Well, maybe not…
Sovereignty and the Garden of Eden
I have been listening to a lecture series on Epistemology by R.J. Rushdoony, a very good series I might add. In one of the very first lectures he makes an interesting–novel–argument in favor of predestination, from the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden.
Satan approaches Eve and asks,
Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
To which Eve replies,
We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And Satan answers back,
Ye shall not surely die…
Rushdoony argues that Eve’s answer is they cannot eat of the tree because if they do they will die–the physical process of corruption and degeneration will begin, cells will die, they will begin dying. But Satan replies they will not “surely” die, emphasis on surely. What Satan is pointing out is God may want to punish them with death, but death is not certain. Satan is arguing God is not a sovereign who has predestined death as the consequence of that action. God may intend to put them to death for it, but any number of things could prevent death from happening. To Eve, it would be much like her going to bed intending to prune the apple trees the next day, then waking only to find she’d rather prune pear trees. She intended the one, but did not, could not, sovereignly decree its happening.
So now, believing death is not certain, she and Adam eat of the Tree believing they can prevent the deadly consequence. When God approaches them later, they respond as those who would be trying to avoid that “less than certain” death: they hide, they lie, they blameshift. However, because God has sovereignly predestined the consequence, their attempts to avoid it fail.
Thus, the initial attack is an attack on the sovereignty of God. It is an attempt to take sovereignty away from God and give it to man–there is nothing new under the sun, as a wise man once said.
Does Christ Learn?
Heb 5:8-9
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
What in the world does this mean? Christ “learned” obedience? Christ was made perfect? Does this mean he at one point didn’t know obedience? He at one point wasn’t perfect?
Calvin says,
Yet learned he obedience, etc. The proximate end of Christ’s sufferings was thus to habituate himself to obedience; not that he was driven to this by force, or that he had need of being thus exercised, as the case is with oxen or horses when their ferocity is to be tamed, for he was abundantly willing to render to his Father the obedience which he owed. But this was done from a regard to our benefit, that he might exhibit to us an instance and an example of subjection even to death itself. It may at the same time be truly said that Christ by his death learned fully what it was to obey God, since he was then led in a special manner to deny himself; for renouncing his own will, he so far gave himself up to his Father that of his own accord and willingly he underwent that death which he greatly dreaded. The meaning then is that Christ was by his sufferings taught how far God ought to be submitted to and obeyed.
It is then but right that we also should by his example be taught and prepared by various sorrows, and at length by death itself, to render obedience to God; nay, much more necessary is this in our case, for we have a disposition contumacious and ungovernable until the Lord subdues us by such exercises to bear his yoke. This benefit, which arises from the cross, ought to allay its bitterness in our hearts; for what can be more desirable than to be made obedient to God? But this cannot be effected but by the cross, for in prosperity we exult as with loose reins; nay, in most cases, when the yoke is shaken off, the wantonness of the flesh breaks forth into excesses. But when restraint is put on our will, when we seek to please God, in this act only does our obedience show itself; nay, it is an illustrious proof of perfect obedience when we choose the death to which God may call us, though we dread it, rather than the life which we naturally desire.
And Calvin on verse 9 says,
And being made perfect, or sanctified, etc. Here is the ultimate or the remoter end, as they call it, why it was necessary for Christ to suffer: it was that he might thus become initiated into his priesthood, as though the Apostle had said that the enduring of the cross and death were to Christ a solemn kind of consecration, by which he intimates that all his sufferings had a regard to our salvation. It hence follows, that they are so far from being prejudicial to his dignity that they are on the contrary his glory; for if salvation be highly esteemed by us, how honorably ought we to think of its cause or author? For he speaks not here of Christ only as an example, but he ascends higher, even that he by his obedience has blotted out our transgressions. He became then the cause of salvation, because he obtained righteousness for us before God, having removed the disobedience of Adam by an act of an opposite kind, even obedience.
Sanctified suits the passage better than “made perfect.” The Greek word means both; but as he speaks here of the priesthood, he fitly and suitably mentions sanctification. And so Christ himself speaks in another place, “For their sakes I sanctify myself.” (John 17:9) It hence appears that this is to be properly applied to his human nature, in which he performed the office of a priest, and in which he also suffered.
