I just checked the "awaiting moderation" for comments on my blogger dashboard and found about ten comments that people have made over the past several months that have not been published. I have now published them and plan to respond to some of them. I did not know that both Elder David Montgomery and Ben Winslet had left comments!
In the past my blogger dashboard would alert me to a comment that needs approval and I would nearly always approve and post it immediately. But, for some reason, the above comments gave me no alert. In order that this not happen again in the future, I will be checking the "awaiting moderation" daily. Sorry for this mistake. We want people to comment!
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Redemption (vi)
In chapter four in this series I cited from Dr. Charles Hodge on the long passage in Ephesians 3 and on how Paul says he created the world "to the intent..." Hodge wrote:
"To the intent that now might be made known, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν. If this clause depend on the immediately preceding, then the apostle teaches that creation is in order to redemption. God created all things in order that by the church might be made known his manifold wisdom."
Dr. Gordon Clark, in his great book "Predestination," wrote the following under the heading "Creation and the Church":
Ephesians 3:8-10 read as follows (study them carefully):
Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God...
Note, just as a preliminary step, that this passage mentions the preaching of Paul, the creation of the world, and a certain revelation of God’s wisdom to heavenly creatures.
The main exegetical problem of this passage, which must be solved in order to understand it aright, is the identification of the antecedent of the purpose clause. Something happened in order that the wisdom of God might be made known by means of the church to heavenly beings, according to God’s eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. What was it that happened for this purpose? What is the antecedent of the purpose clause?
There are three, and apparently only three, possible antecedents: Paul’s preaching might have had this purpose; the mystery was hid for this purpose; or, God created the world for this purpose.
The second of these possibilities is the least likely. We can eliminate it from consideration because this interpretation would hold that God kept a certain secret hidden from the beginning in order to reveal it in New Testament times. The only support in the wording of the verses for this interpretation, aside from the fact that the event of hiding is mentioned prior to the purpose clause, is the word now. By emphasizing the word now, one may say that the mystery or secret was kept hidden for the purpose of revealing it now. It is true that the emphatic position is given to the verb might be made known, and hence a contrast with a previous hiding is pointed out. The word now, however, is not particularly emphatic and cannot bear the burden of this exegesis. The burden is considerable, for while it is possible to hide something in order to reveal it at a later date, it is more probable that the revelation is the purpose of Paul’s preaching or of God’s creation of the world. Hiding is more or less a negative idea, and it seems reasonable to expect some definite and outward event that has happened for the purpose stated here.
This is not to deny that there is some minimum truth in the notion that God hid the secret earlier in order to reveal it later. Surely it could not have been revealed later if it had not been hidden earlier. But this is a relatively unimportant truth, and the passage has much more to say.
Let us then consider the next possibility. The interpretation that Paul was called to preach in order that God’s wisdom might be made known seems to fit in very well with the preceding context.
In verse 8 Paul had just referred to the grace God had given him for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. From this point the long complicated sentence continues to the end of verse 13. Even further back, as early as verse 2, the idea of Paul’s preaching had been introduced. Therefore, no one can doubt that Paul’s preaching is the main idea of the passage, or at least one of the main ideas. Whether or not Paul’s personal ministry recedes from its central position as the paragraph approaches its end, and what other subordinate ideas may be found in verses 9-11, must of course be determined by direct examination. But the idea of Paul’s preaching is without doubt prominent.
The question now is whether or not Paul’s preaching has for its stated purpose the revelation of God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. It is obviously true that the purpose of Paul’s preaching was to reveal God’s wisdom to men on Earth. This was both God’s purpose and Paul’s purpose. But was it God’s purpose (it could hardly have been Paul’s purpose) to reveal his wisdom to heavenly beings through the preaching of Paul?
Some good commentators think that this is what the passage means. Charles Hodge is one such commentator. Aside from his objection to other interpretations, which we shall study presently, his positive argument is as follows:
The apostle is speaking of his conversion and call to the apostleship. To him was the grace given to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to teach all men the economy of redemption, in order that through the church might be made known the manifold wisdom of God. It is only thus that the connection of this verse with the main idea of the context is preserved. It is not the design of creation, but the design of the revelation of the mystery of redemption, of which he is here speaking.
For the moment the only objection to Hodge’s exegesis is the seemingly peculiar notion that Paul’s preaching on Earth reveals the wisdom of God to the powers in Heaven. Paul preached to men; he did not preach to angels, demons, or whomever these powers may be. Admittedly, in the chain of divine intentions and the purposes of purposes, Paul’s preaching and the founding of the church can be said to reveal God’s wisdom to these powers, if we suppose that God directed their attention to what was going on; but it would be a purpose two or three steps removed. Immediately, it would seem more natural to connect Paul’s preaching with its effects on men, rather than on angels or demons."
To disconnect "who created all things" from "to the intent" is not natural, as Dr. Clark points out. To apply the "hina clause" (purpose clause) to Paul's preaching, or to God's previous hiding of revelation, makes the "purpose clause" to connect with an event further back in the sentence, which is not natural nor the general practice. It is natural to connect ἵνα γνωρισθῇ (literally "in order to make known") immediately with τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι (literally "who the all things created"), thus literally saying "who the all things created in order to make known."
In my series on Predestination, I dealt with Hodge's interpretation at length and I wish to cite what I wrote now. I wrote (see here):
Hodge rejects the interpretation that sees Paul affirming that God created all things in order to redemption, and yet this to me is Paul's obvious meaning. Hodge is an infralapsarian Calvinist. In his denial Hodge says that Paul's words "who created all things by Jesus Christ," is an interjection that has no connection with anything in the passage, merely a statement of praise unrelated to anything he has said in the context. This is wholly untenable. First, why not simply say, "God who is blessed" or some other statement of praise and adoration? Second, Hodge thinks that it is the calling of the apostle to preach the gospel that is the thing God has done "in order to redemption." Certainly that is included, but it is not limited to that event. Was Paul's being made into an apostle and evangelist not a creative act of God? Yes. So, Paul is saying that God made Paul in order to redemption. So, Hodge's view still is upholding the principle that he condemns, that principle which says that God created Paul to be an apostle in order to redemption! Creation unto redemption! Viewed in this light, it is not an unconnected thought for Paul to say "who created all things (not just Paul)" unto redemption. Thus, Hodge's argument about the clause being unnatural is false. It is very natural and appropriate. Hodge's view makes the clause meaningless, an interjection that does not relate to anything Paul has said! Hodge said - "the words ‘who created all things,’ is entirely subordinate and unessential." I find this view totally false. The words are pertinent and essential.
Yes, the creation of Paul into an apostle and evangelist is "unto redemption," and Paul appropriately does not limit his being made an apostle for the purpose of redemption, but includes "all things" that God has made. Hodge's statement that the - "clause might be omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage," is an absurd position, and indicts the apostle in charging him with uttering things in a complex sentence without any relation to anything he has stated in the sentence.
Further, it is more likely that the phrase "to the intent" connects with the clause "who created all things by Jesus Christ" for this is the clause nearest the phrase.
It is also a natural and connected thought, and not unnatural and an unconnected thought. If Paul had just spoken of his being made or created, it is appropriate for him to expand his thought to the creation of all things. Why was Paul created an apostle? Well, for the same reason why all things have been created.
Further, the argument on the word "now" by Hodge carries no weight. Paul is simply saying that the purpose of his being made an apostle, like God's purpose in all things, is "now" known, in a superior way, by the new testament revelation.
Hodge is wrong to not recognize that God's "design" in gospel preaching is the same as his"design" in creation.
Clark continued:
"There is no decisive grammatical reason why Paul’s preaching cannot be the antecedent of the purpose clause. Hodge’s interpretation is a quite possible meaning of the passage. And, as with the case of the notion of hiding, there is at least a minimum of truth in it. All of God’s purposes form a connected system, and in some way a preceding event has for its purpose anything that succeeds it.
