Book Review: The Deep Things of God by Fred Sanders

Perhaps no word has been more central to evangelical writing and discussion in the past decade than the word "gospel". So when Fred Sanders' latest book The Deep Things of God offers insight into "How the Trinity changes everything" some may write it off as secondary. This would be a big mistake. Early on, Sanders makes a compelling argument (one he unpacks throughout the book) that "the gospel is Trinitarian, and the Trinity is the gospel".

As the title implies, this book gets into the deep things and requires at times some deep thinking to follow along. As my pastor might say, Fred didn't exactly put all the cookies on the bottom shelf. However, for those willing to give a little mental effort, there are treasures in the facets of the Trinity that may change the way you think of the gospel, salvation, and prayer to name a few. Let me give you a few examples:

"The main practical reason for learning how to think well about the eternal life of the Trinity is that it is the background for the gospel. The blessedness of God's inner life is the only thing that is even better than the good news. The life of God in itself is the source of all the riches that fund the economy of salvation."

"When the outlines of both are clear, we should experience the shock of recognition: Trinity and gospel have the same shape! This is because the good news of salvation is ultimately that God opens his Trinitarian life to us. Every other blessing is either a preparation for that or a result of it."

The final chapter entitled "Praying with the Grain" was most instructional for me and more than a little convicting as I do a lot of public praying in my role as a worship leader. Using the imagery of sanding wood or petting a cat, Sanders suggests that "the act of prayer has, metaphorically speaking, a grain to it. Prayer has an underlying structure built into it, complete with a directionality that is worth observing". Praying to the Father through the Son in the Spirit is rarely the structure we hear (or even the structure we pray ourselves). Praying in a more careful and conscious manner will make one a more careful theologian more conscious of the presence and power of the Trinity in our lives.

Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars

Recommended for: Theologians, careful gospel thinkers

Cheaper than Amazon, Westminster Bookstore has The Deep Things of God for $11.81.

This book was a free review copy provided by Crossway Books.

Book Review: The Good News We Almost Forgot by Kevin DeYoung

Before I say anything else, I must offer a big thanks to Moody Publishing for their patience in waiting for this review. I took my time with this book and read it more as a devotional which incidentally the book is perfectly laid out for. More on that in a moment.

Who would have guessed that a catechism from the 16th century could be anything but dry, propositional and boring? Yet Kevin DeYoung has taken the Heidelberg Catechism and unearthed a treasure that is modern, relevant and even interesting in The Good News We Almost Forgot.

The catechism (and thus the book) are largely an unpacking of the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. The 129 questions of the catechism are broken up into 52 chapters, perfect for a weekly devotional reading. While I didn't spend a week on each chapter, I did take my time reading the book, rarely reading more than a chapter or two in a sitting. The chapters are short enough and the content varied enough that the book doesn't really lend itself to knocking out half the book in a sitting.

This book is taken best in small bites . . . and chew slowly.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Recommended for: Every Christian looking for a systematic survey of Christian theology and it's application to everyday life

You can purchase The Good News We Almost Forgot at 34% off the retail price at the Westminster Bookstore!

This book was a free review copy provided by Moody Publishers.

Book Review: The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer

The Five Points of Calvinism was first published in 1972. Then again in 1980, the year of Edwin Palmer's death. And three decades later, you will still be hard pressed to find a more brief yet thorough treatment of the TULIP of theology. (No, really. I just spent ten minutes looking over my bookcase—to no avail.)

Don't let the cover of this book fool you. Though it says "A Study Guide" on the front, it stands up perfectly fine for personal reading. However, every chapter is followed by over a dozen (sometimes two dozen) in-depth questions about the previous chapter. When I say in-depth, I mean you should probably have a good grasp on the material at hand before leading a group through such questions.

If I had one disappointment, it was that Michael Horton didn't have more to say in the foreword. I thoroughly enjoyed both Christless Christianity and The Gospel-Driven Life and was hoping for more than just a glorified blurb in the front of the book.

However the resource materials in the back were a pleasant surprise, making up for my disappointment in Michael Horton's brevity. Here you will find excerpts addressing the five points of Calvinism from The Belgic Confession of Faith, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Recommended for: Anyone investigating Calvinism, all those who consider themselves part of the Young, Restless and Reformed

This book was a free review copy provided by Baker Books.

The Imputation of Adam's Sin: A Theory

I was challenged recently that the idea of original sin and Adam's fall as our Representative Head was an unfair and antiquated idea. Nobody still believes that today, do they?

The push-back was not on universal sin, a cursory read of the Bible (or the newspaper for that matter) will settle that one. We're all sinners, no son of Adam (save one) has ever lived a sinless life. "But this idea that we are sinners because Adam sinned, that's so archaic!"

As I considered an answer, I was reminded of a similar complaint. Why did God make humans so we could sin at all?! Why not create us so that we would always choose to love and worship God?The answer is that this sort of love and worship would not be real, would not be genuine. In order for our love and worship to be real, it must be free.

So God created the first two humans with genuine moral freedom (a freedom we don't possess or fully understand). God made them this way not because he wanted humans who would sin, but because it must be so in order to have free God-worshippers.

