I have a confession to make. A few years ago, I nearly became somewhat of a Hyper-Calvinist. Now I don't know if I would have gone all the way with it and denied the necessity of the universal gospel call, or that all Arminians are among the reprobate, but I was well on my way to at least one distinct Hyper-Calvinist doctrine; namely that God hates the finally reprobate. Basically, I was starting to believe that there were people in the world that God had absolutely nothing but hate and loathing for.
Thankfully, I no longer believe that. Please do not misunderstand me, I am still a supralapsarian High Calvinist. I do believe in double predestination, though I am not sure how I feel about equal ultimacy. On the other hand (said Christian mentally mimicking Topol from Fiddler on the Roof), I actually do think it is possible for God to elect some to life and some to eternal death and still maintain a certain kind of love for all mankind.
Put briefly, it was Genesis 1:26 and the doctrine of the image of God in the creation of man that led me to understand God's universal love for all mankind. Genesis 1:26 reads as follows:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” NKJV
I came across this Scripture and its application to this issue by going through part of a teaching by Vineyard pastor Bill Jackson called "Nothins Gonna Stop It" [sic]. Borrowing partially from Daniel Fuller's work The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity, Jackson posits that God created Man, male and female, in order to reflect Him back to Himself. As I reflected on this, it became reasonable to me to assume that human beings, in the garden, looked like God, acted like God, and did many of the things that God Himself did. God has dominion. God gave Man dominion over creation. God creates. Man is endowed by God to be creative. That, to me anyway, explains the Arts and entrepreneurship - creating something that did not exist before. Marriage is an expression of the image of God in that a man enters into a covenant with his wife just as God covenants with His people - the Church.
Of course, the fall into sin has marred that image, but has not completely destroyed it. This explains why murder is such a serious - in fact, capital - offense (Genesis 9:5,6). To murder a human being is to literally deface the image of God and pour contempt on it. In a similar vein, for God to actually "hate" a sinful human being, He would actually be hating Himself.
So what of some of the Psalms that declare that God does, in fact, "hate" evildoers (Psalm 5:5; 11:5)? I don't have a complete answer for that other than to suggest possibly poetic embellishment. Imprecations in the Psalms have long vexed interpreters. Only God knows, but maybe there are rare cases of God actually hating someone (like David's enemies, who would typologically represent Christ's enemies). But even if so, I suspect these would be exceptions rather than the rule.
In short, even the most sinful and evil person bears the divine image and redemption is largely for the purpose of restoring that fallen image to Mankind so that we will again reflect God perfectly back to Himself. To summarize then, I believe that God has a general love for all people everywhere (because of the image of God in them), and a stronger, covenant love for His elect whom He chose to give to the Son of God before time began (John 17:1,2); those to whom God has sovereignly and unconditionally chosen to be the recipients of the restored image.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
I Kinda Sorta Understand Where John MacArthur is Coming From
It has been two months since John MacArthur's controversial "Strange Fire" Conference and about a month since the eponymous book was released, which has caused no small storm in the larger evangelical community, at least in the Western world. Indeed, Dr. Michael Brown's response "Authentic Fire" has already been published and R.T. Kendall's book "Holy Fire" is being published in January 2014.
Much has been made of the tone of Dr. MacArthur himself and his comrades (and rightfully so), but after thinking about it some, I have come to the conclusion that, while John MacArthur's hermeneutics and exegesis are seriously flawed when it comes to spiritual gifts, he is nevertheless doing at least one thing right.
Now before the reader goes into apoplexy over the fact that a reformed charismatic believer is kinda sorta rushing to MacArthur's defense, please note a few things. Firstly, John MacArthur would have absolutely no interest in anything I have to say. I am quite certain he hasn't the slightest care that I either defend him or attack him. Secondly, I am only kind of defending him. I am certainly not endorsing his views on spiritual gifts and their supposed cessation, nor am I saying he is without fault here. Thirdly, Dr. MacArthur has undeniably been a benefit to the Church at large and has left a legacy that believers of all persuasions should honor. I have benefited greatly, like many others, from Dr. MacArthur's expository preaching ministry.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that, at least from my perspective (limited as it is), John MacArthur is only following the logical conclusions from his presuppositions. In fact, if I were him, I would almost certainly be doing the exact same things he has been doing. If I honestly believed in cessation and had that kind of platform, I too would have had that conference and published that book.