On the other hand, there is a third interpretation, also grammatically possible, one that seems to have weightier reasons in its favor, and which does not suffer under the objections raised against it. Grammatically, in fact, this third interpretation is not merely equally good, but somewhat preferable; and it makes better sense out of the passage as a whole.
When we say that God created the world for the purpose of displaying his manifold wisdom, we connect the purpose clause with its nearest antecedent. As anyone can see, the reference to Paul’s preaching lies several clauses further back. The immediate antecedent is creation, and this immediate connection between creation and the purpose clause is, we hold, of some value in deciding the matter. It is usually better to choose the nearest possible antecedent. Since, therefore, the syntax is at least somewhat in its favor, the best procedure is to examine objections against so understanding it.
The objections are well stated by Charles Hodge. The view that God created the universe in order to display his manifold wisdom is, as Hodge says, the supralapsarian view. Never mind the technical theological name at the moment. Against this view Hodge urges four objections. First, this passage is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism; and supralapsarianism, so Hodge says, is foreign to the New Testament. Second, apart from such a doctrinal consideration, this interpretation imposes an unnatural connection on the clauses. The idea of creation in Ephesians 3:10 is entirely subordinate and unessential. It could have been omitted, says Hodge, without materially affecting the sense of the passage. Third, the theme of the passage concerns Paul’s preaching the Gospel; only by connecting the purpose clause with Paul’s preaching can the unity of the context be preserved. And fourth, the word now, in contrast with the previous hiding, supports the reference to Paul’s preaching. It was Paul’s preaching that had now put an end to the secret’s hiddenness. Such are Hodge’s four objections.
Let us consider the last one first. Admittedly it was Paul’s preaching that founded the church, and the founding of the church made known God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. The supralapsarian interpretation does not deny that Paul played this important part in God’s eternal plan. But even so, Paul’s preaching was not the immediate cause of the revelation of God’s wisdom. It was the existence of the church that was the immediate cause. Yet grammar prevents us from saying that the church was founded in order that God’s wisdom might be revealed. It is true that the church was founded in order to reveal God’s wisdom, but this is not what the verse says. Now, if several events occurred, all leading up to this revelation of God’s wisdom, including the founding of the church, Paul’s preaching, and of course the death and resurrection of Christ that Paul preached, the word now in the verse cannot be used to single out Paul’s preaching in contrast with other events mentioned in the passage. This fourth objection is therefore a poor one.
Next, the first objection says that this is the only passage adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism is foreign to the New Testament. The latter half of this objection is a case of begging the question. If this verse teaches supralapsarianism, then the doctrine is not foreign to the New Testament. We should not assume that the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament and then determine what the verse means. We should first determine what the verse means in order to find out whether or not the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament.
To be sure, if this one verse were indeed the only verse in the Bible with supralapsarian overtones, we would be justified in entertaining some suspicion of this interpretation. Hodge does not say explicitly that this is the only verse; he says it is the only verse adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism.
Well, really, even this verse does not directly assert the whole complex supralapsarian view. Very few verses in Scripture directly assert the whole of any major doctrine. There is no one verse, for example, that gives us the full doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore we must recognize degrees of directness, partial and even fragmentary assertions of a doctrine. And with this recognition, regularly acknowledged in the development of any doctrine, it is evident that this verse does not stand alone in suspicious isolation.
More of the complete doctrine of supralapsarianism will come to light when in the next chapter we discuss the knowledge of God. The main point of the present discussion is whether or not the purpose of creation was to make known the wisdom of God. All that is required at this point is the avoidance of the assumption that this verse in Ephesians cannot mean this before examining it.
Thus, we come to objection number two. Hodge claims that the supralapsarian interpretation of this verse imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses. The idea of creation, he said, is entirely unessential and could have been omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage.
Does not this objection make it clear that Hodge does not know how to handle the reference to creation? He claims that it is unessential, a chance, thoughtless remark that does not affect the sense of the passage. Such careless writing does not seem to me to be Paul’s usual style. For example, in Galatians 1:1 Paul says, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Why now did Paul mention that God had raised Jesus Christ? If it were a chance remark without logical connection with the sense of the passage, a remark intended only to speak of some random aspect of God’s glory, Paul could have as well said, God who created the universe. But it is fairly clear that Paul had a conscious purpose in selecting the resurrection instead of the creation. He wanted to emphasize, against his detractors, that he had his apostolic authority from Jesus himself. And Jesus was able personally to give him that authority because he was not dead but had been raised up by God.
So, as Paul chose the idea of resurrection in Galatians instead of the idea of creation, he also chose the idea of creation in Ephesians instead of resurrection, because the idea of creation contributed some meaning to his thought. Certainly the supralapsarian or teleological interpretation of Ephesians 3:10 accommodates the idea of creation, and, contrariwise, an interpretation that can find no meaning in these words of the text is a poorer interpretation.
The remaining objection is that only by making Paul’s preaching the antecedent of the purpose clause can the unity of the context be preserved. The reverse seems to be the case. Not only does Hodge fail to account for the mention of creation, and thus diminish the unity of the context, but further stress on purpose, running from creation to the present, unifies the passage in a most satisfactory manner."
I agree. The purpose clause being connected with the statement about God creating all things does in fact preserve the unity of the context.
Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Whole Bible wrote (emphasis mine):
"To the intent - Greek, “that” Ἵνα - Hina". The sense is, that it was with this design, or that this was the purpose for which all things were made. One grand purpose in the creation of the universe was, that the wisdom of God might be clearly shown by the church. It was not enough to evince it by the formation of the sun, the stars, the earth, the seas, the mountains, the floods. It was not enough to show it by the creation of intelligent beings, the formation of immortal minds on earth, and the various ranks of the angelic world. There were views of the divine character which could be obtained only in connection with the redemption of the world. Hence the universe was created, and man was made upon the earth, not merely to illustrate the divine perfections in the work of creation, but in a still more illustrious manner in the work of redemption. And hence the deep interest which the angelic hosts have ever evinced in the salvation of man."
Clark continued:
"The supralapsarian or teleological understanding of God’s working, that is, the understanding that God works for a purpose, enables us to combine all three of these interpretations, including even the second, which in itself has so little into its favor, in a unified and intelligible thought. Since God does everything for a purpose (and this truth will be made more clear in the next chapter), and since whatever precedes in time has in a general way the purpose of preparing for what follows, we may say that God kept the secret hidden in order to reveal it now, and also that Paul preached in order to reveal it now. But if God had not created the world, there would have been no Paul to do the preaching, no church by which the revelation could be made, and no heavenly powers on which to impress the idea of God’s manifold wisdom. Only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation can a unified sense be obtained from the passage as a whole. We conclude, therefore, that this was the purpose of creation."
I agree with Clark and disagree with Hodge. It is "only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation" that the unity of the long sentence is preserved. Further, when Paul affirms that "all things" were created in order to display God's wisdom, he certainly includes the idea of creating Paul himself (and thus his apostleship and preaching) and of the church.
Clark continued:
"If it has now been sufficiently shown that the ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God, this chapter may well conclude with a brief statement as to what glory means.
Now, in addition to internal excellence, the word glory can mean the exhibition of this excellence. The brightness of the Sun and stars in 1 Corinthians 15:41 is not precisely their inward constitution but their outward appearance. Ezekiel 1:28 makes it very clear: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Isaiah 6:1-3 is a more familiar passage: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim…and the whole Earth is full of his glory.” Another passage is Isaiah 60:1-2, “Arise, shine, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.” Again, there are dozens of such verses (Luke 2:9; Acts 22:11; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6; Hebrews 1:3, etc.).
The purpose, then, of creation will be, not the production of God’s internal and eternal excellence, but the display of his greatness to principalities, to powers, and to mere human beings.
That there is a chain or system of purposes is not to be denied. Indeed, these details will be insisted upon in the following chapters. Therefore, it is quite true to say that the purpose of creation, or, better, one purpose of creation, was to have Abraham born in Ur and move his family to Palestine. But the purpose, the final purpose, the all-inclusive purpose, is to display God’s excellence. If God’s excellence contains knowledge or mysteries, then the purpose of creation is to make these known. These are part of God’s glory. If God’s excellence contains power, then God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying his power, not precisely to him, but through him, so that God’s name might be declared throughout all the Earth, as is explicitly stated both in Exodus 9:16 and in Romans 9:17.