The nature of God-worshipping freedom requires it.

And I think this may illuminate our question of the imputation (or the passing down) of sin. Just as the nature of freedom played a role in the sort of humanity God made, I think the nature of worship played a role in the sort of humanity God made.

Remember, sin is not just disobeying God, it is the love and worship of something other than God. The devotion, allegiance, obediance, and affection that should be God's is turned to something (or someone) else. So while God did not make us sinners (nor did he create sin), sin happens when we put anything else in God's place. We remove God from the throne in our hearts and place ourselves there.

So perhaps God did not make us linked to Adam in our sinfulness just because he wanted it that way. Perhaps God made us this way because it must be so in order to have the sort of worshippers he desired. The nature of freedom required the potential for a fall, and the nature of worship required the potential for slavery to sin that is transferred from parent to child. Perhaps the nature of our relationship to sin is the way it is because that's the way God desired our relationship with him to be. At least that's my theory right now.

Prayer and Evangelism within God's Sovereignty

One challenge that I have heard often leveled at those who have a high view of the sovereignty of God goes something like this: "If God is sovereign, why does He need us to pray and evangelize? Why must I be involved if, in His sovereignty, His will will be done and the elect will be saved?"

It is a fair question, one I have wrestled with in the past myself, but it betrays our tendency to think of God's commands in terms of His need rather than our own. For instance, when God gave us the ten commandments, it did not grow out of God's fear that the world would spiral out of His control if we didn't have some rules. Rather, God knows His creation so intimately that He knows that not committing adultery (and obeying all the other commandments) in the long run result in a happier, healthier humanity.

Perhaps you see where I am going with this now. Can God accomplish all He desires and ordains without my prayers to assist Him or "grease the works"? Of course. Can God save the lost without my participation in evangelism? Certainly. BUT . . . can I benefit from evangelism and prayer if I'm not actively participating in it? I think not.

You see, just as humanity benefits from living within moral guidelines God set for our good and ultimate pleasure, healthy Christians benefit from prayer and evangelism. When you become a Christian, you become a part of the body of Christ. Through this union, we are given the Holy Spirit and the heart of Christ. The "heart of flesh" that God puts in us desires the things of God. Nothing breaks that heart and makes it beat sluggish and slow like living a placid, menial Christian existence. God desires our obedience in prayer and the great commission for our own good.

Should we pray and evangelize because we love God and want to obey Him? Certainly this is the primary reason every Christian should. But I believe that our ultimate satisfaction and fulfillment as a child of God is at stake as well. Are evangelism and prayer hard work? Of course they are. But so is the fruit of the Spirit. Yet when I work at being more loving or patient or kind, I become a more satisfied and fulfilled Christian as those things come more naturally and with less work. So it is with prayer and evangelism. They should not be simply designated as tasks we do while the fruit of the Spirit (and the rest of the Christian walk) is seen as something to aspire to for happy, healthy Christian living.

Evangelism and prayer begin to make sense within God's sovereignty when we begin to see them in the context of our need rather than God's.

The Balancing Act of Jesus

One thing that has always puzzled me about the ministry of Jesus is why he would exert so much effort to squash the buzz surrounding him. There are seven separate occasions recorded in the book of Mark where Jesus instructed the recipient of a healing miracle to "Tell no one!" Even more fascinating are the accounts of Jesus telling demons to be silent when they cry "You are the Son of God!" as they are cast out. Luke says that he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ (4:41).

However, I think these are indicators of the type of ministry Jesus was setting out to create. He was not simply trying to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth with his teachings. He wasn't just aiming to start a movement. He didn't want to amass a large group of followers. At least not yet.

Jesus, from the very beginning, had his eyes set on the cross. He knew that all his teachings and ministry would be futile if atonement was never made for the sinfulness of mankind. No amount of wisdom from the mouth of God would accomplish what he knew must take place through the cross in his death and resurrection.

Jesus had to keep his followers few enough, his teachings hard enough, and his identity vague enough that the cross would become a reality.

So with this little insight, many strange things in the Gospels start to fall into place. Two of the three recorded temptations from Satan in the wilderness would have instantly revealed Jesus' true identity and drawn the militant masses ready to fight Rome in the name of the Messiah. The same would have taken place if all the healed were proclaiming him. This also would explain why Jesus snapped "Get behind me, Satan!" when Peter tried to dissuade him at saying he would die in Jerusalem. When an overt temptation to bypass the cross failed in the desert, Satan tried again in the form of a trusted friend.

All the more, Jesus would be seen as Messiah by the masses if all the demons were allowed to proclaim the truth that he was the Son of God as they were cast out. Instead, when Jesus was asked by whose authority he performed his miracles, he replied with a question. When his challengers were unable to answer his question, he said "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things". Even so, Jesus, on at least one occasion, had to escape "knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force".

And it was not just the masses who had trouble deciding about Jesus. In a curious twist, John the Baptist, while in prison, sent a few of his own followers to ask Jesus if he was the Messiah or if they should expect someone else. This from the very person who prepared the way for Jesus and even proclaimed him the Lamb of God at his baptism.