Why is that? I am glad you asked! Simply put, the main reason is that, by gifting, John MacArthur is a teacher. I too, consider teaching to be my primary spiritual gift (though I think I may have at least one other). Teachers care about truth.....a....lot. For teachers, truth matters, virtually over everything else. That is how I feel for certain. Teachers often have strong convictions. I have very strong beliefs and convictions about several topics that the Bible teaches on. My convictions that the miraculous gifts continue is no less strong than Dr. MacArthur's that they have ceased.
Of course, there is just one problem with the above statement. Both of us can't be right! Either spiritual gifts like prophecy and healing have continued or they have not. Pretensions of a middle ground simply won't do. Also, the truth or fallacy of cessation is true for all people, in all places, in all times, and in all circumstances. We can't afford any postmodern ambiguity here. Either John MacArthur or I am preaching falsehood. While this is not a gospel primary issue, it is nevertheless of extreme importance in the ministry of the Church; and her vitality and effectiveness is at stake in this debate. All that to say is that Dr. MacArthur is only doing what would be the logical thing to do if his thesis is correct. It is in this way, that I kinda sorta don't fault him for his activities over the last several months. Of course, I do in fact, fault him for his theology of spiritual gifts, but even the best of us is prone to errors of this kind.
Much has been made of the tone of Dr. MacArthur himself and his comrades (and rightfully so), but after thinking about it some, I have come to the conclusion that, while John MacArthur's hermeneutics and exegesis are seriously flawed when it comes to spiritual gifts, he is nevertheless doing at least one thing right.
Now before the reader goes into apoplexy over the fact that a reformed charismatic believer is kinda sorta rushing to MacArthur's defense, please note a few things. Firstly, John MacArthur would have absolutely no interest in anything I have to say. I am quite certain he hasn't the slightest care that I either defend him or attack him. Secondly, I am only kind of defending him. I am certainly not endorsing his views on spiritual gifts and their supposed cessation, nor am I saying he is without fault here. Thirdly, Dr. MacArthur has undeniably been a benefit to the Church at large and has left a legacy that believers of all persuasions should honor. I have benefited greatly, like many others, from Dr. MacArthur's expository preaching ministry.
What I am doing is simply pointing out that, at least from my perspective (limited as it is), John MacArthur is only following the logical conclusions from his presuppositions. In fact, if I were him, I would almost certainly be doing the exact same things he has been doing. If I honestly believed in cessation and had that kind of platform, I too would have had that conference and published that book.
Why is that? I am glad you asked! Simply put, the main reason is that, by gifting, John MacArthur is a teacher. I too, consider teaching to be my primary spiritual gift (though I think I may have at least one other). Teachers care about truth.....a....lot. For teachers, truth matters, virtually over everything else. That is how I feel for certain. Teachers often have strong convictions. I have very strong beliefs and convictions about several topics that the Bible teaches on. My convictions that the miraculous gifts continue is no less strong than Dr. MacArthur's that they have ceased.
Of course, there is just one problem with the above statement. Both of us can't be right! Either spiritual gifts like prophecy and healing have continued or they have not. Pretensions of a middle ground simply won't do. Also, the truth or fallacy of cessation is true for all people, in all places, in all times, and in all circumstances. We can't afford any postmodern ambiguity here. Either John MacArthur or I am preaching falsehood. While this is not a gospel primary issue, it is nevertheless of extreme importance in the ministry of the Church; and her vitality and effectiveness is at stake in this debate. All that to say is that Dr. MacArthur is only doing what would be the logical thing to do if his thesis is correct. It is in this way, that I kinda sorta don't fault him for his activities over the last several months. Of course, I do in fact, fault him for his theology of spiritual gifts, but even the best of us is prone to errors of this kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)