The manifold subsidiary purposes are all summed up and comprehended in a single ultimate purpose, the glory of God. It is the revelation of God’s excellence, the revelation of God himself. He created the world in order to display his sovereign majesty. He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the final and ultimate end. Only by realizing the glory and omnipotence of God can a proper understanding of predestination be achieved."
What would we know of God's nature without redemption? Would there have ever been an incarnation and resurrection had there been no sin?
"To the intent that now might be made known, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν. If this clause depend on the immediately preceding, then the apostle teaches that creation is in order to redemption. God created all things in order that by the church might be made known his manifold wisdom."
Dr. Gordon Clark, in his great book "Predestination," wrote the following under the heading "Creation and the Church":
Ephesians 3:8-10 read as follows (study them carefully):
Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God...
Note, just as a preliminary step, that this passage mentions the preaching of Paul, the creation of the world, and a certain revelation of God’s wisdom to heavenly creatures.
The main exegetical problem of this passage, which must be solved in order to understand it aright, is the identification of the antecedent of the purpose clause. Something happened in order that the wisdom of God might be made known by means of the church to heavenly beings, according to God’s eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. What was it that happened for this purpose? What is the antecedent of the purpose clause?
There are three, and apparently only three, possible antecedents: Paul’s preaching might have had this purpose; the mystery was hid for this purpose; or, God created the world for this purpose.
The second of these possibilities is the least likely. We can eliminate it from consideration because this interpretation would hold that God kept a certain secret hidden from the beginning in order to reveal it in New Testament times. The only support in the wording of the verses for this interpretation, aside from the fact that the event of hiding is mentioned prior to the purpose clause, is the word now. By emphasizing the word now, one may say that the mystery or secret was kept hidden for the purpose of revealing it now. It is true that the emphatic position is given to the verb might be made known, and hence a contrast with a previous hiding is pointed out. The word now, however, is not particularly emphatic and cannot bear the burden of this exegesis. The burden is considerable, for while it is possible to hide something in order to reveal it at a later date, it is more probable that the revelation is the purpose of Paul’s preaching or of God’s creation of the world. Hiding is more or less a negative idea, and it seems reasonable to expect some definite and outward event that has happened for the purpose stated here.
This is not to deny that there is some minimum truth in the notion that God hid the secret earlier in order to reveal it later. Surely it could not have been revealed later if it had not been hidden earlier. But this is a relatively unimportant truth, and the passage has much more to say.
Let us then consider the next possibility. The interpretation that Paul was called to preach in order that God’s wisdom might be made known seems to fit in very well with the preceding context.
In verse 8 Paul had just referred to the grace God had given him for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. From this point the long complicated sentence continues to the end of verse 13. Even further back, as early as verse 2, the idea of Paul’s preaching had been introduced. Therefore, no one can doubt that Paul’s preaching is the main idea of the passage, or at least one of the main ideas. Whether or not Paul’s personal ministry recedes from its central position as the paragraph approaches its end, and what other subordinate ideas may be found in verses 9-11, must of course be determined by direct examination. But the idea of Paul’s preaching is without doubt prominent.
The question now is whether or not Paul’s preaching has for its stated purpose the revelation of God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. It is obviously true that the purpose of Paul’s preaching was to reveal God’s wisdom to men on Earth. This was both God’s purpose and Paul’s purpose. But was it God’s purpose (it could hardly have been Paul’s purpose) to reveal his wisdom to heavenly beings through the preaching of Paul?
Some good commentators think that this is what the passage means. Charles Hodge is one such commentator. Aside from his objection to other interpretations, which we shall study presently, his positive argument is as follows:
The apostle is speaking of his conversion and call to the apostleship. To him was the grace given to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to teach all men the economy of redemption, in order that through the church might be made known the manifold wisdom of God. It is only thus that the connection of this verse with the main idea of the context is preserved. It is not the design of creation, but the design of the revelation of the mystery of redemption, of which he is here speaking.
For the moment the only objection to Hodge’s exegesis is the seemingly peculiar notion that Paul’s preaching on Earth reveals the wisdom of God to the powers in Heaven. Paul preached to men; he did not preach to angels, demons, or whomever these powers may be. Admittedly, in the chain of divine intentions and the purposes of purposes, Paul’s preaching and the founding of the church can be said to reveal God’s wisdom to these powers, if we suppose that God directed their attention to what was going on; but it would be a purpose two or three steps removed. Immediately, it would seem more natural to connect Paul’s preaching with its effects on men, rather than on angels or demons."
To disconnect "who created all things" from "to the intent" is not natural, as Dr. Clark points out. To apply the "hina clause" (purpose clause) to Paul's preaching, or to God's previous hiding of revelation, makes the "purpose clause" to connect with an event further back in the sentence, which is not natural nor the general practice. It is natural to connect ἵνα γνωρισθῇ (literally "in order to make known") immediately with τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι (literally "who the all things created"), thus literally saying "who the all things created in order to make known."
In my series on Predestination, I dealt with Hodge's interpretation at length and I wish to cite what I wrote now. I wrote (see here):
Hodge rejects the interpretation that sees Paul affirming that God created all things in order to redemption, and yet this to me is Paul's obvious meaning. Hodge is an infralapsarian Calvinist. In his denial Hodge says that Paul's words "who created all things by Jesus Christ," is an interjection that has no connection with anything in the passage, merely a statement of praise unrelated to anything he has said in the context. This is wholly untenable. First, why not simply say, "God who is blessed" or some other statement of praise and adoration? Second, Hodge thinks that it is the calling of the apostle to preach the gospel that is the thing God has done "in order to redemption." Certainly that is included, but it is not limited to that event. Was Paul's being made into an apostle and evangelist not a creative act of God? Yes. So, Paul is saying that God made Paul in order to redemption. So, Hodge's view still is upholding the principle that he condemns, that principle which says that God created Paul to be an apostle in order to redemption! Creation unto redemption! Viewed in this light, it is not an unconnected thought for Paul to say "who created all things (not just Paul)" unto redemption. Thus, Hodge's argument about the clause being unnatural is false. It is very natural and appropriate. Hodge's view makes the clause meaningless, an interjection that does not relate to anything Paul has said! Hodge said - "the words ‘who created all things,’ is entirely subordinate and unessential." I find this view totally false. The words are pertinent and essential.
Yes, the creation of Paul into an apostle and evangelist is "unto redemption," and Paul appropriately does not limit his being made an apostle for the purpose of redemption, but includes "all things" that God has made. Hodge's statement that the - "clause might be omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage," is an absurd position, and indicts the apostle in charging him with uttering things in a complex sentence without any relation to anything he has stated in the sentence.
Further, it is more likely that the phrase "to the intent" connects with the clause "who created all things by Jesus Christ" for this is the clause nearest the phrase.
It is also a natural and connected thought, and not unnatural and an unconnected thought. If Paul had just spoken of his being made or created, it is appropriate for him to expand his thought to the creation of all things. Why was Paul created an apostle? Well, for the same reason why all things have been created.
Further, the argument on the word "now" by Hodge carries no weight. Paul is simply saying that the purpose of his being made an apostle, like God's purpose in all things, is "now" known, in a superior way, by the new testament revelation.
Hodge is wrong to not recognize that God's "design" in gospel preaching is the same as his"design" in creation.
Clark continued:
"There is no decisive grammatical reason why Paul’s preaching cannot be the antecedent of the purpose clause. Hodge’s interpretation is a quite possible meaning of the passage. And, as with the case of the notion of hiding, there is at least a minimum of truth in it. All of God’s purposes form a connected system, and in some way a preceding event has for its purpose anything that succeeds it.
