James White and Jeff Durbin exemplify just how 5-point Calvinism can destroy a good apologetic. It allows for an easy refutation of a Mormon apologist to show the God of Christianity is an evil god.
This defining sovereignty as some “determinism” creates a god more in line with a Muslim view of god than a Judeo-Christian view. 5-Pointers admit infants are created for destruction in Calvinism: “We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death.” – John Calvin The same in ISLAM: Babies CAN Go To HELL In Islam | Not only that, but we are more moral than the god of Calvinism or Islam.
In other words, the god of Calvinism. (See more in a previous post HERE)
As I am studying this I wonder if a few of the Reformers borrowed the fatalism of Allah. At any rate, you can watch James and Jeff (and other Calvinistic theologians/pastors, but not always stated as clearly) say that the god of the Bible authored sex trafficking and the Holocaust. Bravo to the Mormon in slapping these two down. Mormons are easy to discuss issues with… unless you posit a god thru the rose colored lenses of the Calvinistic systematic. [See my using lower case for “god” — the Calvinistic god is too small. Like the Mormon god… not the God of the Bible] Do not leave a comment unless you are willing to have a conversation over a busy work schedule. BTW, these are all arguments a healthy view of a theistic God used against philosophical naturalism – atheism.
VIDEO DESCRIPTION:
Dr. Leighton Flowers interacts with a recent video where a young Mormon picks apart the Calvinistic determinism of James White and Jeff Durbin making their perspective seem completely irrational and untenable. Theistic determinism is an unnecessary burden that some Christians have adopted making it virtually impossible to rationally defend scriptural truths against the false teaching of groups like Mormons. Theology will drive your methodology and one’s apologetic suffers when they adopt a deterministic theology, as witnessed in this video.
If you do not already know what Calvinism is all about, I recommend that you study the teachings of Calvinists themselves and keep in mind that not all Calvinists are the same.[2] Learn from my mistake, you should always study the opposition’s viewpoint for yourself.
Back when I was a Calvinist, I had so saturated myself with Calvinistic preachers and authors that the only thing I knew of the opposing views was what they told me. Thus, I had been led to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized I had been misled on this point, I was more open to consider other interpretations objectively. So, just as it is only fair to learn Calvinism from actual Calvinists, it is also only fair to learn Traditionalism from a Southern Baptist Traditionalist.[3]
With this in mind, here is a direct quote from John Calvin which most clearly reveals the Traditionalist’s major point of contention with our Calvinistic brethren:
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death…[4] Some are predestined to salvation, others to damnation… Regarding the lost: it was His good pleasure to doom to destruction… Since the disposition of all things is in the hands of God and He can give life or death at His pleasure, He dispenses and ordains by His judgment that some, from their mother’s womb, are destined irrevocably to eternal death in order to glorify His name in their perdition… All are not created on equal terms, but some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation…”[5]
The very thought of a creator making human beings, with real conscious feelings and emotions, for the sole purpose of pouring out His everlasting wrath so as to manifest His glory leaves even Calvinists pondering.[6]
The “dreadfulness” of such a decree may accomplish some measure of terror filled “thankfulness” in the hearts of those who happen to be rescued from this unthinkable fate, but no one can objectively claim that they are not on some level troubled by such a doctrine.[7] If the Scripture clearly teaches us to adopt these doctrines and the emotional abhorrence that typically follows, then we certainly must submit ourselves to it. However, suppose that was not the intention of the biblical authors at all? Think of what damage such interpretations impose upon the church and the believer’s view of God if the “dreadfulness” of these doctrines are simply untrue.
[….]
John Calvin forthrightly reveals where his own systematic leads:
“A distinction has been invented between doing and permitting, because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that He directs their malice to whatever end He pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute His judgments…
How foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission… It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them… Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as He will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.”[32]
Many modern day Calvinists would not go so far as to candidly admit what John Calvin does in the quote above. Yet, can the Calvinistic systematic avoid the necessity of this logical end? Their namesake does not think so.
FOOTNOTES:
[2]Examples of other points where Calvinists simply do not agree among themselves: (1) Atonement: Phil Johnson, President of Grace to You ministries, writes, “But second, don’t imagine that there is just one view for the Limited Atonement position and another view for the Unlimited Atonement position. As if there are two polar opposites here and they compete against each other. This is not really an either/or position even among Calvinists. And in fact, historically, the most intense debates about Limited Atonement have come over the past 400 years, they’ve all been intramural debates between Calvinists, among Calvinists… There are at least six possible Calvinists’ interpretations of it [Scripture]…” Phil Johnson, The Nature of the Atonement: Why and for Whom did Christ die? Quote taken from: http://www.bible-bb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm; [date accessed: 4/2/15] (2) God’s Love for All, see John MacArthur, Does God Love the World? (3) Lapsarian Controversy (4) God’s genuine desire for all to be saved (5) The “order salutis” (the temporal vs. logical order).
[3]Non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists have been using the term “Traditionalist” to describe the most commonly held Southern Baptist view of salvation taught by leaders over the last one hundred years or so. In 2012, a document was produced to better articulate the scholarly non-Calvinistic soteriology of Southern Baptists, whose primary author was Eric Hankins, and was entitled A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation. The word “traditional” was again used for the basic Baptist view of non-Calvinists. This term has never been meant to suggest that all Southern Baptists have been non-Calvinistic because it is clear there have been two clear streams of soteriology throughout Baptist history. […]
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), sec. 5, 1030–1031.
[5] Gilbert VanOrder, Jr. Calvinism’s Conflicts: An Examination of the Problems in Reformed Theology (Lulu Publishers, 2013), 99.
[6]John Calvin, pg. 124: “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.”
[7] John Calvin himself admitted the dreadfulness of this teaching: “Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by His decree.” Quote taken from: http://postbarthian.com/2014/05/31/john-calvin-confessed-double-prede-stination-horrible-dreadful-decree/; [date accessed: 3/25/15]
[….]
[32] John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God; 10:11, [emphasis added.]
Ra-Tardness is not just an occupational job of leftist white women. This was one of the dumbest things I have heard!
I used OpenArt for the opener to add animation to the picture (also adding the music and the sound FX via Vegas 22) before the video I cobbled together.
Hat-tip to Cal Thomas for the inspiration:
This is just another opener that I will use in the future… 21-seconds long:
Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes back Dr. Ken Wilson to defend his Oxford Thesis from over 15 hours of mostly fallacious and unfounded attacks by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
The Common Misconceptions in this Debate So Far:
Wilson’s argument rests on Manicheanism and Augustinianism being the same worldview: This is untrue. It is not at all unreasonable to suggest that just one aspect of Manicheanism (i.e. its adherence to theistic determinism) might have influenced Augustine’s interpretation of the scripture.
Wilson is saying Augustinianism is untrue because of its similarities with Manicheanism: This is inaccurate. It is possible for false worldviews to adhere to some aspects of truth, therefore proving that Calvinism has some link to Manicheanism doesn’t prove Calvinism is false. Wilson is saying Augustinianism is not rooted or founded in the early church writings therefore it most likely originated from other gnostic, neoplatonic and Manichean roots, which brings into question its validity as the correct interpretive grid.
Wilson is arguing Augustinianism imports Manicheanism into Christianity because it uses similar words: This is also untrue. Just because Mani spoke of “the elect” and Calvinists also emphasize “the elect” does not mean they are necessarily linked, or even have the same definitions. Wilson is not attempting to argue that all aspects or jargon of the Manichean worldview are linked to the all aspects or jargon within the Calvinistic worldview. Wilson is only looking at the one common point of connection, namely deterministic philosophy, which was first introduced by Augustine, a former Manichean.