Corporate Sin
“Our answer is a spiritual struggle–the opposition of Christ to Communism in the lands it has overtaken. Our mission is not only concerned with saving souls: it cannot be. Western Protestants often use the expression “to take Jesus as a personal savior.” It is not a biblical expression. The sins of our church, our family, our social group–all these involve us; the sins of all men are in part ours, if we have not done all we can to oppose evil.”
(Michael Wurmbrand, Between Hammer and Sickle, 1972, pg. 169.)
Lessons in Humility
In Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography, he notes having been accused of pridefulness and how he dealt with repairing such a fault. His attempts at humility, while externally successful, also led to further successes in debate and polemics. His observation follows,
“I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion; such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted instead of them, I conceive, I comprehend, or I imagine, a thing to be so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manners; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong; and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.”
(Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin)
Will They Come for Me?
“First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.”
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
This is a great statement, and one that we need to be mindful of as Christians and as Americans. Everyday our liberties are being eroded.
- We can own guns, but not these kinds.
- We can speak freely, but not about this.
- We can worship whom we wish, but not Christ.
Our preachers can’t preach from the pulpit those things we most need to hear. Imagine the uproar if a pastor endorsed a candidate from the pulpit! Yet this was common practice in the first half our nation’s history! Imagine the uproar when pastors condemn certain types of sins, yet this is their very calling!
When will they come for us? And should we stand up for and defend those who are most vulnerable (the widows, the fatherless, the minority–especially American Arabs in this age of the Patriot Act) so that someone will be left to speak out for us?
The Lens of Opposition
Here is an interesting post I read publishing Ken Gentry’s response to an inquiry about his eschatology:
Dr. Gentry:
You are committed to the Reformed faith, yet you don’t take the historicist approach to eschatology which was widely held among the Reformers. Why do you not follow the Reformers in this part of their theology. G.K., Minneapolis, Minn.
Dr. Gentry’s response:
Thank you for your inquiry. You are correct that I am committed to Reformed theology. However, I differ from the Reformers in that I take a preterist approach to Revelation rather than an historicist approach. I do so for the following reasons:
First, we should remember that Revelation was not well received among some of the Reformers. Martin Luther, the famed reformer and untiring interpreter of Scripture, originally rejected Revelation as non-canonical, complaining, “My Spirit cannot adapt itself to the book.” In his German translation of the Bible, he complained in the preface to Revelation that the book was “neither apostolic nor prophetic.”
Fellow reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) refused to take a doctrinal proof-text from Revelation. Calvin himself wrote no commentary on it, despite his writing a very thorough series of commentary on almost all of the Bible.
Second, the Reformers were locked in a literal life-and-death struggle with Romanism. Consequently, they tended to view many judgment passages through the lens of their opposition to Rome. They let application override interpretation in some situations.
While I really enjoyed this post (as I would since I too am a preterist), I especially like the statement about the Reformers reacting to Rome.
“Second, the Reformers were locked in a literal life-and-death struggle with Romanism. Consequently, they tended to view many judgment passages through the lens of their opposition to Rome. They let application override interpretation in some situations.”
This statement could have application to so many different doctrines! And it is a wonder why folks will rarely ask themselves if this is what they are doing!
There is much debate over justification by faith, is it by faith alone or by a faith that works itself out in love? Isn’t it obvious (or at least possible?) Luther was viewing these justification passages through the lens of his opposition to Rome? And that many Reformers are doing the same thing still today?
The Rights of Man
Our rights come from God:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence)
Our rights are to be protected by the civil magistrate, or government:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (Declaration of Independence)
Rom 13:3-4 (ESV)
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Note that our rights are rights given to all men and given to us by God. The U.S. Constitution does not give us our rights, it merely enumerates them. The U.S. Government does not give us our rights, it merely protects them. The people of the United States do not grant rights by a majority vote, we merely exercise them.
So why are we Christians supporting the loss of these rights (esp. Life and Liberty) to the men in Guantanamo Bay and other secret CIA and military prisons? Do they not have these rights because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution? Why is that man no longer afforded the right to his life or liberty? Why can we refuse him a trial, presumed innocence, or freedom from torture (his right to life and liberty) just because he is of Arab descent? It is not the U.S. government or Constitution that gives us these rights, it is God and He gives these rights to all men.
Christians must repent of our jingoism, our statism, our elitism, our provincialism, and our warmongering. We follow the Prince of Peace, let us follow Him in proclaiming Liberty to the captives.