On the other hand, there is a third interpretation, also grammatically possible, one that seems to have weightier reasons in its favor, and which does not suffer under the objections raised against it. Grammatically, in fact, this third interpretation is not merely equally good, but somewhat preferable; and it makes better sense out of the passage as a whole.
When we say that God created the world for the purpose of displaying his manifold wisdom, we connect the purpose clause with its nearest antecedent. As anyone can see, the reference to Paul’s preaching lies several clauses further back. The immediate antecedent is creation, and this immediate connection between creation and the purpose clause is, we hold, of some value in deciding the matter. It is usually better to choose the nearest possible antecedent. Since, therefore, the syntax is at least somewhat in its favor, the best procedure is to examine objections against so understanding it.
The objections are well stated by Charles Hodge. The view that God created the universe in order to display his manifold wisdom is, as Hodge says, the supralapsarian view. Never mind the technical theological name at the moment. Against this view Hodge urges four objections. First, this passage is the only passage in Scripture adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism; and supralapsarianism, so Hodge says, is foreign to the New Testament. Second, apart from such a doctrinal consideration, this interpretation imposes an unnatural connection on the clauses. The idea of creation in Ephesians 3:10 is entirely subordinate and unessential. It could have been omitted, says Hodge, without materially affecting the sense of the passage. Third, the theme of the passage concerns Paul’s preaching the Gospel; only by connecting the purpose clause with Paul’s preaching can the unity of the context be preserved. And fourth, the word now, in contrast with the previous hiding, supports the reference to Paul’s preaching. It was Paul’s preaching that had now put an end to the secret’s hiddenness. Such are Hodge’s four objections.
Let us consider the last one first. Admittedly it was Paul’s preaching that founded the church, and the founding of the church made known God’s wisdom to the powers in Heaven. The supralapsarian interpretation does not deny that Paul played this important part in God’s eternal plan. But even so, Paul’s preaching was not the immediate cause of the revelation of God’s wisdom. It was the existence of the church that was the immediate cause. Yet grammar prevents us from saying that the church was founded in order that God’s wisdom might be revealed. It is true that the church was founded in order to reveal God’s wisdom, but this is not what the verse says. Now, if several events occurred, all leading up to this revelation of God’s wisdom, including the founding of the church, Paul’s preaching, and of course the death and resurrection of Christ that Paul preached, the word now in the verse cannot be used to single out Paul’s preaching in contrast with other events mentioned in the passage. This fourth objection is therefore a poor one.
Next, the first objection says that this is the only passage adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism, and supralapsarianism is foreign to the New Testament. The latter half of this objection is a case of begging the question. If this verse teaches supralapsarianism, then the doctrine is not foreign to the New Testament. We should not assume that the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament and then determine what the verse means. We should first determine what the verse means in order to find out whether or not the doctrine is foreign to the New Testament.
To be sure, if this one verse were indeed the only verse in the Bible with supralapsarian overtones, we would be justified in entertaining some suspicion of this interpretation. Hodge does not say explicitly that this is the only verse; he says it is the only verse adduced as directly asserting supralapsarianism.
Well, really, even this verse does not directly assert the whole complex supralapsarian view. Very few verses in Scripture directly assert the whole of any major doctrine. There is no one verse, for example, that gives us the full doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore we must recognize degrees of directness, partial and even fragmentary assertions of a doctrine. And with this recognition, regularly acknowledged in the development of any doctrine, it is evident that this verse does not stand alone in suspicious isolation.
More of the complete doctrine of supralapsarianism will come to light when in the next chapter we discuss the knowledge of God. The main point of the present discussion is whether or not the purpose of creation was to make known the wisdom of God. All that is required at this point is the avoidance of the assumption that this verse in Ephesians cannot mean this before examining it.
Thus, we come to objection number two. Hodge claims that the supralapsarian interpretation of this verse imposes an unnatural connection upon the clauses. The idea of creation, he said, is entirely unessential and could have been omitted without materially affecting the sense of the passage.
Does not this objection make it clear that Hodge does not know how to handle the reference to creation? He claims that it is unessential, a chance, thoughtless remark that does not affect the sense of the passage. Such careless writing does not seem to me to be Paul’s usual style. For example, in Galatians 1:1 Paul says, “Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Why now did Paul mention that God had raised Jesus Christ? If it were a chance remark without logical connection with the sense of the passage, a remark intended only to speak of some random aspect of God’s glory, Paul could have as well said, God who created the universe. But it is fairly clear that Paul had a conscious purpose in selecting the resurrection instead of the creation. He wanted to emphasize, against his detractors, that he had his apostolic authority from Jesus himself. And Jesus was able personally to give him that authority because he was not dead but had been raised up by God.
So, as Paul chose the idea of resurrection in Galatians instead of the idea of creation, he also chose the idea of creation in Ephesians instead of resurrection, because the idea of creation contributed some meaning to his thought. Certainly the supralapsarian or teleological interpretation of Ephesians 3:10 accommodates the idea of creation, and, contrariwise, an interpretation that can find no meaning in these words of the text is a poorer interpretation.
The remaining objection is that only by making Paul’s preaching the antecedent of the purpose clause can the unity of the context be preserved. The reverse seems to be the case. Not only does Hodge fail to account for the mention of creation, and thus diminish the unity of the context, but further stress on purpose, running from creation to the present, unifies the passage in a most satisfactory manner."
I agree. The purpose clause being connected with the statement about God creating all things does in fact preserve the unity of the context.
Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Whole Bible wrote (emphasis mine):
"To the intent - Greek, “that” Ἵνα - Hina". The sense is, that it was with this design, or that this was the purpose for which all things were made. One grand purpose in the creation of the universe was, that the wisdom of God might be clearly shown by the church. It was not enough to evince it by the formation of the sun, the stars, the earth, the seas, the mountains, the floods. It was not enough to show it by the creation of intelligent beings, the formation of immortal minds on earth, and the various ranks of the angelic world. There were views of the divine character which could be obtained only in connection with the redemption of the world. Hence the universe was created, and man was made upon the earth, not merely to illustrate the divine perfections in the work of creation, but in a still more illustrious manner in the work of redemption. And hence the deep interest which the angelic hosts have ever evinced in the salvation of man."
Clark continued:
"The supralapsarian or teleological understanding of God’s working, that is, the understanding that God works for a purpose, enables us to combine all three of these interpretations, including even the second, which in itself has so little into its favor, in a unified and intelligible thought. Since God does everything for a purpose (and this truth will be made more clear in the next chapter), and since whatever precedes in time has in a general way the purpose of preparing for what follows, we may say that God kept the secret hidden in order to reveal it now, and also that Paul preached in order to reveal it now. But if God had not created the world, there would have been no Paul to do the preaching, no church by which the revelation could be made, and no heavenly powers on which to impress the idea of God’s manifold wisdom. Only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation can a unified sense be obtained from the passage as a whole. We conclude, therefore, that this was the purpose of creation."
I agree with Clark and disagree with Hodge. It is "only by connecting the purpose clause with the immediate antecedent concerning creation" that the unity of the long sentence is preserved. Further, when Paul affirms that "all things" were created in order to display God's wisdom, he certainly includes the idea of creating Paul himself (and thus his apostleship and preaching) and of the church.
Clark continued:
"If it has now been sufficiently shown that the ultimate purpose of creation is the glory of God, this chapter may well conclude with a brief statement as to what glory means.
Now, in addition to internal excellence, the word glory can mean the exhibition of this excellence. The brightness of the Sun and stars in 1 Corinthians 15:41 is not precisely their inward constitution but their outward appearance. Ezekiel 1:28 makes it very clear: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Isaiah 6:1-3 is a more familiar passage: “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim…and the whole Earth is full of his glory.” Another passage is Isaiah 60:1-2, “Arise, shine, for your light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.” Again, there are dozens of such verses (Luke 2:9; Acts 22:11; 2 Corinthians 3:7, 18; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6; Hebrews 1:3, etc.).
The purpose, then, of creation will be, not the production of God’s internal and eternal excellence, but the display of his greatness to principalities, to powers, and to mere human beings.