James White’s criticism has accurately portrayed Wilson’s arguments and showed Wilson’s bias: This is demonstrably untrue as will be shown in this video and in many of the articles posted at www.soteriology101.com.
If it can be proven that Wilson held to preconception of the ECFs and Augustine’s beliefs before doing his research, then his subsequent research is invalid: Again this is false. Even if it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Wilson firmly believed the ECFs denied TULIP theology and that Augustine was the first to introduce it, this does not make his findings invalid. One would still need to demonstrate that Wilson’s bias lead to poor research.
Here are quotes from Reformed historians who validate the foundational claims of Wilson’s work:
Herman Bavinck:
In the early church, at a time when it had to contend with pagan fatalism and gnostic naturalism, its representatives focused exclusively on the moral nature, freedom, and responsibility of humans and could not do justice, therefore, to the teaching of Scripture concerning the counsel of God. Though humans had been more or less corrupted by sin, they remained free and were able to accept the proffered grace of God. The church’s teaching did not include a doctrine of absolute predestination and irresistible grace.
Loraine Boettner:
“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century….They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination… They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free … this cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine…“
Robert Peterson and Michael Williams of Covenant Theological Seminary:
“The Semi-Pelagians were convinced that Augustine’s monergistic emphasis upon salvation by grace alone represented a significant departure from the traditional teaching of the church. And a survey of the thought of the apostolic father’s shows that the argument is valid… In comparison to Augustine’s monergistic doctrine of grace, the teachings of the apostolic fathers tended toward a synergistic view of redemption” (36).
Louis Berkhof [in The History of Christian Doctrines]:
“Their representations are naturally rather indefinite, imperfect, and incomplete, and sometimes even erroneous and self-contradictory. Says Kahnis: “It stands as an assured fact, a fact knowing no exceptions, and acknowledged by all well versed in the matter, that all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers taught that in the appropriation of salvation there is a co-working of freedom and grace.”
Berkhof goes on to admit that “they do not hold to an entire corruption of the human will, and consequently adhere to the synergistic theory of regeneration…” (130).
In other words, despite White’s assertions to the contrary, there were no “monergists” before Augustine.
An additional quote
“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the Gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.” — from Loraine Boettner’s “Calvinism in History”
Early Christian authors unanimously taught relational divine eternal predetermination. God elected persons to salvation based upon foreknowledge of their faith (predestination). These Christians vigorously opposed the unilateral determinism of Stoic Providence, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism.[48] So early Christians taught predestination,[49] but refuted Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (unilateral determinism). This unilateral determinism can be identified in ancient Iranian religion, then chronologically in the Qumranites, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. “Christian” heretics such as Basilides who taught God unilaterally bestowed the gift of faith to only some persons (and withheld that salvific gift to others) were condemned. Of the eighty-four pre-Augustinian authors studied from 95–430 CE, over fifty addressed this topic. All of these early Christian authors championed traditional free choice and relational predestination against pagan and heretical Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies.[50]
This can only be understood and appreciated by reading comprehensively through the sizeable number of works by these authors. Some persons triumphantly cite ancient Christian authors claiming they believe Augustine’s deterministic interpretations of scripture, but without reading the entire context or without understanding the way in which words were being used.[51] I am not aware of any Patristics (early church fathers) scholar who would or could make a claim that even one Christian author prior to Augustine taught Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (DUPIED, i.e., non-relational determinism unrelated to foreknowledge of human choices).
I. Apostolic Fathers and Apologists 95–180 CE
Most of these works do not directly address God’s sovereignty or free will.[52]The Epistle of Barnabas (100–120 CE) admits the corruption of human nature (Barn.16.7) but only physical death (not spiritual) results from Adam’s fall. Personal sins cause a wicked heart (Barn.12.5). Divine foreknowledge of human choices allowed the Jews to make choices and remain within God’s plan, resulting in their own self-determination (Barn.3.6). God’s justice is connected with human responsibility (Barn.5.4). Therefore, God’s foreknowledge of human choices should affect God’s actions regarding salvation.
In The Epistle of Diognetus (120–170 CE) God does not compel anyone. Instead, God foreknows choices by which he correspondingly chooses his responses to humans. Meecham writes of Diogn.10.1–11.8, “Free-will is implied in his capacity to become ‘a new man’ (ii,I), and in God’s attitude of appeal rather than compulsion (vii, 4).”[53] Aristides (ca.125–170 CE) taught newborns enter the world without sin or guilt: only personal sin incurs punishment.[54]
II. Justin Martyr and Tatian
The first author to write more specifically on divine sovereignty and human free will is Justin Martyr (ca.155 CE). Erwin Goodenough explained:
Justin everywhere is positive in his assertion that the results of the struggle are fairly to be imputed to the blame of each individual. The Stoic determinism he indignantly rejects. Unless man is himself responsible for his ethical conduct, the entire ethical scheme of the universe collapses, and with it the very existence of God himself.[55]
Commenting on Dial.140.4 and 141.2, Barnard concurred, saying God “foreknows everything—not because events are necessary, nor because he has decreed that men shall act as they do or be what they are; but foreseeing all events he ordains reward or punishment accordingly.”[56] After considering 1 Apol.28 and 43, Chadwick also agreed. “Justin’s insistence on freedom and responsibility as God’s gift to man and his criticism of Stoic fatalism and of all moral relativism are so frequently repeated that it is safe to assume that here he saw a distinctively Christian emphasis requiring special stress.”[57] Similarly, Barnard wrote: “Justin, in spite of his failure to grasp the corporate nature of sin, was no Pelagian blindly believing in man’s innate power to elevate himself. All was due, he says, to the Incarnation of the Son of God.”[58]
Tatian (ca.165) taught that free choice for good was available to every person. “Since all men have free will, all men therefore have the potential to turn to God to achieve salvation.”[59] This remains true even though Adam’s fall enslaved humans to sin (Or.11.2). The fall is reversed through a personal choice to receive God’s gift in Christ (Or.15.4). Free choice was the basis of God’s rewards and punishments for both angels and humans (Or.7.1–2).
II. Theophilus, Athenagoras, and Melito
Theophilus (ca.180), all creation sinned in Adam and received the punishment of physical decay, not eternal death or total inability (Autol.2.17). Theophilus’ insistence upon a free choice response to God (Autol.2.27) occurs following his longer discussion of the primeval state in the Garden and subsequent fall of Adam. Christianity’s gracious God provides even fallen Adam with opportunity for repentance and confession (Autol.2.26). Theophilus exhorts Christians to overcome sin through their residual free choice (Autol.1.2, 1.7).
Athenagoras (ca.170 CE) believed infants were innocent and therefore could not be judged and used them as a proof for a bodily resurrection prior to judgment (De resurr.14). For God’s punishment to be just, free choice stands paramount. Why?—because God created both angels and persons with free choice for the purpose of assuming responsibility for their own actions (De resurr.24.4–5)[60] Humans and angels can live virtuously or viciously: “This, says Athenagoras, is a matter of free choice, a free will given the creature by the creator.”[61] Without free choice, the punishment or rewarding of both humans and angels would be unjust.