And what of all his hard teachings? Hate your brother and mother and father? Eat my body? Drink my blood? Tear this temple down and in three days I will raise it up? Through the lens of the cross and the harmony of Scripture we see the truth and beauty of his words, but on the front end of his death he sounded kinda nutty. Though the disciples knew he had the "words of eternal life", there are several points recorded in the Gospels where they grasped Jesus' teaching only after his resurrection and glorification. And while the disciples hung on and remembered even when they didn't understand, many others were driven away by Jesus words.

This starts to become quite distressing when considering all the people "driven away" from the Gospel by Jesus himself! That is, of course, unless Jesus "knew what was in a man" and knew that many had just come to be entertained by the talk of the town. Disturbing, unless Jesus knew that "All that the Father gives me will come to me", and "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". Confusing, unless Jesus spoke in parables precisely to weed out those who, "Though seeing they do not see, and though hearing they do not hear or understand". The behavior of Jesus is quite frustrating unless he has a cool confidence in the sovereignty and election of God to bring all the sheep out from among the rebellious and cold-hearted wolves into the fold of the Shepherd and not lose one.

So throughout the Gospels I see a balancing act emerging, a tight-rope walk on the part of Jesus. His words of life tempered by hard teachings. Questions answered contrasted with questions left unanswered. Jesus proclaiming his own divinity (often vaguely) but squashing overt proclamations from the demons. Miracles performed followed by miracles refused. Crowds drawn and beckoned, and then driven away. All this to ensure the climax and apex of his incarnation, his death and resurrection. If you still find this hard to believe, consider Jesus' own words to his disciples: "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs." Jesus himself was aware that he was whispering in the dark during his own ministry.

Jesus' goal on earth was never to evangelize the nations himself. In deed, his ministry was quite localized and relatively brief. Rather, his goal was to prepare a small group of followers and equip them with the "words of eternal life" and the Holy Spirit so that they were prepared to go to the nations after he had purchased salvation for the world. This is why Jesus kept his followers few enough, his teachings hard enough, and his identity vague enough that the cross would become a reality.

Why doesn't God save everyone?

I've never done this before, but in responding to a comment on my previous post I got so long-winded (OK, I've done that before), that I felt compelled to make a second post as my answer. I've included the anonymous question below.

---

I agree with your argument [in The High, Holy Ideal of Man's Autonomy], but it's ironic because it's a pretty strong case for Universalism, which as an adherent to Reformed Theology, you obviously do not believe in.The question then, could be posed to you, if God desires the salvation of all men, and is willing to "stack the deck" in favor of that, then why cannot all be saved, in your view? Why stop at a few "elect"? Is it simply because your interpretation of the Bible necessitates it? And if so, wouldn't it be a worthy endeavor to consider perhaps an alternate interpretation? And if an interpretation exists, which can satisfy both God's will that all be saved, and still honor the free will of man, shouldn't that be the position we take?

---

Universalism is probably the last idea that I could accept on biblical grounds simply because of the sheer volume of passages that seem to be unequivocally clear about the reality of a future, eternal judgment for the unrepentant. So if I am trying to find a harmony between ideas present in the Bible, I feel compelled to reconcile the more common and dominant themes first. In this case, the reality of hell before the idea of God's will that all be saved.

Now for the idea that God desires the salvation of all men, I believe the Bible speaks of the will of God in a couple different ways. Or rather, there are a couple different wills of God. Let me explain. We are all familiar with the will of God that cannot be suppressed, resisted, or confounded, what I call his sovereign will. However, I see a second kind of will spoken of in the Bible. This second kind of will is subject to the behavior and obedience of mankind and is satisfied only to the extent that a certain group is able to live up to such desires. I call this God's moral will since, as often as it is used, it's satisfaction is contingent on a morally right response by a person or persons.

Let me give some examples:

For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. - 1 Peter 2:15

It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable. - 1 Thessalonians 4:3,4

The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. - 1 John 2:17

And even from the mouth of Jesus . . .

Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother. - Mark 3:35

If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. - John 7:17

Notice that in every instance, the possibility is there (either implicitly or explicitly) that the subjects could choose to act in defiance to the will of God. This, then, is certainly not the sovereign will we usually think of. In fact, the two verses that you alluded to don't even use the word "will" at all, rather they are translated as "wishes", "wants", and "desires" which I believe fits the distinction I am making.

So then the obvious question (and one that has been addressed by much wiser men than myself) is: why is it not God's sovereign will that everyone is saved? I would point out (and everyone would agree) that God's mercy and grace are glorified and magnified in the saving of undeserving sinners. However, the opposite is also true. God's justice and judgment are glorified and magnified in the condemnation of deserving sinners. Notice, no one is receiving injustice from God. He gives grace to some and justice to others, but injustice to no one.

So why doesn't God deal equally with all men? Romans chapter nine deals with this extensively, but there is one phrase in particular that will help us here. In verses 11 and 12 we read "Yet, before the twins (Jacob and Esau) were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--". Thus, God calls some and not others in order that his own purpose in election might stand. This may seem arbitrary, but if God's purpose and call are magnified in such a choice, it is the furthest thing from arbitrary. And again, there is no injustice done here, those not called receive only what they deserve.