That there is a chain or system of purposes is not to be denied. Indeed, these details will be insisted upon in the following chapters. Therefore, it is quite true to say that the purpose of creation, or, better, one purpose of creation, was to have Abraham born in Ur and move his family to Palestine. But the purpose, the final purpose, the all-inclusive purpose, is to display God’s excellence. If God’s excellence contains knowledge or mysteries, then the purpose of creation is to make these known. These are part of God’s glory. If God’s excellence contains power, then God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying his power, not precisely to him, but through him, so that God’s name might be declared throughout all the Earth, as is explicitly stated both in Exodus 9:16 and in Romans 9:17.
The manifold subsidiary purposes are all summed up and comprehended in a single ultimate purpose, the glory of God. It is the revelation of God’s excellence, the revelation of God himself. He created the world in order to display his sovereign majesty. He is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the final and ultimate end. Only by realizing the glory and omnipotence of God can a proper understanding of predestination be achieved."
What would we know of God's nature without redemption? Would there have ever been an incarnation and resurrection had there been no sin?
Monday, July 9, 2018
2 Thes. 2:8-13 Facts and Challenges
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thes. 2:8-13)
1) This text was cited in the Black Rock Address as supportive of eternal salvation.
2) The salvation of v.13 is the product of election.
3) The salvation unto which the people are called (v.14) is the same as the one contextually described (v.13).
4) There is no change of eternal to temporal in the context between the salvation described (v.13) and how it is received (v.14).
5) "Whereunto" preserves the connection between v.13 and v.14. The salvation demonstrated here is thus ONE, not TWO.
6) The salvation of v.13-14 rescues one from the damnation described in v.9-11.
7) The salvation of v.13-14 involves human responsibility.
8) The salvation of v.13-14 involves the subjective side of salvation.
9) The objective side of salvation (election) is wedded with the subjective side (sanctification, belief).
10) The objective side of salvation is obtained through the means of the subjective side.
11) The salvation of v.13-14 is eternal salvation.
12) The salvation of v.13-14 is effectual, despite gospel and human instrumentality.
13) Eternal salvation involves sanctification of
the Spirit.
My Hardshell brethren are hereby challenged to refute these facts, and are further challenged to prove the following points which their anti-means doctrine would demand.
1) The Black Rock brethren cited 2 Thes. 2:13 to support time salvation.
3) The coming of the Wicked One is to usher in temporal damnation.
4) ‘Believing not the truth’ here characterizes regenerated children of God.
5) Having ‘pleasure in unrighteousness’ here characterizes regenerated children of God.
6) ‘Them that perish’ is describing regenerated children of God who are not converted.
7) God shall send strong delusion to many of his regenerated children.
8) The damnation of v.9-11 is temporal.
9) The salvation of v.13-14 refers to time salvation.
10) Time salvation is the product of election.
11) Time salvation requires that God needs the ‘help’ of the gospel.
12) Men receive the glory of Jesus Christ in time salvation.
13) Time salvation rescues a person from the damnation described v.9-11.
14) Eternal salvation involves belief of the truth.
15) Eternal salvation involves receiving the love of the truth.
16) The expression 'by our gospel' is indicative of means.
17) Credit is here given to God for this salvation, despite the involvement of the gospel and those who preached it.
18) The kind of damnation described in v.9-11 (eternal) is the same as the kind of salvation described in v.13-14 (eternal).
19) The cause of damnation involves lack of human responsibility and failure to attain the subjective side of salvation (not receiving the love of the truth).
20) The damnation described in v.9-11 is eternal.
My Hardshell brethren are hereby challenged to refute these facts, and are further challenged to prove the following points which their anti-means doctrine would demand.
1) The Black Rock brethren cited 2 Thes. 2:13 to support time salvation.
3) The coming of the Wicked One is to usher in temporal damnation.
4) ‘Believing not the truth’ here characterizes regenerated children of God.
5) Having ‘pleasure in unrighteousness’ here characterizes regenerated children of God.
6) ‘Them that perish’ is describing regenerated children of God who are not converted.
7) God shall send strong delusion to many of his regenerated children.
8) The damnation of v.9-11 is temporal.
9) The salvation of v.13-14 refers to time salvation.
10) Time salvation is the product of election.
11) Time salvation requires that God needs the ‘help’ of the gospel.
12) Men receive the glory of Jesus Christ in time salvation.
13) Time salvation rescues a person from the damnation described v.9-11.
Redemption (V)
With this fifth number we will first recap what we have already advanced on the subject of a sinner's redemption in Christ.
Redemption #1
- What is "redemption"
- Christ "paying the price" of redemption is the legal act
- The realization of redemption for sinners occurs in conversion and present transformation
- Complete redemption occurs when Christ comes and resurrects the saints
Redemption #2
- Complete redemption is connected with Christ's return (via the seven sealed scroll of the Apocalypse)
- Redemption is connected with the creation of the new heavens and new earth (restored inheritance)
Redemption #3
- Conversion is an act of redemption
- Redemption involves actual deliverance
- The Bondage that redemption involves
- Redemption and atonement
- Redemption among the Hebrews (OT)
Redemption #4
- Redemption is progressive and not confined to one act or singular event
- Redemption has its objective (legal state) and its subjective (conversion, glorification) aspects
- Redemption is not only the work of the second person, but also of the Father and Spirit
- Creation is unto redemption in the order of the decrees of God (Supralapsarian)
In Jonathan Edward's great work on "The History Of Redemption," previously cited, he wrote (emphasis mine):
"From what we have learnt, we can argue that the work of redemption is the greatest of all God’s works, overshadowing all others. Redemption is plainly the most important of all God’s works of providence, and everything else was subordinated to the grand affair of redemption. We have seen that all the revolutions that have taken place in the world tended to forward this great design. How much greater is the work of redemption than the work of creation, because it is the end of it as a house is the end of the building of it! The work of redemption is the sum of all God’s works of providence, all of which fall down before it. Therefore, the work of the new creation is greater than the old. (pg. 182)
This statement by Edwards clearly reflects the Supralapsarian scheme, that creation is unto redemption, a proposition that Hodge questioned and doubted was taught in scripture, or in Ephesians 3: 9-10, as we have seen. Creation is a means to the teleological "end," which is redemption (and salvation), and redemption, like creation, is "to (or 'for') the glory of God." God's "eternal purpose" (Eph. 3:11) in Christ was for the Godhead to be glorified and pleased through "bringing man sons unto glory" (Heb. 3:10), which is complete redemption. We will expand upon this, but first let us cite from Edwards again. In chapter nine, "Christ's Incarnation For The Purchase Of Redemption," he wrote:
"God saw to it that the same world that was the stage of man’s Fall and ruin should also be the stage of his redemption. We read often of Christ coming into the world to save sinners, and of God sending him into the world for that purpose. He needed to come into this sinful, miserable, undone world in order to restore and save it. For man’s recovery, he needed to come down to man, to man’s proper habitation, and dwell (tabernacle) with us - “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)"
This is what we intend to enlarge upon yet in this series; the earth is connected both with the fall of man, receiving its curse and bondage as a result of man's transgression, and with the redemption and salvation of man, receiving (in the "day of redemption") a full and glorious restoration.
Wrote Edwards:
"God used his creation for no other purpose but to forward the work of redemption. To achieve this end, he created and disposed his works - to the angels this way, to the earth that way, and to mankind another way."
People debate whether Edwards was Infralapsarian or Superlapsarian, but the above citations are very clear. Edwards says that "creation" was purposed for "no other purpose but to forward the work of redemption."