In Peri Pascha 326–388, Melito (ca.175 CE) possibly surpassed any extant Christian author in an extended description depicting the devastation of Adam’s fall.[62] The scholar Lynn Cohick explained: “The homilist leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that humans have degenerated from a pristine state in the garden of Eden, where they were morally innocent, to a level of complete and utter perversion.”[63] Despite this profound depravity, all persons remain capable of believing in Christ through their own God-given free choice. No special grace is needed. A cause and effect relationship exists between human free choice and God’s response (P.P.739–744). “There is no suggestion that sinfulness is itself communicated to Adam’s progeny as in later Augustinian teaching.”[64]
B. Christian Authors 180–250 CE
I. Irenaeus of Lyons
Irenaeus of Lyons (ca.185) wrote primarily against Gnostic deterministic salvation in his famous work Adversus Haereses. “One position fundamental to Irenaeus is that man should come to moral good by the action of his own moral will, and not spontaneously and by nature.”[65] Physical death for the human race from Adam’s sin was not so much a punishment as God’s gracious gift to prevent humans from living eternally in a perpetual state of struggling with sin (Adv. haer.3.35.2).
Irenaeus championed humanity’s free will for four reasons: (1) to refute Gnostic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies, (2) because humanity’s persisting imago Dei (image of God within humans) demands a persisting free will, (3) scriptural commands demand free will for legitimacy, and (4) God’s justice becomes impugned without free will (genuine, not Stoic “non-free free will”). These were non-negotiable “apostolic doctrines.” Scholars Wingren and Donovan both identify Irenaeus’ conception of the imago Dei as freedom of choice itself. As Donovan relates: “This strong affirmation of human liberty is at the same time a clear rejection of the Gnostic notion of predetermined natures.”[66]
Andia clarified that God’s justice requires free choice since Irenaeus believed God’s providence created all persons equally.[67] In refuting Gnostic determinism (Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies), Irenaeus argues that God determines persons’ eternal destinies through foreknowledge of the free choices of persons (Adv. haer.2.29.1; 4.37.2–5; 4.29.1–2; 3.12.2,5,11; 3.32.1; 4.14, 4.34.1, 4.61.2). Irenaeus attacked both Stoicism and Gnostic heresies because DUPIED made salvation by faith superfluous, and made Christ’s incarnation unnecessary.[68] Irenaeus taught God’s predestination. This was based on God’s foreknowledge of human choices without God constraining the human will as in Gnostic determinism.[69]
Irenaeus denied that any event could ever occur outside of God’s sovereignty (Adv. haer.2.5.4), but simultaneously emphasized residual human free choice to receive God’s gift, which only then results in regeneration. “The essential principle in the concept of freedom appears first in Christ’s status as the sovereign Lord, because for Irenaeus man’s freedom is, strangely enough, a direct expression of God’s omnipotence, so direct in fact, that a diminution of man’s freedom automatically involves a corresponding diminution of God’s omnipotence.”[70] Although he exalted God’s sovereignty, it was not (erroneously) defined as God receiving everything he desires.[71] The scholar Denis Minns correctly states, “Irenaeus would insist as vigorously as Augustine that nothing could be achieved without grace. But he would have been appalled at the thought that God would offer grace to some and withhold it from others.”[72]
II. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria (ca.190) strongly defends a residual human free choice after Adam (Strom.1.1; cf. 4.24, 5.14). Divine foreknowledge determines divine election (Strom.1.18; 6.14). Clement understood that God calls all (lläv1ωv iοίvuv àvOρdrnωv)—every human, not a few of every kind of human —whereas, “the called” are those who respond. He believed that if God exercised Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (as the Marcionites and Gnostics believed), then he would not be the just and good Christian God but the heretical God of Marcion (Strom.5.1).
Clement refuted the followers of the Gnostic Marcion who believed initial faith was God’s gift. Why?—it robbed humans of free choice (Strom.2.3–4; cf. Strom.4.11, Quis dives Salvetur 10). Yet Clement does not believe free choice saves persons as a human work (cf. John 1:13). He teaches God must first draw and call every human to himself, since all have the greatest need for the power of divine grace (Strom.5.1). God does not initiate a mystical (i.e., Neoplatonic) inward draw to each of his elect. Instead, the Father previously revealed himself and drew every human through Old Testament scripture, but now reveals himself and draws all humanity equally to himself through Christ and the New Testament (cf. John 12:32; Strom.7.1–2).[73]
Tertullian (ca.205) wrote that despite a corrupted nature, humans possess a residual capacity to accept God’s gift based upon the good divine image (the “proper nature”) still resident within every human (De anima 22). Every person retains the capacity to believe. He refuted Gnosticism’s discriminatory deterministic salvation (Val.29). God remains sovereign while he permits good and evil, because he foreknows what will occur by human free choice (Cult. fem.2.10). Humans can and should respond to God by using their God-given innate imago Dei free choice. Therefore, Tertullian did not approve of an “innocent” infant being baptized before responding personally to God’s gift of grace through hearing and believing the gospel (De baptismo 18). He believed that children should await baptism until they are old enough to personally believe in Christ.
III. Origen of Alexandria
Origen (ca.185–254) advances scriptural arguments for free choice that fill the third book of De principiis (P. Arch.3.1.6). “This also is definite in the teaching of the Church, every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition” that can choose the good (Princ., Pref.5). God does not coerce humans or directly influence individuals but instead only invites. Why?—because God desires willing lovers. Just as Paul asked Philemon to voluntarily (κατὰ Eκοuσιοv) act in goodness (Phlm. 1.14), so God desires uncoerced lovers (Hom. Jer.20.2). Origen explains how God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. God sends divine signs/events that Pharaoh rejects and hardens his own heart. God’s hardening is indirect. “Now these passages are sufficient of themselves to trouble the multitude, as if man were not possessed of free will, but as if it were God who saves and destroys whom he will” (Princ. 3.1.7). Origen distinguishes between God’s temporal blessings and eternal destinies in Romans 9–11, rejecting the Gnostic eternal salvation view from these chapters.
Initial faith is human faith, not a divine gift. “The apostles, once understanding that faith which is only human cannot be perfected unless that which comes from God should be added to it, they say to the Savior, ‘Increase our faith.'” (Com.Rom.4.5.3). God desires to give the inheritance of the promises not as something due from debt but through grace. Origen says that the inheritance from God is granted to those who believe, not as the debt of a wage but as a gift of [human] faith (Com.Rom.4.5.1).[74]
Election is based upon divine foreknowledge. “For the Creator makes vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor, not from the beginning according to His foreknowledge, since He does not pre-condemn or pre-justify according to it; but (He makes) those into vessels of honor who purged themselves, and those into vessels of dishonor who allowed themselves to remain unpurged” (P.Arch.3.1.21). Origen does not refute divine foreknowledge resulting in election but refutes the philosophical view of foreknowledge as necessarily causative, which Celsus taught:
Celsus imagines that an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass because it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he who foretold it was not the cause of its happening, because he foretold it would happen; but the future event itself, which would have taken place though not predicted, afforded the occasion to him, who was endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its occurrence (C.Cels.2.20).
Origen explains the Christian interpretation of Rom 9:16.[75]The Gnostic and heretical deterministic interpretations render God’s words superfluous, and invalidate Paul’s chastisements and approbations to Christians. Nevertheless, the human desire/will is insufficient to accomplish salvation, so Christians must rely upon God’s grace (P. Arch.3.1.18). Origen does not minimize the innate human sin principle that incites persons to sin. Rather, he chastises immature Christians who blame their sins on the devil instead of their own passions (Princ.3.2.1–2; P. Arch.3.1.15).
IV. Cyprian and Novatian
Cyprian (d.254 CE) taught God stands sovereign (Treat.3.19; 5.56.8; 12.80). Yet, God rewards or punishes based upon his foreknowledge of human choices and responses (Treat.7.17, 19; Ep.59.2). Humans retain free choice despite Adam’s sin (Treat.7.17, 19).[76] “That the liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in freedom of choice” (Treat.12.52). Jesus utilized persuasion, not force (Treat.9.6). Obedience resulting in martyrdom should arise from free choice, not necessity (Treat. 7.18), especially since imitating Christ restores God’s likeness.