Incidentally, this also answers two other big questions that many people have: "Why did God make anything?" and "Why did God decree/allow evil to enter the world?" (or some variation thereof). By creating the universe and beings with free will and then permitting the fall, we see the stage set for the glorification and magnification of all of God's attributes through the course of history past, present, and yet to come.

So I believe this all comes back to the glorification of God and the magnification of his divine attributes. His grace and mercy are glorified and magnified in salvation, his justice glorified and magnified in judgment, and his purpose in election glorified and magnified in calling some and not others. And in all this, mankind receives no worse than what we deserve (justice) and no better than what we don't (salvation).

Want to read more? I recommend John Piper's longest-titled book Spectacular Sins and Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ. Click here for a free pdf. dowload of the entire book!

The High, Holy Ideal of Man's Autonomy

One of the primary objections I hear to the whole idea of predestination and election is that they both stand as an encroachment upon the free will of man. Of course those who hold to a Reformed view of predestination believe that man's will is free because it can choose what it wants, but fallen because it wants nothing to do with God. So without some sort of intervention by God (what we call the efficacious call), the will remains fallen and no one chooses God.

Libertarian free will maintains that man is a mixture of good and bad but still has the ability to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. Though the Bible says that God is sovereign and directs the paths of kings and kingdoms, and tends even to the sparrows and lilies of the field; yet He abstains from imposing upon our salvation so that a genuine decision can be made of our own free will. He will not and indeed cannot interfere with man's choice without compromising its freedom, so they say.

However, I want to challenge the idea that Reformed doctrine alone violates man's free will. If, in fact, this is the case, then I have a question for everyone who holds to the position of libertarian free will. Have you ever prayed for the salvation of someone? Maybe a friend, a co-worker, or someone even closer to you, a loved one perhaps.

If so, what exactly were you praying for if not God's intervention? Whether you were praying that God would "open their eyes", "soften their heart", or "show them the light", your intent in the prayer was that God would somehow alter or manipulate the circumstances (internal or external) so they would be more inclined to believe.

Such a prayer is directed against such circumstances as rebellion, the temptation of sin, ignorance, peer pressure, etc. that are essentially alternative options for the will of man to choose as more desirable than God's gift of salvation. These factors, left unchecked, would bring an individual to choose of their own autonomous free will against God and for the lure of sin and the flesh. How glorifying to God is such a such a situation, if this is in fact the case? That God must remove sinful lures and enticements of the flesh that our will would choose as more desirable than Him so that we will settle for His salvation amidst the remaining alternatives.

The problem as I see it is this: as long as an individual's autonomous free will is held up as the ultimate ideal in humanity, our prayers are useless or even offensive. Such a prayer at best falls on the deaf ears of God who dares not "stack the deck" for anyone to love him, and at worst asks God to violate the most precious of man's character traits, his autonomy (*note the sarcasm).

Of course every Christian knows this is absurd. We should be praying fervently for the salvation of all men. And my point is this: a praying Christian who believes in libertarian free will is not really so opposed to God's intervention and involvement as they claim (and one who isn't praying for the salvation of the lost, well, we've got bigger problems there). Thus, Reformed doctrine is not singularly guilty of doing violence to man's autonomous freedom by suggesting that we are slaves to sin and God must change our wills before we can respond to Him. If our will desires the inclinations of the flesh, how will we ever choose salvation unless God first performs surgery and removes our hearts (and wills) of stone and gives us a heart that actually pumps life through our veins?

God as Father, and we His children

How often have you heard someone say "Were all God's children"? It is not unusual for the term Father to be used when speaking of God, at least in Christian circles. Jesus did so, and instructed his followers to do the same when teaching them to pray. However, this not only speaks of God's paternal characteristics towards us, but it also speaks of our relationship to Him. It is this relationship, of us to God as children, that I want to consider.

First, it cannot be said that just anyone is a child of God. Though He did create us all, there has been a fall and separation that must be atoned for and taken out of the way. As Paul said, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ". So it is clear that the qualification for status as a child is faith and baptism in Christ. Again, as John wrote, "To all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God".

Don't let the blessing and priveledge of this be lost on you. This is not something that we are born into like our natural sonship, it is adoptive. Thus we are chosen and it is soley by a gift of grace. We are heirs along with Christ. We are brothers and sisters of Jesus.

What does it mean to me that God is my Father? This is a quite comfortable and comforting question. All the answers that you may come up with probably make you feel cozy and require nothing from you. However, there is a question that follows that is less comfy: What does it mean to me that I am God's child? If I may put it another way: we are quick to elaborate on what the Father-son relationship means to us in terms of benefits, but slow to consider what it means in terms of responsibilities and expectations.

You see, Christianity isn't just a "one and done" deal. It's not just fire insurance. Being a child of God signifies that He is in a position of authority over us. It suggests a sense of affection and fellowship between us. And it means giving honor to Him in all these areas. When Jesus called his followers to live in a certain way it was always to either imitate, glorify, or please the Father.
While works do not save us, they are and must be a developing "family trait". As children of God, we do no follow the law to sustain our salvation, but as J.I. Packer wrote, "Law-keeping is the family likeness of God's children; Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, and God calls us to do likewise."