Wrote Edwards:
"God created mankind to provide a spouse and kingdom for his Son; and the building up of the kingdom of Christ, and the spiritual marriage of this spouse to him is what the whole creation labours and travails in pain to bring about. The work of redemption is the greatest of all the works of God; so much so, that all others are seen either as parts of it or as appendages to it. Indeed, all the decrees of God, in some way or other, belong to the eternal covenant of redemption agreed between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world. Every decree of God, in some way or other, looks to that covenant. Therefore, the work of redemption is so great that we should not wonder that, “such things the angels desire to look into.” (1 Peter 1:12) We should not be surprised that so much is made of it in Scripture, and that it is appears so often in the histories and prophecies and songs of the Bible. The work of redemption is the greatest subject of the Bible, with its doctrines, promises, types, songs, histories, and prophecies. (pg. 181)
It is not good that most Christians do not fully appreciate God's work of redemption, which involves a "new creation," God saying to us "behold, I make all things new." (Rev. 21:5) Sinful man, through redemption, is "renewed," first, in the work of regeneration and new birth, and then "day by day" as the Christian grows and progresses towards the final goal. The renewal of the soul is begun in regeneration, continued in sanctification, and completed when the soul is received into glory and experiences the "beatific vision." Not until the "day of Christ," and the day of resurrection and glorification, will the body be glorified, made spiritual and immortal.
Wrote Edwards:
"Thirdly, from what we have learnt, we can see the truth that Christ has the preeminence in all things. (Colossians 1:18) He is our great Redeemer, and the work of redemption is the sum of God’s works of providence, revealing the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ above everything else. He is through all things, and is in all things. That God intended the world for his Son‘s use in the affair of redemption is one reason why he created the world through him. (See Ephesians 3:9-12)"
Not only did God intend that the earth, and this cosmos, be the scene of the Redeemer's work, but for it to also experience renewal and recreation. So, the apostle says "we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness."
Wrote Vincent Cheung (see here - emphasis mine):
"Under infralapsarianism, since the decree of election and reprobation comes after the decree for the fall of humanity, this means that at the point when God decrees the fall of humanity, he does so without knowing why he decrees it or what he would do about it."
I don't see why many do not understand this. When God decreed to permit the fall of man to occur, what was his purpose? If it was not redemption, then what was his reason?
Wrote Cheung:
"If he has redemption in mind, and thus the distinction between the saved and the damned, so that he knows why he is decreeing the fall of humanity, then at that point he has already decided on redemption, and thus this becomes supralapsarianism. This means that under infralapsarianism, at the point when God decrees the fall of humanity, he does it just so he wishes humanity to fall."
Again, the logic of this is plain and irrefutable. Cheung asks - "is it better for God to decree that all of humanity should fall into sin without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption?"
Those who deny the Supralapsarian order are logically forced to aver that God, in willing the fall of man, did so "without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption."
Wrote Cheung:
"On the other hand, although supralapsarians would say that God could indeed decree the fall of humanity just because he wishes it, in their scheme, God decrees the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save and to damn."
How could any disagree with this? If we substitute "willed" or "allowed" for "decreed," we would say that "God permitted the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save," who would disagree? The question is - "does God permit willingly and knowingly?"
Wrote Cheung:
"As with many such controversies, the real question in this disagreement between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism is whether we are willing to “let” God be God on his own terms. A consistent supralapsarianism is the only position that honors God, Scripture, and logic. And it is the only God-centered position. One of the things that we learn from the doctrine is that God actively decreed and caused the fall of humanity as one of the steps by which he would fulfill his eternal plan."
Will we let God have his sovereignty? Will we deny his absolute foreknowledge? Will we affirm that things come to pass apart from God willing or suffering it?
Wrote Cheung:
"Sin was not an accident, and redemption was not a mere reaction on the part of God. As the Scripture says, “The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster” (Proverbs 16:4). Thus supralapsarianism results in praise and reverence toward God."
Those who deny that God has decreed all things are forced to aver that "redemption" was an accident and a mere reaction on the part of God.
In "A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World," Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"To avoid all confusion in our inquiries concerning the end for which God created the world, a distinction should be observed between the chief end for which an agent performs any work, and the ultimate end. These two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification: and though the chief end be always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end. A chief end is opposite to an inferior end: an ultimate end is opposite to a subordinate end.
A subordinate end is what an agent aims at, not at all upon its own account, but wholly on the a account of a further end, of which it is considered as a means. Thus when a man goes a journey to obtain a medicine to restore his health, the obtaining of that medicine is his subordinate end; because it is not an end that he values at all upon its own account, but wholly as a means of a further end, viz. his health. Separate the medicine from that further end, and it is not at all desired.
Some ends are subordinate, not only as they are subordinated to an ultimate end; but also to another end that is itself but subordinate. Yea, there may be a succession or chain of many subordinate ends, one dependent on another, one sought for another; before you come to anything that the agent aims at, and seeks for its own sake.
So whenever a man comes to that in which his desire terminates and rests, it being something valued on its own account, then he comes to an ultimate end, let the chain be longer or shorter; yea, if there be but one link or one step that he takes before he comes to this end. As when a man that loves honey puts it into his mouth, for the sake of the pleasure of the taste, without aiming at anything further. So that an end which an agent has in view, may be both his immediate and his ultimate end; his next and his last end. That end which is sought for the sake of itself, and not for the sake of a further end, is an ultimate end; there the aim of the agent stops and rests.
Thus God may have ends of particular works of providence, which are ultimate ends in a lower sense, which were not ultimate ends of the creation.
That which God had primarily in view in creating, and the original ordination of the world, must be constantly kept in view, and have a governing influence in all God’s works, or with respect to every thing he does towards his creatures."
The logic of Edwards, like that of Cheung, and others who have written on the subject, such as Jerome Zanchius, is irrefutable and irresistible.
Redemption #1
- What is "redemption"
- Christ "paying the price" of redemption is the legal act
- The realization of redemption for sinners occurs in conversion and present transformation
- Complete redemption occurs when Christ comes and resurrects the saints
Redemption #2
- Complete redemption is connected with Christ's return (via the seven sealed scroll of the Apocalypse)
- Redemption is connected with the creation of the new heavens and new earth (restored inheritance)
Redemption #3
- Conversion is an act of redemption
- Redemption involves actual deliverance
- The Bondage that redemption involves
- Redemption and atonement
- Redemption among the Hebrews (OT)
Redemption #4
- Redemption is progressive and not confined to one act or singular event
- Redemption has its objective (legal state) and its subjective (conversion, glorification) aspects
- Redemption is not only the work of the second person, but also of the Father and Spirit
- Creation is unto redemption in the order of the decrees of God (Supralapsarian)
In Jonathan Edward's great work on "The History Of Redemption," previously cited, he wrote (emphasis mine):
"From what we have learnt, we can argue that the work of redemption is the greatest of all God’s works, overshadowing all others. Redemption is plainly the most important of all God’s works of providence, and everything else was subordinated to the grand affair of redemption. We have seen that all the revolutions that have taken place in the world tended to forward this great design. How much greater is the work of redemption than the work of creation, because it is the end of it as a house is the end of the building of it! The work of redemption is the sum of all God’s works of providence, all of which fall down before it. Therefore, the work of the new creation is greater than the old. (pg. 182)
This statement by Edwards clearly reflects the Supralapsarian scheme, that creation is unto redemption, a proposition that Hodge questioned and doubted was taught in scripture, or in Ephesians 3: 9-10, as we have seen. Creation is a means to the teleological "end," which is redemption (and salvation), and redemption, like creation, is "to (or 'for') the glory of God." God's "eternal purpose" (Eph. 3:11) in Christ was for the Godhead to be glorified and pleased through "bringing man sons unto glory" (Heb. 3:10), which is complete redemption. We will expand upon this, but first let us cite from Edwards again. In chapter nine, "Christ's Incarnation For The Purchase Of Redemption," he wrote:
"God saw to it that the same world that was the stage of man’s Fall and ruin should also be the stage of his redemption. We read often of Christ coming into the world to save sinners, and of God sending him into the world for that purpose. He needed to come into this sinful, miserable, undone world in order to restore and save it. For man’s recovery, he needed to come down to man, to man’s proper habitation, and dwell (tabernacle) with us - “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)"
This is what we intend to enlarge upon yet in this series; the earth is connected both with the fall of man, receiving its curse and bondage as a result of man's transgression, and with the redemption and salvation of man, receiving (in the "day of redemption") a full and glorious restoration.
