Theology for the Masses

Brad Andrews January 5th, 2008

God’s Providence Defined

The Scriptures clearly teach that all things outside of God owe their continued existence to the will of God. [1] And in the work of redemption, while the Bible teaches that this providential control is universal, powerful, wise, and holy, it nowhere attempts to inform how it is reconciled with man’s free will. What the Bible is clear on is God’s character precludes Him to govern His creatures and control them in a way where no violence is done to their natures.

God’s Foreknowledge Defined

What God foreknows must be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained. Foreordination makes the events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes they are certain. Another way of saying this is to say if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot take a turn contrary to His knowledge. The Calvinistic doctrine of the foreknowledge of God proves also His predestination. Boettner says:

“Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled things; and nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God – the great first cause – freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass.”

[2]

[1] Acts 17:28 NIV; Col. 1:17 NIV; Heb. 1:3 NIV.

[2] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company), 46.

• Grace
• Comments(3)

Brad Andrews January 4th, 2008

I started to write a response to jr. and realized I wrote a paper for seminary on the issue last semester. I thought I’d reprint it in a series called “The Doctrines of Grace.” There seems to be some specific discussion about the “L” of the TULIP acronym - limited atonement - right now.

I am going to start with a preliminary framework and then I will move towards examining the TULIP acronym side-by-side with the doctrines of grace and Arminianism, in light of Scripture. I promise I’ll get to the “L” eventually. Additionally, this is not an exhaustive, 300-page book but rather a “tight” paper on the highlights of the doctrines of grace. In other words, I haven’t turned over every rock, but have tried to turn over the biggest ones…

Here is the first post of the series:

God Has a Plan

It is unfathomable that a God of infinite wisdom and power would fashion a world without a distinct plan for that world. [1] It is one of His perfections that He has the best possible plan, and that He conducts the course of history to its appointed end. And to acknowledge that He has a plan which He carries out is to admit to the idea of predestination. Loraine Boettner, an American theologian and author, in his book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, says this:

When He did choose to create, there was before Him an infinite number of possible plans…and what can give the Christian more satisfaction and joy than to know that the whole course of the world is ordered with reference to the establishment of the Kingdom of heaven and the manifestation of the Divine glory. [2]

God’s Sovereignty Defined

By virtue of the fact that God has created everything which exists, he is “the absolute Owner and final Disposer” of all that He has made. [3] He exerts not merely a general influence, but actually rules the world in which He has created. [4] And since he permits willingly, all that comes to pass – including actions of men – must be, in some sense, in accordance with what He has desired and purposed. Boettner continues, “God has lost none of His power, and it is highly dishonoring to Him to suppose that He is struggling along with the human race doing the best He can but unable to accomplish His purposes.” [5] To suppose that His plans fail and that He strives to no effect is to reduce Him to the level of His creatures.

[1] Isa. 46:9-10 NIV
[2] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932), 24-25.
[3] Ibid., 30.
[4] Ps. 29:10 NIV
[5] Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 32.

• Grace
• Comments(37)

Honzo August 22nd, 2007

As I was studying me some Attic Greek tonight I was reminded of Hank’s retranslation of John 3:16. Hank did an excellent 5-part series on this verse and went through the translation process step-by-step. I would recommend reading reading through each of the five parts (one two three four five) to get a feel for the translation process.

His translation reads as follows:

“Thus in this manner God loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that everyone that is believing in him will never perish but have life forever.”

I especially like two of his changes/emphases. First, Hank rightly translates the “so” in the phrase “For God so loved the world…” as “in this manner.” It describes how the love of God was shown to the world. God showed his love through a selfless sacrificial act.

The second aspect that I appreciated was Hank’s emphasis on the middle voice of ἀπόληται, or to perish. The emphasis on the middle voice demonstrates that the perishing was a result of our own actions. Restated, we perish ourselves. It demonstrates that although we have shot our selves in the foot, God action of love for us is his providing a way into eternal life despite our shooting of our own foot.

The only thing I would really change about his translation is restoring the subjunctive forms of “will never perish” and “have” in the last two clauses. The verbs are in the subjunctive form, which describe possible worlds, not actualized ones. Those that believe, by their believing enter into this possible world where they do not perish and instead have eternal life. This world is make possible by God’s giving of his son, Jesus.

My changes would read as follows:

“Thus in this manner God loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that everyone that is believing in him might never perish but might have life forever.”

• Ethics , Grace , Love , Nature of God , The Ethics of God , translation issues
• Comments(3)

Honzo May 31st, 2007

This Lamp has a great discussion on how to translate perhaps the most important word in the New Testament, πιστεύω/pisteuo. It’s a lengthy read, but well worth your while.

THIS LAMP :: Has Faith: John 3:16 in the NEB/REB–Good Translation or Not?

Well, the problem is with our English word. It has two different meanings. Believe can mean to accept something as true. But believe can also mean to hold an opinion. When John speaks of those who believe in Jesus in John 3:16, is he speaking of the same kind of belief when we say, “I believe it will rain tomorrow”? Of course not. Such belief has to be more than opinion. It also has to be more than mental assent. James foresees this as a problem when he writes,
“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:19 TNIV)
Believe may simply not be an adequate word for πιστεύω in English. It’s awkward, but the Amplified Bible gets the meaning across fairly well with “..so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish…” The parenthetical definition for believes in–”trusts in, clings to, relies on”–gets it right. But the Amplified Bible is not really suitable for any kind of use in a group setting (I don’t really even recommend the Amplified Bible in general), so how can πιστεύω in John 3:16 best be rendered?

• Grace , translation issues
• Comments(5)

Hank May 5th, 2007

For all of you who have seen the third installment of the Spider-Man saga, did you guys notice the tasteful job in dealing with the theme of forgiveness and harboring hatred and vengefulness in one’s heart. I developed this a little at a post on by blog called Review Spider-Man 3. I really think that this movie could be a useful tool in teaching younger kids the dangers of revenge and an unforgiving heart.

This leads me to a question for something I am going to do with a group of kids I might teaching, should movies like this be used as teaching tools? Some people I’ve talked to don’t like the idea of showing such movies like this and others (ie Superman I, II, Returns; Star Wars; The Matrix?) because of the other stuff in them like violence and foul language and sex. Would you feel comfortable using Hollywood films to make a point or not?

• Grace
• Comments(3)