You cannot give the Bible even a cursory reading without finding a strong theme of God's Fatherhood over us. Yet there are so many who passively call God "Father" and live like anything but His child. Anyone who isn't being made into an obedient child of God, no matter how faltering or stumbling, may be no child at all. If there is no love, no deference to the will of the Father, no grief at sinning against such a loving parent, it can be rightly asked if He is truly your Father. If the Bible gives clear guidelines as to what a true child adopted into all rights and benefits looks like, we would be wise to ensure our lives mirror that.

For a more indepth treatment of the subject, see Knowing God by J.I. Packer, specifically the chapter "Sons of God".

Depravity Necessitates God's Choice

Every Christian must have a view of predestination. I know, this is not a catchy intro paragraph, and if you're not a Christian, you've already clicked away. However, I feel compelled to write on this, because Reformed theology is foundational to my worldview and a particular position on predestination is foundational to Reformed theology. I know most of you are confused or bored by now. But if you give this material some time and thought, it may just clear up some tensions you've felt and seen in the Bible and even mankind (as it did for me).

I did not start out in my Christian theology as a Reformed thinker. Most people don't because all of us live most of our lives thinking we make all our decisions with complete autonomy. But at some point in a Christian's life they must (or should) deal with ideas of predestination and God's sovereignty. As I opened, every Christian must have a view of predestination. This is, of course, because it's in the Bible.

Now the popular view of predestination goes something like this: God predestined some people for salvation because He looked down the corridors of time and saw who would chose Him and He elected them. So this view would say we chose God (salvation) because God chose us (election in predestination) because we chose God (our decision seen by foreknowledge). This does not sound like the predestination I read about in Romans 9 done "in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works but by him who calls".

Rather, I hold that we chose God (salvation) because God chose us (predestination). No third step dependent on the decisions of man. However, I hold this position not primarily because of the Bible's teaching on predestination, though it is certainly there. Instead, I hold this position because of the Bible's teaching on man's fallenness, sinfulness, and depravity. Our state of sinfulness and helplessness necessitates God making the choice. It was the doctrine of human depravity that drove me to a Reformed position.

Spiritual ignorance: Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires (Rom. 8:5), they are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts (Eph. 4:18), the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14), there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God (Rom. 3:11)

Spiritual rebellion: We were God's enemies (Rom. 5:10), [The sinful nature] does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so (Rom. 8:7) All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one (Rom. 3:12), both their minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15), the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9)

Spiritual inability: Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God (Rom. 8:8), Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), everyone who sins is a slave to sin (John 8:34), When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness (Rom. 6:20)
Spiritual death: The mind of sinful man is death (Rom. 8:6), you were dead in your transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1), you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature (Col. 2:13)

As RC Sproul said in Chosen by God, "The uniform teaching of Scripture is that fallen men are fleeing from God. There is no one who seeks after God. We see people searching desperately for peace of mind, relief from guilt, meaning and purpose to their lives, and loving acceptance. People do not seek God. They seek after the benefits that only God can give them."

So, if I believe man is spiritually ignorant, rebellious, and dead, how are we saved? God must regenerate us, He must make an effective call on the heart that breathes life into it. Much like Lazarus, we make no decision to walk out of the grave until God speaks and life is created in us.

For a more in depth treatment of this issue by Greg Koukl, click here.

Cancer and God's Sovereignty

Recently I had a rare opportunity to meet one "of whom the world was not worthy". I received a call out of the blue from the wife of a friend. He was out of town for the week and unavailable when asked to visit another military man in the hospital who was undergoing treatment for lymphoma. When asked if I would visit this person I've never met under such heavy circumstances, I accepted with more than a little anxiousness.

This young man named Zach had moved to Omaha with his newly-wed wife just so he could receive specialized treatment at the med center. They were alone in Omaha, having spent their entire time in the hospital, and he needed "a brother to talk to" as he later told me. He told me how God had just recently gotten his attention and at the same time brought his wife-to-be into his life. There was such an atmosphere of joy in that room that at times I forgot we were in a hospital.

I was brought to tears as we read the first chapter of Ephesians. It struck me how one so afflicted according to the world's standards could speak so easily and affectionately about the sovereignty and providence of God. But, as one strongly influenced by Reformed thinking, the sovereignty of God is truly a source of comfort when understood properly. Certainly, while God does not actively cause everything, even that which He allows is in His design. As John Piper said, "What God permits, He permits for a reason. And that reason is His design. " As Christians, we are not promised to be saved from all sickness and pain, only that there is purpose behind it all and heaven after it all. Indeed, as we loosen our clutches on the world and grasp tighter to Christ, we can say with Paul "To die is gain" and see sovereignty behind it.

I know that a sick man's confidence in the sovereignty of God is not an argument for His sovereignty. But, if the Bible can be proven the Word of God (which I believe it has been), and if the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God (which I believe it does), then Zach's peace and confidence is the perfect outworking of loving God's sovereignty.