Wrote Edwards:
"God used his creation for no other purpose but to forward the work of redemption. To achieve this end, he created and disposed his works - to the angels this way, to the earth that way, and to mankind another way."
People debate whether Edwards was Infralapsarian or Superlapsarian, but the above citations are very clear. Edwards says that "creation" was purposed for "no other purpose but to forward the work of redemption."
Wrote Edwards:
"God created mankind to provide a spouse and kingdom for his Son; and the building up of the kingdom of Christ, and the spiritual marriage of this spouse to him is what the whole creation labours and travails in pain to bring about. The work of redemption is the greatest of all the works of God; so much so, that all others are seen either as parts of it or as appendages to it. Indeed, all the decrees of God, in some way or other, belong to the eternal covenant of redemption agreed between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world. Every decree of God, in some way or other, looks to that covenant. Therefore, the work of redemption is so great that we should not wonder that, “such things the angels desire to look into.” (1 Peter 1:12) We should not be surprised that so much is made of it in Scripture, and that it is appears so often in the histories and prophecies and songs of the Bible. The work of redemption is the greatest subject of the Bible, with its doctrines, promises, types, songs, histories, and prophecies. (pg. 181)
It is not good that most Christians do not fully appreciate God's work of redemption, which involves a "new creation," God saying to us "behold, I make all things new." (Rev. 21:5) Sinful man, through redemption, is "renewed," first, in the work of regeneration and new birth, and then "day by day" as the Christian grows and progresses towards the final goal. The renewal of the soul is begun in regeneration, continued in sanctification, and completed when the soul is received into glory and experiences the "beatific vision." Not until the "day of Christ," and the day of resurrection and glorification, will the body be glorified, made spiritual and immortal.
Wrote Edwards:
"Thirdly, from what we have learnt, we can see the truth that Christ has the preeminence in all things. (Colossians 1:18) He is our great Redeemer, and the work of redemption is the sum of God’s works of providence, revealing the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ above everything else. He is through all things, and is in all things. That God intended the world for his Son‘s use in the affair of redemption is one reason why he created the world through him. (See Ephesians 3:9-12)"
Not only did God intend that the earth, and this cosmos, be the scene of the Redeemer's work, but for it to also experience renewal and recreation. So, the apostle says "we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness."
Wrote Vincent Cheung (see here - emphasis mine):
"Under infralapsarianism, since the decree of election and reprobation comes after the decree for the fall of humanity, this means that at the point when God decrees the fall of humanity, he does so without knowing why he decrees it or what he would do about it."
I don't see why many do not understand this. When God decreed to permit the fall of man to occur, what was his purpose? If it was not redemption, then what was his reason?
Wrote Cheung:
"If he has redemption in mind, and thus the distinction between the saved and the damned, so that he knows why he is decreeing the fall of humanity, then at that point he has already decided on redemption, and thus this becomes supralapsarianism. This means that under infralapsarianism, at the point when God decrees the fall of humanity, he does it just so he wishes humanity to fall."
Again, the logic of this is plain and irrefutable. Cheung asks - "is it better for God to decree that all of humanity should fall into sin without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption?"
Those who deny the Supralapsarian order are logically forced to aver that God, in willing the fall of man, did so "without any reason for it and without any thought of redemption."
Wrote Cheung:
"On the other hand, although supralapsarians would say that God could indeed decree the fall of humanity just because he wishes it, in their scheme, God decrees the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save and to damn."
How could any disagree with this? If we substitute "willed" or "allowed" for "decreed," we would say that "God permitted the fall of humanity so that there would be sinners for him to save," who would disagree? The question is - "does God permit willingly and knowingly?"
Wrote Cheung:
"As with many such controversies, the real question in this disagreement between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism is whether we are willing to “let” God be God on his own terms. A consistent supralapsarianism is the only position that honors God, Scripture, and logic. And it is the only God-centered position. One of the things that we learn from the doctrine is that God actively decreed and caused the fall of humanity as one of the steps by which he would fulfill his eternal plan."
Will we let God have his sovereignty? Will we deny his absolute foreknowledge? Will we affirm that things come to pass apart from God willing or suffering it?
Wrote Cheung:
"Sin was not an accident, and redemption was not a mere reaction on the part of God. As the Scripture says, “The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster” (Proverbs 16:4). Thus supralapsarianism results in praise and reverence toward God."
Those who deny that God has decreed all things are forced to aver that "redemption" was an accident and a mere reaction on the part of God.
In "A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World," Jonathan Edwards wrote:
"To avoid all confusion in our inquiries concerning the end for which God created the world, a distinction should be observed between the chief end for which an agent performs any work, and the ultimate end. These two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification: and though the chief end be always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end. A chief end is opposite to an inferior end: an ultimate end is opposite to a subordinate end.
A subordinate end is what an agent aims at, not at all upon its own account, but wholly on the a account of a further end, of which it is considered as a means. Thus when a man goes a journey to obtain a medicine to restore his health, the obtaining of that medicine is his subordinate end; because it is not an end that he values at all upon its own account, but wholly as a means of a further end, viz. his health. Separate the medicine from that further end, and it is not at all desired.
Some ends are subordinate, not only as they are subordinated to an ultimate end; but also to another end that is itself but subordinate. Yea, there may be a succession or chain of many subordinate ends, one dependent on another, one sought for another; before you come to anything that the agent aims at, and seeks for its own sake.
So whenever a man comes to that in which his desire terminates and rests, it being something valued on its own account, then he comes to an ultimate end, let the chain be longer or shorter; yea, if there be but one link or one step that he takes before he comes to this end. As when a man that loves honey puts it into his mouth, for the sake of the pleasure of the taste, without aiming at anything further. So that an end which an agent has in view, may be both his immediate and his ultimate end; his next and his last end. That end which is sought for the sake of itself, and not for the sake of a further end, is an ultimate end; there the aim of the agent stops and rests.
Thus God may have ends of particular works of providence, which are ultimate ends in a lower sense, which were not ultimate ends of the creation.
That which God had primarily in view in creating, and the original ordination of the world, must be constantly kept in view, and have a governing influence in all God’s works, or with respect to every thing he does towards his creatures."
The logic of Edwards, like that of Cheung, and others who have written on the subject, such as Jerome Zanchius, is irrefutable and irresistible.
Sunday, July 8, 2018
The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ
Garrett's Notes
Introduction
If I had to choose a favorite inspired book, I would choose the Book of Revelation. When I was a young bible student, however, I would have said the Book of James. It is, at least to me, if not in fact, the capstone of holy scripture. As Genesis is the Alpha of revelation, so Revelation is the Omega, the former dealing with beginnings and with origins, the latter with endings and culmination. In fact, as will be seen, Genesis and Revelation complement each other, and the latter cannot be comprehended without the former.
I came to appreciate the Book of Revelation, aka The Apocalypse, after I had left the "Primitive Baptist Church." As I look back and ponder this fact I am not surprised. Two things characterize the modern PBs and their behavior towards this inspired book: 1) a leave it alone attitude, and 2) gross misinterpretation. Perhaps I will be able to enlarge upon this in the future.
By way of introduction, I will cite J.A. Seiss, the well known author of "The Apocalypse" (as well as numerous other books), who wrote the following in his Preface to that work. (emphasis mine)
"THERE is a widespread prejudice against the study of the Apocalypse. Though it is the great prophetic Book of the New Testament, the last of all the writings of Inspiration, a special message from the ascended Saviour to His Churches on earth, and pressed upon every one’s attention with uncommon urgency, there are religious guides, sworn to teach “the whole counsel of God,” who make a merit of not understanding it, and of not wishing to occupy themselves with it." (see here)
I found "widespread prejudice" against both "study" and teaching of the Book of Revelation among the "Primitive Baptists" when I was with them. Their attitude towards it is guided by these principles or presuppositions:
1) What the "denominational world" teaches about the Book of Revelation (Premillenialism) is prejudged to be wrong, "Arminians" not being able to properly interpret it.
