring perfect justice in His own time. We have the privilege of teaching God’s people to trust the God who will not be mocked. (79)
James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991.
This will be the final post on the imprecatory psalms.
I encourage you to gain an understanding of the proper place of imprecatory prayers, and then make them an integral part of your spiritual life.
I will again credit War Psalms of the Prince of Peace by James E. Adams for this series of blog entries. One reason why I borrowed so much from this book is to advertise it to you by showing you some of the choice quotes from this book.
Looking at the quotes aren’t enough, since there is a biblical basis for the use of these psalms, and this is what you really need to understand and teach others. The quotes that I have shown you do not at all cover this, but it is competently expounded throughout the book.
Recommended:
Legalism and Antinomianism
We need to avoid two extremes in obeying God’s commandments, however. One is legalism, which adds man-made requirements to God’s commandments. The other is antinomianism, which denies the authority of the law as a rule of life for Christians. Today, our greatest problem is antinomianism. We will not be ruled by God. we fancy that our own instincts are so sanctified that we can safely follow where they lead. This thinking can lead us into swift current of worldliness. As soon as a believer rests his oars in his battle to keep God’s commandments, he yields to the world and is swept downstream. He is then overcome by the world rather than overcoming the world in Christ.
Joel R. Beeke, Overcoming the World
(P & R Publishing, 2005), p. 31.
Recommended:
Joel Beeke, Overcoming the World
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Ernest Reisinger, The Law and the Gospel
Determinism vs. Fatalism
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
People occasionally ask me about fatalism. Most of these are polite and teachable individuals who would like to know what determinism and fatalism are, how they differ from each other, or how my position differs from fatalism.
Here are two examples:
(1) But I was wondering what your stance is on fatalism? Is fatalism and determinism the same?
(2) I was wondering how you would differentiate between hard determinism and fatalism. The reason I ask is because it seems to me that most Calvinists which hold to soft determinism are striving to avoid the charge of being fatalists.
Then, there are some who outright accuse me of teaching fatalism.
The following will suffice as my response to both groups of people.
Although I assume that most people will keep this in mind even if I do not mention it, please remember that by "determinism," we are referring to only theistic, theological, or divine determinism, and not naturalistic or scientific determinism, the latter of which being the position affirmed by many atheists. We are considering the control that God exercises over his creation, and not the relationship between human actions and antecedent natural causes (such as genetic and environmental factors).
— /// —
By some definitions, the terms "determinism" and "fatalism" are similar.
For example, some English dictionaries would define these terms in ways that fail to make a clear distinction between them. Merriam-Webster is too ambiguous for our purpose, and Webster’s New World Thesaurus considers the two synonymous. Certainly, even those who affirm "soft" determinism and accuse me of teaching fatalism would not want to accept these ambiguous definitions, since then they would become "soft fatalists" at best.
The definitions in theological and philosophical literature might be more precise.
By "fatalism," I refer to the teaching that all events are predetermined by impersonal forces regardless of means, so that no matter what a person does, the same outcome will result.
By "determinism," I am specifically referring to theological or divine determinism — I am referring to the teaching that the personal God of the Bible has intelligently and immutably predetermined all events, including all human thoughts, decisions, and actions, and that by predetermining both the ends and the means to those ends.
These are not my private definitions, but they are consistent with the common usage in theological and philosophical literature.
For example, Dr. Alan Cairns, a respected Presbyterian pastor and theologian, whose orthodoxy is generally unquestioned, and who is a "soft" determinist himself (p. 186), defines "fatalism" as follows: "The theory of inevitable necessity; the heathen oriental philosophy that all things are predetermined by blind, irrational forces and that therefore there is no point in human effort to change anything" (Dictionary of Theological Terms; p. 176, "fatalism").
Now, before the sight of God, who dares accuse me of teaching that "all things are predetermined by blind, irrational forces"? To do so would be to commit the sin of slander, and some have indeed committed this sin against me by their false accusations.
And who dares accuse me of teaching that all things occur as predetermined regardless of means? I affirm that God determines all things by immutably foreordaining and directly controlling both the ends and the means.
It is dangerous to speak of things that you do not understand, and it appears that those who accuse me of teaching fatalism are in fact ignorant of what fatalism really means.
Just as some Arminians falsely accuse the Calvinists of teaching fatalism, these Calvinists who affirm "soft" determinism turn around and accuse me of teaching fatalism, when both these Arminians and Calvinists have no idea what fatalism means. These people do not have the courtesy to even look up the word in a theological dictionary to make sure that it applies.
As for those of you who are attentive and teachable — unlike those who make ignorant and slanderous accusations, pretending to be scholars when they are not — I do not blame you for asking about this, since there is much false information being circulated.
Rest assured that what I teach, although it is a stronger version of determinism than the one that you are accustomed to hearing, it is very different from fatalism. In fact, it is as different from fatalism as theism is different from paganism and atheism, since I affirm that all things are determined by the personal and sovereign God, and not by "blind, irrational forces."
Therefore, do not let ignorant people confuse or deceive you.
— /// —
Then, I will also point out something that is commonly misunderstood, namely, some people assume that one has more freedom under "determinism" and that things are more comprehensively determined in "fatalism." But this is not true.
The fact is that things are more determined in divine determinism than in any other scheme. Under "fatalism" (as properly defined above), an event is predetermined in such a way that the same outcome will result "no matter what you do," that is, regardless of means. But under divine determinism, although it "matters" what you do, "what you do" is also immutably predetermined in the first place. And it "matters" because there is a definite relationship between "what you do" and the outcome, but even this relationship is determined and controlled by God.
(What are people going to accuse me of now? I can’t be accused of teaching fatalism, since I am saying that fatalism is too weak! But slanderers will think of something.)
Thus, I affirm divine determinism and not fatalism, but not for the reason that people sometimes shun fatalism. I affirm divine determinism not because things are less controlled in this scheme — they are more controlled — but I affirm it because it is the revealed and rational truth.
— /// —
While I am at it, there are those who charge that my determinism is Spinozism (following the philosophy of Spinoza). Related to this is the charge that my occasionalism is pantheism (see A. A. Hodge in Outlines of Theology). But this is also stupid and ignorant.
If pantheism affirms that "all is God," then it means that when God acts on any object, he is always acting only on himself. However, this is far from what I affirm. Rather, I affirm that God has created spiritual and material entities that are other than himself, but that he nevertheless completely sustains and controls. To say that God completely controls X is very different from saying that God is X.
Thus, as with the charge of fatalism, these people have no idea what pantheism means, and to accuse me of explicitly or implicitly teaching pantheism is nothing but slander.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "Arguing by Intuition"
Gordon Clark, Predestination
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will