Not two weeks after I met Zach for the first and only time, he passed away from complications resulting from the lymphoma. For those who may read this and have differing positions about the sovereignty of God, my words may sound calloused or ignorant. For those who don't believe in any sort of afterlife, they may sound like the mental crutch of a wishful thinker. But for Zach, God's sovereignty gave him joy in his circumstances, hope in the future, and peace even in the prospect of death. And I came away from the hospital not depressed or second-guessing my theology, but rather more confident and at peace in the sovereignty of God than before.

Don't Waste Your Cancer by John Piper

Are you good enough to get into heaven?

How good do you have to be to get into heaven? What is the scale on which we will all be graded? Many people answer that it is simply a balancing act between one's good deeds and bad deeds. They believe the verdict is decided by which side of the scale outweighs the other.

God, in fact, gives us the scale by which to judge ourselves in the Ten Commandments. Don't steal. Don't murder. Don't lie. Most people have broken at least a couple of these commandments, but they feel they have at least not broken the big ones like adultery and murder.

However, isn't it interesting that Jesus had something to say about the very two commandments that most people feel they are in the clear on? Jesus said if you have entertained hatred in your heart for a person, you are guilty of murder. If you have entertained lust in your heart for a person, you are guilty of adultery. And to make matters worse, we find that "if a person keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point, they are guilty of breaking all of it". If this is true, that puts us all squarely on the same side of the scale as the most infamous murderers in the world's history.

If this seems unfair, it is because we underestimate the position we were given when God created us in His image. We were made image bearers, and as such expected to bear His image not only personality traits, but also behavior and morality. The reason lying is a sin and listed in the Commandments is that it is contrary to God's image. The same can be said for every Commandment. Every sin is, at its root, a violation of God's image in our person. Thus, lying and stealing puts you on the same plane as murdering because all of them put you in the category of a defiler of God's image.

As we realize that we are guilty not only of commiting individual sins in action, but also of entertaining serious sins in thought and breaking the entire law in violating God's image, things are looking pretty grim. And the nail in the coffin comes when we find that good deeds do not count as positive weight on our imaginary scales because good deeds are expected as image bearers. The image of the "good" and "bad" scales actually doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It would be more accurate to say that we've been given something precious and invaluable, like a ming vase, and as image bearers are expected to keep it in its original condition and value. A sin is a crack and, if the aforementioned factors are true, we've all done much worse than just crack the image.

If this analogy bothers you, it bothers God too. This is the reason He sent Jesus. Only Jesus kept the law at every point, only He bore the image of God perfectly. And only through faith in Jesus are we identified with Him and His perfect image. So the choice is yours, you can be identified with Christ the perfect image bearer, or you can be identified on your own and how you've handled God's image.

(For anyone interested in the picture I used, it is a perfect illustration! Notice even the restorer said experts would be able to see the cracks.)

Is God Fair?

"But that's not fair!" I've heard this protest often in my life, and been the one protesting on more than one occasion. Recently, however, I've heard this charge in response to how the Bible presents God's dealings with us sinners. No matter your views on predestination, election, and God's sovereignty in regards to salvation, the Bible is unequivocally clear that some will go to heaven and others to hell. However, all three of those themes (predestination, election, and sovereignty) are present by name in the Bible, and every fair biblical scholar must have room for them in his or her theology.

So let me give you a definitive answer right now, God is not fair. Erase that category for God in your mind. Fairness is never an attribute that the Bible gives to God. This may surprise a lot of people, but it isn't in there.

However, before you jump to any conclusions, let me clarify something. When I say that God is not fair, I am simply saying that God does not act equally and identically towards all people. It is not the same as saying God is not just or not right in His actions. I am simply saying that God acts differently towards different people.

This is not to say that God acts wrongly. All of us, as fallen and rebellious human beings, deserve God's justice and condemnation to hell. God would be perfectly just in saving no one. This would be the end of every single person if not for the grace and mercy of God. But due to this grace and mercy, God exercised His justice and condemnation upon Jesus on behalf of all those called as saints. In this way, God's justice is not ignored or denied, but rather fully satisfied.

Thus we see that God acts out His justice and judgement on some, and He acts out His grace and mercy on others. However, in both these actions, God does not act unjustly on anyone. Of course, this is where the protest comes into play, "That's not fair!" And I must ask "Who told you God must be fair?" To say that God must be merciful and gracious to everyone equally it to nullify mercy. Mercy is never something that is obligatory, mercy is something that God does freely and voluntarily. Mercy by definition is something that God doesn't have to do. As soon as you say God "owes" us mercy, you aren't talking about mercy anymore.

So we have two categories of humanity, those who receive mercy and those who receive justice. But (and here is my point) nobody receives injustice. No one has ever received injustice at the hands of God. So while God is not fair, it really works in our favor as we receive grace and mercy rather than the justice we have earned. Thus, God is not fair and I thank God for it.

Why is there pain?