Novatian (ca.250 CE) teaches a personal responsibility for sin instead of guilt from Adam, because a person who is pre-determined due to (even fallen) nature cannot be held liable. Only a willful decision can incur guilt (De cib. Jud.3). Lactantius (ca.315 CE) taught Adam’s fall produced only physical death (not eternal death) through the loss of God’s perpetually gifted immortality (Inst.2.13), as Williams correctly identified.[77] Yet, mortality in a corrupted human body predisposed the human race to sin (Inst.6.13). God loves every person equally, offers immortality equally to each person, and every human is capable of responding to God’s offer—without divine intervention (Div.inst.5.15) “God, who is the guide of that way, denies immortality to no human being” but offers salvation equally to every person (Div.inst.6.3). Humanity must contend with its propensity to sin, but the corrupted nature provides no excuse since free choice persists (Inst.2.15; 4.24; 4.25; 5.1). He consistently teaches Christian free choice (Inst.5.10, 13, 14).
C. Christian Authors 250–400 CE
I. Hilary of Poitiers
Hilary (d.368 CE) referred to John 1:12–13 as God’s offer of salvation that is equally offered to everyone. “They who do receive Him by virtue of their faith advance to be sons of God, being born not of the embrace of the flesh nor of the conception of the blood nor of bodily desire, but of God […] the Divine gift is offered to all, it is no heredity inevitably imprinted but a prize awarded to willing choice” (Trin.1.10–11). Human nature has a propensity to evil (Trin.3.21; Hom. Psa.1.4) that is located in the physical body (Hom. Psa.1.13). Human free choice elicits the divine gift, yet the divine birth (through faith) belongs solely to God. A human ‘will’ cannot create the birth (Trin.12.56) yet that birth occurs through human faith.
II. The Cappadocians
Gregory of Nazianzus (ca.329–389 CE) writes frequently of the “fall of sin” from Adam (Or.1; 33.9; 40.7), including the evil consequence of that original sin (Or.45.12). “We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness” (Or.45.22). Salvation (not faith) is God’s gift. “We call it the Gift, because it is given to us in return for nothing on our part” (Or.40.4). “This, indeed, was the will of Supreme Goodness, to make the good even our own, not only because it was sown in our nature, but because cultivated by our own choice, and by the motions of our free will to act in either direction.” (Or.2.17). “Our soul is self-determining and independent, choosing as it will with sovereignty over itself that which is pleasing to it” (Ref.Conf. Eun.139). Children are born blameless (Ep.206). God is sovereign, and Christ died for all humankind, including the ‘non-elect.’ (Or.45.26; cf. Or.38.14). Nevertheless, in matters of personal salvation, God limits himself, allowing humans free choice (Or.32.25, 45.8).
Basil of Caesarea (ca.330–379 CE) believed humans do not inherit sin or evil, but choose to sin resulting in death. We control our own actions, proved by God’s payment and punishment (Hom. Hex.2.4). He promotes God’s sovereignty over human temporal (not eternal) destinies, including our time of death by “God who ordains our lots” (Ep.269) yet he refutes micromanaging Stoic Providence (Ep.151). God empowers human faith for great works because mere human effort cannot accomplish divine good (Ep.260.9). Basil allowed no place for either Chaldean astrological fatalism (Hom. Hex.6.5; Ep.236), or Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies. Righteous judgment resulting in reward and punishment demands Christian traditional free choice. In contrast, any concept of inevitable evil in humans necessarily destroys Christian hope (Hom. Hex.6.7) because all humans have an innate natural reason with the ability to do good and avoid evil (Hom. Hex.8.5; cf. Ep.260.7). Basil refuted a dozen heresies, but reserved his strongest denunciation for the one teaching determinism—”the detestable Manichaean heresy” (Hom. Hex.2.4).
Gregory of Nyssa (ca.335–395 CE) pervasively teaches a post-Adamic congenital weakness, inclined to evil and in slavery to sin but without guilt (C. Eun.1.1; 3.2–3; 3.8; De opificio hom.193; Cat. mag.6, 35; Ep.18; Ref. conf. Eun.; Dial. anim. et res., etc.). Each person’s alienation from God occurs through personal sin and vice, not Adam’s sin (C. Eun.3.10). Despite an inherited tendency to evil, the divine image within humans retains goodness, just as Tertullian and others had taught (Opif. hom.164; cf. Ep.3.17).[78] Humanity’s ruin and inability to achieve eternal life by self-effort demanded God initiate the rescue through Christ (Ref. conf. Eun.418–20). But Gregory refutes the idea of a human nature so corrupted that it would render an individual incapable of a genuine choice to receive God’s readily available gift of grace offered to everyone equally.
By appealing to the justice of God’s recompenses, Gregory refutes those [e.g., Manichaeans] who believe humans are born sinful and thus culpable (De anim.120). The choice for salvation belongs to humans, apart from God’s manipulation, coercion, or unilateral intervention (C. Eun.3.1.116–18; cf. Adv. Mac. spir. sancto 105–6; De virginitate 12.2–3). Gregory upholds Christian [not Stoic] divine sovereignty (Ref. conf. Eun. 169; cf. 126–27; Opif. hom.185).
III. Methodius, Theodore, and Ambrose
Methodius (d.312 CE) believed all humans retain genuine free will even after Adam’s fall since Christian free choice was necessary for God to be just in rewarding the good and punishing the wicked (Symp.8.16; P G 18:168d). He championed traditional Christian free choice in a major work against Gnostic determinism (Peri tou autexousiou, 73–77).[79] Cyril of Jerusalem (ca.348–386 CE) taught humans enter this world sinless (Cat.4.19) and God’s foreknowledge of human responses determines the divine choosing of them for service (Cat.1.3).
Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca.350–428 CE) defended traditional original sin against Manichaean damnable inherited guilt (Adv. def. orig. pecc.), so that, “Man’s freedom takes the first step, which is afterwards made effective by God … [with] the will of each man as being absolutely free and unbiased and able to choose either good or evil.”[80] Humans retain the ability to choose good and evil (Comm. Ioh.5.19).
Ambrose of Milan (d.397 CE) baptized Augustine in Milan on Easter in 387 CE. He taught traditional (not Augustinian) original sin (De fide 5.5, 8, 60; Exc. Satyri 2.6; cf. 1.4). Ambrose believed slavery to sin [the sin propensity] was inherited, but this was not literal sin that produced personal culpability and damnation (De Abrah.2.79). The scholar Paul Blowers noted, “Ambrosiaster (Rom.5:12ff) and Ambrose (Enar.in Ps.38.29) … both authors concluded that individuals were ultimately accountable only for their own sins.”[81]
Ambrose emphasized God predestined individuals based upon his foreknowledge of the future, concerning which God was omniscient (Ep.57; De fide 2.11, 97). God compels no one, but patiently waits for a human response in order that He may provide grace, preferring pity over punishment (Paen.1.5). He insisted upon residual free choice and views an increase in a person’s faith (not initial faith) as a divine gift given in response to faithfulness. (Paen.1.48; Ep.41.6).