2) The Book of Revelation cannot be taken literally, but is a book of mysterious signs dealing with the fortunes of the church in this age, and each minister is allowed to offer opinions on each sign as long he stays within the bounds of Amillenialism and PB tradition.
3) This book should generally be left alone and only the aged ministers should be teaching from it. They truly "make a merit of not understanding it," and have an aversion to it, they "not wishing to occupy themselves with it."
The book of Revelation is the book that deals specifically with one main topic, the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, or his second coming. This being so, what could possibly be of greater interest?
In the future I will be going through the book of Revelation, sharing my thoughts and notes. I hope it is of benefit to the Lord's people.
I believe that the book of Revelation upholds the Futurist school in regard to the fulfillment of its prophecies and that the Preterist and Historicist schools are serious errors. The prophecies of the book of Revelation are to be interpreted literally, though symbols are used. These propositions will become evident as we go through this wonderful book.
Introduction
If I had to choose a favorite inspired book, I would choose the Book of Revelation. When I was a young bible student, however, I would have said the Book of James. It is, at least to me, if not in fact, the capstone of holy scripture. As Genesis is the Alpha of revelation, so Revelation is the Omega, the former dealing with beginnings and with origins, the latter with endings and culmination. In fact, as will be seen, Genesis and Revelation complement each other, and the latter cannot be comprehended without the former.
I came to appreciate the Book of Revelation, aka The Apocalypse, after I had left the "Primitive Baptist Church." As I look back and ponder this fact I am not surprised. Two things characterize the modern PBs and their behavior towards this inspired book: 1) a leave it alone attitude, and 2) gross misinterpretation. Perhaps I will be able to enlarge upon this in the future.
By way of introduction, I will cite J.A. Seiss, the well known author of "The Apocalypse" (as well as numerous other books), who wrote the following in his Preface to that work. (emphasis mine)
"THERE is a widespread prejudice against the study of the Apocalypse. Though it is the great prophetic Book of the New Testament, the last of all the writings of Inspiration, a special message from the ascended Saviour to His Churches on earth, and pressed upon every one’s attention with uncommon urgency, there are religious guides, sworn to teach “the whole counsel of God,” who make a merit of not understanding it, and of not wishing to occupy themselves with it." (see here)
I found "widespread prejudice" against both "study" and teaching of the Book of Revelation among the "Primitive Baptists" when I was with them. Their attitude towards it is guided by these principles or presuppositions:
1) What the "denominational world" teaches about the Book of Revelation (Premillenialism) is prejudged to be wrong, "Arminians" not being able to properly interpret it.
2) The Book of Revelation cannot be taken literally, but is a book of mysterious signs dealing with the fortunes of the church in this age, and each minister is allowed to offer opinions on each sign as long he stays within the bounds of Amillenialism and PB tradition.
3) This book should generally be left alone and only the aged ministers should be teaching from it. They truly "make a merit of not understanding it," and have an aversion to it, they "not wishing to occupy themselves with it."
The book of Revelation is the book that deals specifically with one main topic, the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, or his second coming. This being so, what could possibly be of greater interest?
In the future I will be going through the book of Revelation, sharing my thoughts and notes. I hope it is of benefit to the Lord's people.
I believe that the book of Revelation upholds the Futurist school in regard to the fulfillment of its prophecies and that the Preterist and Historicist schools are serious errors. The prophecies of the book of Revelation are to be interpreted literally, though symbols are used. These propositions will become evident as we go through this wonderful book.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Comments On My 2016 Prediction
The following was written by me on Aug. 26, 2016.
1. Trade War (short lived)
2. One World Currency & Banking System
3. Creation of Ten Trade Zones with its rulers
4. Trade Between Nations UN Regulated
5. Middle East Peace Agreement
6. Rebuilding of Babylon as Commercial Center
7. Worldwide Prosperity with Peace and Safety
8. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
On The Predicted Trade War
Who knows, perhaps "Antichrist" or "the Man of Sin," will be the one who will come up with the economic plan that saves the world from armed conflict.
"Coming Events" (Published in "The Baptist Gadfly" - see here)
Here is what I am looking for in the near future as relates to end time prophetic events. I believe that they will occur regardless of who is elected U.S. president, but I do believe they will come to pass more quickly under Trump.
1. Trade War (short lived)
2. One World Currency & Banking System
3. Creation of Ten Trade Zones with its rulers
4. Trade Between Nations UN Regulated
5. Middle East Peace Agreement
6. Rebuilding of Babylon as Commercial Center
7. Worldwide Prosperity with Peace and Safety
8. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
On The Predicted Trade War
This is now coming to pass. So, I was right on that point. I still believe it will be "short lived". The reason for this is that the world cannot survive such an economic war. The world will be forced to find a "solution"; And, it is that solution to the problem that is very troubling, for it is my belief that it will set in motion a series of events that will bring on the Apocalypse and Day of Judgment.
I also believe that a trade war will necessarily lead to a "currency war." Not only did Trump run on trade issues, but on currency issues. Remember how Trump blamed China (as a part of trade problems) for "manipulating their currency"?
Many trading nations, like China, have been clamoring for an end to international trade being based upon and conducted in U.S. dollars, favoring a new international medium of exchange, a new trading currency. (Note: "Bitcoin" has been trying to replace the dollar) So, not only will we have a trade war but a currency war and the outcome will be a one world currency and banking system, and one ruling body governing trade. This will bring on "the ten kings" (or "toes") and the construction of Babylon, "that megalopolis."
Who knows, perhaps "Antichrist" or "the Man of Sin," will be the one who will come up with the economic plan that saves the world from armed conflict.
Training Church Members
Vincent Cheung wrote:
"...every church should train its members in theology, hermeneutics, and logic, so that they may better handle the word of truth." (pg. 28 of his Systematic Theology, see here)
I believe that is good counsel.
"...every church should train its members in theology, hermeneutics, and logic, so that they may better handle the word of truth." (pg. 28 of his Systematic Theology, see here)
I believe that is good counsel.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Book Of Acts - Our "Pattern"?
Many Christians believe that the Book of Acts describes the Christian community, or church, in its pristine condition, and that it should be our "pattern" for what a church is, and what it believes and practices. I have no problem with deriving truth in doctrine and practice from the Book of Acts, but I question why those who point to the Book of Acts as our pattern (such as many in the "church of Christ," in "reformed" and "hardshell" churches), forget that the Book of Acts describes the first Christian ministry as
"A tongue-speaking, cripple-healing, dead-raising, demon-expelling, liar-slaying, prison-breaking, house-shaking, sorcerer-cursing, vision-seeing, future-predicting, miracle ministry." (Vincent Cheung, in his Systematic Theology, see here)
I have enjoyed a lot of Cheung's writings over the years. His writings on the error of strict cessationism is close to my own view. His defense of the doctrines of grace and of Supralapsarianism are superb. You can visit Cheung's web page HERE) His books and writings are available for free. Warning: he speaks frankly, bluntly, and sarcastically, when battling errorists and heretics. My manner is a good bit more mild than his.
"And Gideon said unto him, “Oh my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?’" (Judges 6: 13)
Should we not be asking the same questions today?
"A tongue-speaking, cripple-healing, dead-raising, demon-expelling, liar-slaying, prison-breaking, house-shaking, sorcerer-cursing, vision-seeing, future-predicting, miracle ministry." (Vincent Cheung, in his Systematic Theology, see here)
I have enjoyed a lot of Cheung's writings over the years. His writings on the error of strict cessationism is close to my own view. His defense of the doctrines of grace and of Supralapsarianism are superb. You can visit Cheung's web page HERE) His books and writings are available for free. Warning: he speaks frankly, bluntly, and sarcastically, when battling errorists and heretics. My manner is a good bit more mild than his.
"And Gideon said unto him, “Oh my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?’" (Judges 6: 13)
Should we not be asking the same questions today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)