This question grows out of one of my previous posts entitled The Victims of Tyranny and Tragedy. The question arises: why must the fallen world be so painful? The answer is similar to my previous blog in that it is rooted in the holiness of God and the sinfulness of man (neither of which do we grasp the depth and severity of). However, these are only two of the factors and a third may surprise you. One of the main reasons this world is so painful is because of God's great love and compassion for us.

I know, this sounds ridiculous and contradictory but let me explain. As children, we learn what our bodies were not made for through pain (our hands were not made for the stove, etc.). In a similar way, God is trying to teach us as spiritual children that we were not made for this world. More precisely, we were not made primarily for any desire in this world but rather were made to desire God above all else.

This, in fact, is how the whole pain thing started. In the garden, man and woman rejected God as their supreme desire and chose the desire for autonomy and freedom from God (in the form of choosing the forbidden fruit) instead. Through this act, not only did man sin and become fallen, but the world was subjected to bondage to corruption and futility. Because of this, creation has not functioned in the perfect harmony that it was intended for.

Why? Why did God do this to the world? Why so many children with heart-wrenching disabilities? Why natural disasters that take so many lives? Why famines and diseases? As John Piper puts it, God put the world under a curse so that the physical horror we see around us would become a vivid picture of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost to the unspeakable wickedness of moral evil. God allowed the disorder of the natural world to match the disorder of the moral and spiritual world. Diseases and deformities are God's portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm and that is true even though some of the most Godly people bear the most horrible deformities.

Yet we don't feel it! In our present, fallen condition our hearts are so numb and so blinded we seldom feel the gravity of our sin. Almost no one feels the abhorrence that sin is or feels repulsed or nauseated at how they scorn the glory of God. We should feel as deeply about sin as we do about a friend's disability. We should feel as intense and bad about our immorality as we do about starvation. O, that we could feel how offensive and repugnant and abominable it is to prefer anything to your Maker! To plagiarize John Piper once more, the natural world is shot through with horrors that aim to wake us up from the dream world of thinking demeaning God is no big deal.

Thus, if there were not the pain that there now is, it would be far too easy to forget God and how we have spurned Him. It would be far too easy to prefer all the temporary pleasures that this world offers rather than prefer the eternal joy in Christ. To quote C.S. Lewis, "We are half-hearted creatures like an ignorant child wants to go making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the beach. We are far too easily pleased."

The Victims of Tyranny and Tragedy

Living in a fallen, sinful world, it is easy to start thinking of one's self only in degrees of comparison to others. When we compare our own lives and behavior to those of the criminals and devils we see on the news and in history, the tendency is to begin to feel pretty good about ourselves. However, this sort of grading on a scale is dangerous and misleading and can have eternal consequences.

No matter what your position is on the state of man's sinfulness and the degree to which we are in bondage to it, only a liar can claim to be sinless and perfect (don't miss the irony in that). Indeed, every human being is guilty before God, every human being owes a debt. Consider these verses, then, to be a litmus test of your perception of the extent of man's guilt and God's holiness. If Jesus' response in this passage shocks you as much as it did me, please give new reflection not only to how high you esteem God as holy and just but also how low you esteem us as sinful and guilty.

---

Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who lived in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Luke 13:1-5

---

Are you not shocked at the response of Jesus? He is informed that a group of Galileans (biblical historians estimate there were nearly 6,000 of them) were murdered in cold blood by the resident Roman thug. This act had cultural significance as well: not only were the Galileans killed but their remains were desecrated by the mixing of their blood with a pagan sacrifice. We expect Jesus to say they didn't deserve this, that they will be rewarded for enduring such a heinous crime. Or we expect Jesus to tell us that they were all actually exceptional sinners and earned this above and beyond other sinners. Either way, we expect Jesus to either defend or "excuse" God in allowing this to occur.

The last thing we expect is the response that Jesus gives. In fact, Jesus doesn't even stop at the retelling of such tyranny, He goes a step further and brings up His own example. He recounts another event that has no villain, an event that was simply a tragedy. If the crowd blamed Pilate for the first event, who could the crowd blame but God for the falling of a tower? If the crowd felt God needed vindication in their eyes in the first case, He certainly (and doubly) needed vindication in the second case. Undoubtedly Jesus would seek to absolve and exonerate God in the peoples' minds. Yet Jesus responds to both accounts of tyranny and tragedy with an identical answer.

"Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Jesus' response is quite the opposite from what we anticipate. God needs no justification to anyone in allowing these things, and others deserve no less if they do not repent. This didn't happen because the departed were greater sinners, and others were not spared because they were lesser sinners. However, just because these victims could claim innocence in these situations did not mean they were innocent altogether. Both events were rooted in this fallen world and happened to sinful man. The crux of the situation was not the amount of sin in the lives of the victims, but rather the sinfulness of both victims and hearers alike. Again, if this surprises you or strikes you as harsh, consider if what I've said seems true to the text, then consider your own presuppositions on man's sinfulness and God's holiness.

I know there are probably contemporary parallels that come to your mind that mirror the two situations Jesus addresses. I know there are several I've thought of. Tyranny and tragedy still occur on a daily basis. They fill our newspapers. If my words sound harsh, please do not mistake it for taking lightly the lives lost. No, it is not that the lives should be taken lightly, but that the glory and holiness and righteousness of God should be taken seriously.