D. Conclusion
Not even one early church father writing from 95–430 CE—despite abundant acknowledgement of inherited human depravity—considered Adam’s fall to have erased human free choice to independently respond to God’s gracious invitation.[82] God did not give initial faith as a gift. Humans could do nothing to save themselves—only God’s grace could save. Total inability to do God’s good works without God’s grace did not mean inability to believe in Christ and prepare for baptism. No Christian author embraced deterministic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies (DUPIED): all who considered it rejected DUPIED as an erroneous pagan Stoic or Neoplatonic philosophy, or a Gnostic or Manichaean heresy, unbefitting Christianity’s gracious relational God. God’s gift was salvation by divine grace through human faith (cf. Eph. 2:8), not a unilateral initial faith gift, as the Gnostics and Manichaean heretics were claiming. Early Christian literature could be distinguished from Gnostic and Manichaean literature by this essential element.
In a seemingly rare theological unanimity over hundreds of years and throughout the entire Mediterranean world, a Christian regula fidei (rule of faith) of free choice (advocated by Origen as the rule of faith) combated the Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies espoused in Stoicism’s “non-free free will” and Gnosticism’s divine gift of infused initial faith into a “dead will.” The loving Christian God allowed humans to exercise their God-given free will.
Graph Click To Enlarge
Footnotes Abbreviations from Ken Wilsons Augustine Book (PDF)
[48]Sarah Stroumsa and Guy. G. Stroumsa, “Anti-Manichaean Polemics in Late Antiquity and under Early Islam,” HTR 81 (1988): 48.
[49]Wallace wrongly claims, “In spite of the numerous New Testament references to predestination, patristic writers, especially the Greek fathers, tended to ignore the theme before Augustine of Hippo. This was probably partly the result of the early church’s struggle with the fatalistic determinism of the Gnostics”; Dewey Wallace, Jr. “Free Will and Predestination: An Overview,” in Lindsay Jones, ed. The Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd edn., vol.5. (Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005), 3203. He obviously had not read Irenaeus and other early authors. For a cogent refutation of this absurd claim, see in the same volume C.T. McIntire (2005), “Free Will and Predestination: Christian Concepts,” vol.5, 3207.
[50]Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, Appendix III, 307–309.
[51] Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 41–94, and see other comments in the work revealing how this occurs.
[52]For The Shepherd of Hermas and other works not covered here see Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 41–50.
[53] Henry Meecham, The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek Text (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1949), 29–30.
[54] Harold Forshey, “The doctrine of the fall and original sin in the second century,” Restoration Quarterly 3 (1959): 1122, “But in this instance the doctrinal presupposition shows through clearly—a child comes into the world with a tabula rasa.“
[55] Erwin Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena: Verlag Frommannsche Buchhandlung, 1923), 219.
[56]Leslie Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 78.
[57] Henry Chadwick, “Justin Martyr’s Defence of Christianity,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47.2 (1965): 284; cf., 291–292.
[58] Barnard (1967), 156.
[59]Emily Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian (New York, NY: Routledge, 2003), 49.
[60]Bernard Pouderon, Athénagore d’Athênes, philosophie chrétien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989), 177– 178. Pouderon highlighted this requisite for God’s law and justice: “La liberté humaine se tire de la notion de responsabilité: ‘L’homme est responsable (lllóöικοc) en tant qu’ensemble, de toutes ses actions’ (D.R.XVIII, 4).” “Human freedom results from the concept of responsibility: ‘Man is generally responsible (lllóöικοc) for all his actions.'” (my translation)
[61] David Rankin, Athenagoras: Philosopher and Theologian. Surrey: Ashgate, 2009), 180.
[62]Stuart Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments in Henry Chadwick, ed. Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), xvi, where The Petition To Antonius “is now universally regarded as inauthentic.”
[63] Lynn Cohick, The Peri Pascha Attributed to Melito of Sardis: Setting, Purpose, and Sources (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 115.
[64]Hall (1978), xlii.
[65]John Lawson, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: The Epworth Press, 1948), 203.
[66] Gustaf Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, trans. by Ross Mackenzie (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1947; repr., London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959), 36; Mary Ann Donovan, “Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St. Irenaeus,” TS 49 (1988): 291 citing Adv. haer.4.37.
[67]Ysabel de Andia, Homo vivens: incorruptibilité et divinisation de l’homme selon Irénée de Lyons (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1986), 131.
[68]E.P. Meijering, “Irenaeus’ relation to philosophy in the light of his concept of free will,” in E.P. Meijering, ed. God Being History: Studies in Patristic Philosophy (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing, 1975), 23.
[69] James Beaven, An Account of the Life and Times of S. Irenaeus (London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1841), 165–166; F. Montgomery Hitchcock, Irenaeus of Lugdunum: A Study of His Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 260; Wingren (1947; repr., 1959), 35–36.
[70] Wingren (1947; repr., 1959), 35–36.
[71]Explained later when discussing Augustine’s later specific sovereignty view.
[72]Denis Minns, Irenaeus (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994), 136.
[73] Modern commentaries on this gospel rarely connect God’s drawing as being through scripture and Christ (John 6:44–45; 5.38–47; 8.19, 31, 47; 12.32). Cf. 1 Pet. 2.2.
[74]This serves as an excellent example of a passage removed from its context by which some persons erroneously attempt to prove an early church father taught faith was God’s gift.
[75]Rom. 9:16, “So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.”
[76]For a refutation of Cyprian as teaching Augustine’s inherited guilt unto damnation see Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion, 77–82.
[77]Norman Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin from the Bampton Lectures, Oxford University, 1924 (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1927), 297.
[78] C. Eunomium 24 (on the soul’s ability to see Christ) is probably post-baptismal.
[79] Patrologia orientalis 22:797–801. Cf. Roberta Franchi, Metodio di Olimpo: Il libero arbitrio (Milano: Paoline, 2015).
[80]Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies (London: Murray, 1911), “Theodore, III.B.f.” This suggests Macarius was incorrect when he assumed that this work by Theodore was anti-Augustinian. It is defending traditional freedom of choice versus eternal damnation by inherited sin from being born physically, a Manichaean doctrine. The quotation is from Reginald Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1922), 40.
[81]Paul Blowers, “Original Sin,” in Everett Ferguson, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. 2nd edn. (New York, NY: Routledge, 1999), 839–840.
I have argued against philosophical naturalism for decades because of deterministic values. How could the determinist know he is correct. Example:
“He thus acknowledged the need for any theory to allow that humans have genuine freedom to recognize the truth. He (again, correctly) saw that if all thought, belief, feeling, and choice are determined (i.e., forced on humans by outside conditions) then so is the determinists’ acceptance of the theory of determinism forced on them by those same conditions. In that case they could never claim to know their theory is true since the theory making that claim would be self-referentially incoherent. In other words, the theory requires that no belief is ever a free judgment made on the basis of experience or reason, but is always a compulsion over which the believer has no control.”
Roy A. Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 2005), 174.
You could not argue that “evil” is really “evil.” Eastern philosophies run into the same problems as the atheist’s/evolutionist’s issue I just noted above. SEE:
The Calvinist runs into the same issue. And it is a distortion of Christianity (T.U.L.I.P.):
Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ
“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).
John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.
And God’s love is limited greatly.
When we say that God is Sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody. — A.W. Pink
Dr. Flowers plays a recent teaching released by Dr. John Piper on Ephesians 1:11-14 in order to demonstrate the error of the Calvinistic interpretation.
Eph. 1:11 is one of the most used proof texts to support the Calvinistic doctrine of theistic determinism, the concept that God has sovereignly and unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass, including every sinful inclination and action.
Just as a pat on my back, I have been following this guy since his “infancy” in apologetics in the public (social media now) square. I am so stoked for Doctor J to be on the cutting edge of delivering and studying this stuff. (See my Previous Poston the matter via Doc J.)
Is the Shroud of Turin the real burial cloth of Jesus Christ—or the greatest mystery in Christian history? In this powerful episode of Michael &, Michael Knowles is joined by theologian and historian Dr. Jeremiah Johnston to uncover the mind-blowing discoveries surrounding the Shroud. From scientific analysis and historical evidence to theological significance, they explore what makes the Shroud one of the most studied and debated relics in the world—and what it could mean for believers today.
(First posted in October of 2023) Okay… two main themes came to my mind at the most recent Bible study at church… the first is the theme, “COURAGE.” The second is the idea of the “HOUNDS OF HEAVEN“
BTW, there is a sermon rolling around in here somewhere for you pastors/speakers
Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Jump)
Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Jump)
Ronald F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Jump)
Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Jump)
PDFs
The Significance of The Verb Love In The David-Jonathan Narratives In 1 Samuel (PDF)
Hamôr Lehem (1 Samuel 16:20): “So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and one young goat and sent them by his son David to Saul.” — Ass-Load (getting into the weeds of the Masoretic Text | PDF)
Old Testament Cross-Culturalism: Paradigmatic or Enigmatic? (PDF)
Paradigmatic: 1. Of or relating to a paradigm. 2. Linguistics Of or relating to the set of substitutional or oppositional relationships a linguistic unit has with other units, such as the relationship between (n) in not and other sounds that could be substituted for it in the same context, like (t) and (p). Together with the set of syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations describe the identity of a linguistic unit in a given language. (American Heritage Dictionary) Enigmatic: Of or resembling an enigma; puzzling: a professor’s enigmatic grading system. See Synonyms at mysterious. (American Heritage Dictionary)
COURAGE
In Christian circles you often hear the term “confirmation” used. Not as in being confirmed in your salvation, or baptized…. but as in I had something I was thinking or praying for, and it was confirmed by the Lord. I would say my “tri-fecta,” or “hat-trick” to put it in hockey terms, was just that. It may have been merely coincidence, but even if not “divinely planned,” it was “divinely” applied to my walk by the Holy Spirit stirring in me Biblical truths.
On October 12th I went to a Shelby Steele event, he spoke often of “courage” and “moral courage” (I uploaded my take on it on the 19th)
This past Sunday (the 22nd) my Pastor ended his sermon speaking about courage.
and on Monday (the 23rd), the men’s Bible study was going through 1st Samuel 17 and noted was David’s courage alongside Israel’s loss of it.
(1) SHELBY STEELE
On October 12th, I went to go see Dr. Shelby Steele at our local college… I wrote about my thoughts HERE. I have a section in that post on COURAGE.
Courage was a theme of Dr. Steele’s because he spoke of(A)the black culture not acting on their freedom, which takes courage; rather than the easy way out of the grievance culture where they receive handouts (emotional and/or monetary).
To communicate the following, publicly, but more importantly to act on it — takes courage:
“Racism is over with,” said Steele.
In modern America, Steele feels free now.
Smyth asked Steele what conservatism meant to him and he answered by saying that conservatism is a devotion to that freedom.
“I say this to Blacks, you can be free, if you are not afraid to be free,” said Steele.
A woman in the below video says she is on the fence when it comes to society allowing black folks freedom like the kind Shelby Steele was talking about. Her question relates to being held back… Shelby says whatever you feel like you are being held back in, do it (roughly adapted). He was saying, I think, test your theory.
To put yourself out like that and stand up to the narrative takes — courage.
(B) When one confronts the current laissez-faire use of pronouns and distortion of language, whites are labeled as racist, blacks as uncle Toms. One of the tactics of the Left is to silence the opposition by labeling them as: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.). Overcoming the fear of being accused of these things, and confronting the lies of this “WOKE” culture takes what? COURAGE.
(2) MY PASTOR
I wrote a bit on Courage; Even though I saw Doc Steele on the 12th, I uploaded my post on it on the 19th. Sunday church service was on the 22nd, so “courage” was fresh in my mind. At the beginning of the service Pastor Todd spoke about a historical trip he went on during his sabbatical. He opened with touring the “behind the scenes war rooms, planning bunkers” Winston Churchill and others used to make battle plans…. Then at the end of the service he picked up the story again and tied is into the sermon.
The Apostle Paul was traveling on essentially unpoliced and dangerous roads for thousands of miles, having Jewish and Roman authorities looking for him ta’ boot — all to spread the Good News of Jesus — took courage.
So, in the below video I cobbled together a bit of a montage:
However, these are two of the three connecting themes….
I had a “hat-trick”…..
Enter…
(3) MEN’S BIBLE STUDY
At the recent men’s Bible study this past Monday, we went over 1st Samuel 16 and 17… Courage was part of the theme:
…When Saul and all Israel heard these words from the Philistine, they lost their courage and were terrified (17:11)….David said to Saul, “Don’t let anyone be discouragedby him; your servant will go and fight this Philistine!” (17:32).
David’s courage in battle against Goliath spread to his fellow Israelites who were infected with it.
35 So don’t throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you need endurance, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised.
37 For yet in a very little while,
the Coming One will come and not delay.
38 But My righteous one will live by faith;
and if he draws back,
I have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.
….“If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Draw back means “to take in sail.”
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul [Heb. 10:39].
The writer to the Hebrews did not consider that they had drawn back, but he is speaking of the danger of doing so, and he is giving them this warning. Since draw back means “to take in sail,” the believer is like a sailor who should let out all the sail. That is what the writer has been telling these folk—“Let us go on!” His thought is that a believer could reef his sails—become stranded because of discouragement, because of persecution, because of hardship, because of depression. But since we have a living Savior, let’s go on. Let’s open up all the sails. Let’s move out for God.
You remember the story of the French Huguenots. They were persecuted, and they were betrayed. When France destroyed them, it destroyed the best of French manhood and womanhood. The French Huguenots went into battle, knowing they were facing certain death, and their motto was: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” The nation of France has never since been the nation it was before it destroyed these people.
We believers today need a motto like the Huguenots. There is a lot of boo–hooing today among Christians. There is a lot of complaining and criticizing. There are a bunch of crybabies and babies that need to be burped.
Oh, my Christian friend, the whole tenor of this marvelous epistle is “Let us go on.” So let us go on for God!
Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 8-13), electronic ed., vol. 52 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 65–66.
So the speaker at the Men’s group had our tables discuss topics from the passages… using health or other trials as maybe needing some courage to survive, address, and the like. I shared with the men my “tri-fecta” culminating with this battle, and related it to the battle we currently face as Christians in this increasingly pagan and secular America.
We need courage to enter battle with it. To be able to withstand accusations, or the [as already noted] laissez-faire use of pronouns and distortion of language. (To get a taste of this “extent of language distortion” explained well,I excerpted a few pages from Mark Goldblatt’s book (PDF), “I Feel, Therefore I Am” — it is a must read I think.)
To stand up to all this takes courage.
Okay, pivot to my next topic….
HOUNDS OF HEAVEN
During Monday’s Bible study, as we got to this portion of 1st Samuel 16:14-23,
14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit sent from the Lord began to torment him, 15 so Saul’s servants said to him, “You see that an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command your servants here in your presence to look for someone who knows how to play the lyre. Whenever the evil spirit from God troubles you, that person can play the lyre, and you will feel better.”
17 Then Saul commanded his servants, “Find me someone who plays well and bring him to me.”
18 One of the young men answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is also a valiant man, a warrior, eloquent, handsome, and the Lord is with him.”
19 Then Saul dispatched messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.” 20 So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and one young goat and sent them by his son David to Saul. 21 When David came to Saul and entered his service, Saul admired him greatly, and David became his armor-bearer. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse: “Let David remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.” 23 Whenever the spirit from God troubled Saul, David would pick up his lyre and play, and Saul would then be relieved, feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.