I don't believe it is a stretching of the text to say that if any of us today don't repent, we will all likewise perish. Of course, I don't mean that we will all be slaughtered or crushed by a falling tower, but what things are true of all the unrepentant, both in Jesus' day and ours? Death is a permanent, final loss that is permitted(and therefore ordained) by God as an end of one's time given to either seek God and repentance or live in rebellion to Him.

Our response should be the same Jesus called his hearers to, repent! Find the forgiveness of God in Jesus Christ. For not only is God perfectly holy and just, He is perfectly merciful and gracious as well. For those who feel that God, rather than Pilate, is the tyrant in this account, God's response is the offering up of His Son. Much like the Galileans, Jesus' blood was shed in a pagan ritual and His blood was desecrated, but it was done to pay our debt to God. For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The true tyranny of any life is denying Christ, the true tragedy is rejecting His grace.

The Fate of Angels and Humans

Recently I was challenged by a fellow believer (and, at the time, fellow camper) on the meaning of my band's name and the biblical accuracy of it. Here's a couple of my thoughts on the differences between humans and angels and the "mystery" of salvation.

Heb. 2:16 "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham".

Understanding this very straight forward verse, the following passage largely forms my theology on this issue:

1 Pet. 1:10-12 "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven - things into which angels long to look." (bold lettering my emphasis)

Now, applying the fact stated in the first verse, that salvific help is given to the descendants of Abraham and not to angels, then the portions of 1 Peter highlighted are all things that the verse suggests (as do I) angels do not understand fully and long to look into. It seems clear to me (and I think the rest of Scripture would agree) that angels have limited or no personal, experiential knowledge of salvation, grace, the glories following Christ's sufferings, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. At the very least, their experience with such things greatly differs from that of mankind. They have no firsthand experience of sin and the fall (they must be untainted by sin to remain in God's presence) and thus have never felt a separation from God, a need for redemption, or the glories of Christ in their lives following such redemption. Of course fallen angels have experienced sin and the fall, but to them there is no offer of redemption through the death of Christ.

As I briefly mentioned before, I think the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is something that the Bible delineates as solely for those in the Body of Christ. Thus, we have firsthand relational knowledge of the third person of the Trinity that the angels will ever only long to know. Thus, there is clearly a sense that we as God's chosen children have a firsthand experience and deeper knowledge of these things, and that it is the fate of angels ever to long to look into such things.

Ergo (I've always wanted to use that word!) we as a band suggest that it is the fate of angels to constantly be looking into the lives of believers and seeing the grace, redemption, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit that they will never understand as we do. So how dare we, as humans and the objects of God's loving grace, ever take for granted these manifold blessings that we have in Christ and through Him?! How dare we who are not subject to the fate of angels cheapen or take lightly our adoption as sons and daughters, our glorification as saints, and our high position as joint heirs with Christ?!! The name Fate of Angels is, for us, a constant reminder to live in a manner worthy of all this.

Guilt and the Long Arm of the Law

How many times has this happened to you? You're talking to someone (or someone is talking to you) about Jesus and faith and one of you says something like "I'm mostly a good person, I've never killed anybody" or "Well, I try to be a good person, and I just hope that when I stand before God that my good deeds will outweigh my bad deeds". How does one continue in the conversation without making God out to be a spiteful and vengeful God who expects the impossible from all of us? I used the following analogy with a co-worker and it really seemed to hit home with him:

---

Imagine I am out driving one day and I decide to have a little fun. I run every stop light I come to, break the speed limit by a good 20 MPH, cause several accidents, and just generally ignore the traffic laws. Before long a police officer pulls me over and tells me he's been following me and saw the whole thing.

Do you think he would let me off the hook if I said "Well officer, I'm mostly a good driver, I've never killed anybody"? Do you think he'd be at all impressed if I said "When I stand before the judge I just hope all my good driving outweighs my bad driving and he'll let me off"? I doubt it (especially if he and the judge know every single driving violation I've ever committed).

It only takes one violation to be guilty of breaking the rules of the road, only one violation to give grounds for a ticket or a court appearance. If we are guilty, we either must pay the penalty or seek the pardon (grace) of the judge through the terms he has set.

---

It's often a hard pill for one to swallow when someone tries to tell them that just one sin makes them guilty, but this every day situation brings the concept down to earth. Understand, I am not saying you wouldn't hope for grace from the judge (and, indeed, that is what we have in Christ). My point is that we wouldn't consider the judge unjust for finding us guilty of the crimes we've committed. It is often too easy for many people to minimize the sin they have committed, and I've found this analogy really puts our guilt in terms that everyone can understand.

Note: An analogy cannot prove anything, only illustrate. If you find this analogy helpful, you still must argue for and support the position. If you find this a poor analogy (or disagree with the position) you still must construct an argument against it. A good analogy does not prove the validity of an argument or the truthfulness of a statement, just as a poor analogy does not prove an argument as flawed or a statement as false.