I camped out a bit in the text using some commentaries I had open in my LOGOS APP. I include the extended section of the commentary below. (JUMP TO IT IF YOU WISH.) The part that I camped on was this: “Now the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul, and an evil spirit sent from the Lord began to torment him.”
However, the commentary reminded me of “The Hounds of Heaven” and how often they can feel lie the “hounds of hell.” God sent an Angel of Judgement (as I see it) to Saul… this is what troubled him to the point of agony. In those who are God’s elect, this Angel “The Hound of Heaven” chases us to Calvary. Was God — who wishes all to come to saving knowledge of Him — wanting the same for Saul? Giving him the opportunity to repent, but knowing [in His foreknowledge] he wouldn’t, opening the door to a man after His own heart.
I previously posted a well-known poem about the Hounds of Heaven by Francis Thompson in 1893, after comedian Jeff Allen’s testimony that I isolated. C.S. Lewis was surely familiar with this 1893 poem as he intimated God chasing him into the Kingdom of Heaven.
However, if you are unfamiliar with this poem, here is a more in-depth dealing with the grace that exudes from it, followed by a slight dive into the mention of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:
….Francis Thompson died on this day, November 13, 1907. He famously wrote the 182-line poem “The Hound of Heaven” about the hound who single-mindedly pursues his catch across the countryside for as long as it takes. This was Thompson’s story. God never gave up on him even when he was living on the streets of London in the pits of opium addiction. God never stopped his pursuit. And even though Thompson’s grave today is overgrown, neglected and almost impossible to find in a cemetery on the outskirts of Manchester England, the rejoicing continues in heaven over one sinner who made his way home. Maybe Francis Thompson will be there, quietly sitting on the edge in quiet thanksgiving.
“I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the midst of tears…
Naked I waited Thy loves’ uplifted stroke!”
[….]
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’
“Dravest” means to drive away. Thompson’s last line holds his greatest insight, as he recounts a life of pain and loneliness he realizes that it was because he drove away the loving hand of God. To paraphrase, God is saying: “You drove love away from you when you drove Me away.”
Here is a short documentary on Francis Thompson
This one-way-love that never stops is what Christians call grace. “Grace is love that seeks you out when you have nothing to give in return. Grace is love coming at you that has nothing to do with you. Grace is being loved when you are unloveable” (Paul Zahl). Grace is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion. All the other religions instruct us to do something: to climb an achievement ladder, to make certain pilgrimages, to quiet dissonant voices in order to show God our faithfulness and attention. Christianity emphatically says, “It’s not your faithfulness that counts, but God’s!” While other religions say, “you get what you deserve,” Christianity says we get what we don’t deserve because God is a gracious Heavenly Father who is kind to the ungrateful and wicked (Luke 6:35). He loved them to the end (John 13:1).
Only God knows how many people have come to see Jesus as loving Father by reading C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Maybe there will be an afternoon tea in heaven where Lewis and Joy Davidman can meet with those who know and love God because God used them in this way. And perhaps Francis Thompson will be there too, quietly on the edges with a smile of thanksgiving.
Reckless Love
Which brings me to a song I was recently exposed to and absolutely love. It is called Reckless Love. The song explains God’s “Reckless Love” for those assured of salvation in the bosom of God. Where no one [or ourselves] can snatch us from his hand! The Gospel of John, 10:28–29:
I give them eternal life, and they shall never die. No one can snatch them away from me. What my Father has given me is greater than everything, and no one can snatch them away from the Father’s care. (American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed)
I view this song as a singing of Francis Thompson’s poem:
LYRICS
Before I spoke a word, You were singing over me You have been so, so good to me Before I took a breath, You breathed Your life in me You have been so, so kind to me
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine I couldn’t earn it, and I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah
When I was Your foe, still Your love fought for me You have been so, so good to me When I felt no worth, You paid it all for me You have been so, so kind to me
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine I couldn’t earn it, and I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah
There’s no shadow You won’t light up Mountain You won’t climb up Coming after me There’s no wall You won’t kick down Lie You won’t tear down Coming after me
There’s no shadow You won’t light up Mountain You won’t climb up Coming after me There’s no wall You won’t kick down Lie You won’t tear down Coming after me
There’s no shadow You won’t light up Mountain You won’t climb up Coming after me There’s no wall You won’t kick down Lie You won’t tear down Coming after me
There’s no shadow You won’t light up Mountain You won’t climb up Coming after me There’s no wall You won’t kick down Lie You won’t tear down Coming after me
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine And I couldn’t earn it, I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah
J. VERNON MCGEE
GOD’S “WOODSHED”
This excellent short treatise by J.D. GREEAR, of the idea of God having His claws in us via C.S. Lewis and his The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader:
C. S. Lewis has one of the more intriguing stories of conversion. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, he called himself “the most dejected, reluctant convert in all of England . . . drug into the kingdom kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape.” Somehow that doesn’t usually make the list of people’s favorite C.S. Lewis quotes.
It’s important to see what Lewis isn’t saying: he’s not saying that he regrets becoming a Christian. (Remember, it’s Surprised by Joy.) And he’s not trying to weigh in on the Calvinism/Arminian debate (though he does elsewhere). C.S. Lewis is saying that God often pursues us long before we have any inkling of what he’s up to. More often than not, we don’t like the pursuit.
A scene that beautifully captures Lewis’ experience is in his Voyage of the Dawn Treader. One of the main characters—a boy named Eustace—has developed an evil heart and becomes a dragon. He wants to be a boy again, so Aslan leads him to a pristine fountain of water. Listen to Eustace (and behind him, C.S. Lewis), describe his experience:
The water was as clear as anything and I thought if I could get in there and bathe it would ease the pain. But the lion [Aslan] told me I must undress first.
So I started scratching myself and my scales began coming off all over the place. And then I scratched a little deeper and, instead of just scales coming off here and there, my whole skin started peeling off beautifully. In a minute or two I just stepped out of it. I could see it lying there beside me, looking rather nasty. It was a most lovely feeling. So I started to go down into the well for my bathe.
But just as I was going to put my feet into the water I looked down and saw that [the skin on my feet was] all hard and rough and wrinkled and scaly just as it had been before.
[Eustace then repeats the process a second and third time, growing increasingly despairing.]
Then the lion said, ‘You will have to let me undress you.’ I was afraid of his claws, I can tell you, but I was pretty nearly desperate now. So I just lay flat down on my back to let him do it.
The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’ve ever felt. The only thing that made me able to bear it was just the pleasure of feeling the stuff peel off.
Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off – just as I thought I’d done it myself the other three times, only they hadn’t hurt – and there it was lying on the grass: only ever so much thicker, and darker, and more knobbly-looking than the others had been. Then he caught hold of me – I didn’t like that much for I was very tender underneath now that I’d no skin on – and threw me into the water. It smarted like anything, but only for a moment. After that it became perfectly delicious and as soon as I started swimming and splashing I found that all the pain had gone. And then I saw why. I’d turned into a boy again.
If you’re feeling God’s pursuit like the “claws” of a lion, know that while it may be painful, it’s not punishment. God never desires to pay you back, but to bring you back. Will you let him?
All this resonates with me as I was chased into an L.A. County super-max jail facility by my Savior. God’s Holy Spirit chased and judged righteously my actions and rejection of God. I responded only by the grace of God. I love because He first [and miraculously — through the Miracle of Calvary] loved me, 1st John 4:13-19,
13 This is how we know that we remain in Him and He in us: He has given assurance to us from His Spirit. 14 And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent His Son as the world’s Savior. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God—God remains in him and he in God. 16 And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
17 In this, love is perfected with us so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, for we are as He is in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears has not reached perfection in love. 19 We love because He first loved us.
Which continues the above in thankfulness that God saw in me something to be desired. Sought after. Brought to “the wood shed” over.
The beauty, wonder, and distinction of God is His amazing grace. There is no ambiguity with God. The Lord is not fickle but loves and holds tight even when we are unlovely and practice avoidance. When God pursues, God finds; when God holds on, there is no letting go.
This trustworthy saying of Scripture is a good, short, solid expression of theological truth to memorize, meditate upon, and say to ourselves repeatedly. We belong to Jesus Christ. God is with us. The Hound of Heaven will always sniff us out and bring us to himself.
In some sense, we all have been brought into the Kingdom of God kicking and screaming.
WHAT TO NOTE: I add as many of the references found in the footnotes of The New American Commentary on Samuel as I can. So while the main commentary excerpt is just one, I provide the reader with access he or she may not have that I do, including a few PDFs. Enjoy:
COMMENTARY
16:14–20 David’s new status before the Lord stood in sharp contrast to Saul’s. When the Lord rejected Saul as king (15:23, 26; 16:1), “the Spirit of the Lord had departed from” (v. 14) him as well.[33]Saul had lost the empowering reality behind the anointing that had marked his selection for divine service earlier (cf. 10:1, 10). But Saul’s condition now was far worse than being without the Lord’s Spirit, for “an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.” The Hebrew word translated “evil” (Hb. rāʿâ) has a wide range of meanings from “misery” to “moral perverseness.”[34] Thus, it is possible—and perhaps preferable—to interpret the text not to mean that the Lord sent a morally corrupt demon[35] but rather another sort of supernatural being—an angel of judgment (cf. 2 Kgs 19:35)—against Saul that caused him to experience constant misery.[36]
Saul’s tortured state was not an accident of nature, nor was it essentially a medical condition. It was a supernatural assault by a being sent at the Lord’s command, and it was brought on by Saul’s disobedience.[37]
The astounding declaration by the writer in vv. 14–15 reflects a worldview that bears further examination. God, the Creator of the universe, had issued a series of behavioral decrees applicable to all humanity, but especially to Israel, and these were revealed supremely in the Torah. The Torah was a path of life, and obedience to the Torah resulted in life and blessing. To disobey Torah requirements was to leave the path of life and enter into the realm of judgment and death. Through his repeated disobedience to the Torah requirements Saul had entered into a living, personal judgment that God brought against him. This punishment was carried out by a divinely created agent of judgment, “an evil [or “troubling”] spirit from the Lord.”[38]
This is the only time in the Old Testament that an individual is noted as being tormented by a troubling/evil spirit. Evidence that the writer considered Saul’s condition to be unusual is provided by the fact that the verb that describes Saul’s condition (Hb. bāʿat) is used nowhere else in a narrative framework clause in the Torah or Former Prophets; furthermore, the combination of grammatical and lexical features in this clause is rated as the most abnormal in the narrative framework of 1, 2 Samuel.[39]
Though Saul was the one being troubled by the spirit, the writer portrays him as being inert in dealing with it. It was “Saul’s attendants” (v. 15), not Saul himself, who correctly diagnosed his condition; it also was they who suggested an effective treatment for helping him “feel better” (v. 16). Their remedy was one known in Israelite circles to have power in the spiritual world (cf. 2 Kgs 3:15), the playing of harp music. By listening to harp music “when the [troubling]/evil spirit comes” (v. 16), Saul “will feel better.”
The suggestion seemed reasonable to Saul, and he immediately ordered a search for “someone who plays well” (v. 17). But even before a search party could be organized, an unnamed royal servant suggested that they seek “a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the harp” (v. 18). This individual—David—had numerous other qualifications that befit a person who would serve as a royal aide. Militarily, “he is a brave man and a warrior”; socially, “he speaks well”; physically, he “is a fine-looking man”; and spiritually, “the Lord is with him.” The mention of this last trait puts David in company with Isaac, Joseph, Joshua, and Samuel (cf. Gen 26:28; 39:2–3, 21, 23; Josh 6:27; 1 Sam 3:19).
On that recommendation Saul sent a message to Jesse ordering him to deliver his son over to the royal court. Dutifully, Jesse complied. The food that he sent—“a donkey loaded with bread,[40] a skin of wine and a young goat” (v. 20)—probably was meant to serve as David’s provisions since there was as yet no formal taxation system to support people serving in the nation’s political and military establishment.
16:21–23 David came to Saul at Gibeah and “entered his service” (lit., “stood before his face”), and it was not long before the king “loved [ʾāhab] him greatly” (“liked him very much”). So impressed was Saul with this well-recommended shepherd that he decided to make David a permanent member of his court. Saul assigned him a coveted role as “one of his armorbearers.” In this position David was kept close to the king and was thus able to respond immediately “whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul” (v. 23). Gordon cites Qumranic evidence to suggest that David’s songs were accompanied by singing as well.[41] Though David’s musical efforts were effective in providing relief for Saul, the writer understood that David’s success was due to the fact that the Spirit of the Lord was with him in power (vv. 13, 18).
David’s soothing remedy for Saul’s malady was simple yet effective. The Hebrew verb forms in v. 23 suggest that Saul was attacked numerous times by the tormenting spirit; Scripture records two such additional instances (18:10; 19:9), and likely there were others.
The three concluding verses of chap. 16 depict David’s first encounter with the one who would soon devote his life to trying to kill him. The verses play an important role in the larger scheme of 1, 2 Samuel, for they serve as the first evidence that David was a loyal, trustworthy servant of Saul who used his abilities to benefit the king. In spite of Saul’s repeated efforts to kill David, Israel’s next king made absolutely no efforts to bring down Saul’s dynasty. In fact, David performed feats in Saul’s behalf that no one else could, and the king initially appreciated David’s efforts. Any deterioration in the relationship between Saul and David would not be David’s fault.
NOTES
[33] D. Howard, Jr., understands the simultaneous transfer of the Spirit from Saul to David as not only a symbol of the transfer of political power but also a reflection of God’s disapproval of Israel’s manner of establishing the monarchy (“The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14,” JETS 32 [1989]: 473–83). [I uploaded it to be viewed – click to view the PDF]
[36] The verb בּעת, translated “tormented,” has recently been examined more closely in J. Hoftijzer, “Some Remarks on the Semantics of the Root bʿt in Classical Hebrew,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, ed. D. P. Wright et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 777–83. He concludes that the word refers to an experience of extreme fear and incapacitation.
[38]This line of reasoning could also be used to explain the enigmatic word spoken to King Ahab by the prophet Micaiah (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19–23).
[39] The fact that the clause is so different from other biblical Hebrew narrative clauses meant that this clause would have been more difficult to process mentally and therefore would have required more attention by a Hebrew speaker reading or listening to the text. As a result the material would have seemed to be “highlighted.” This technique of encoding important and unusual information in grammatically exceptional structures is practiced in human communication of all languages. Cf. R. Bergen, “Evil Spirits and Eccentric Grammar: A Study of the Relationship between Text and Meaning in Hebrew Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas: SIL, 1994), 320–35.
[40] For a discussion of the phrase חֲמוֹר לֶחֶם cf. D. Tsumura, “ḥămôr leḥem (1 Samuel xvi 20),” VT 42 (1992): 412–14. [I uploaded it to be viewed – click to view the PDF]
[41] Gordon (I and II Samuel, 153), commenting on the apocryphal psalm 11QPsa27. [This is a link to a book, 11Q5 Psalms a (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), showing the Hebrew from the Dead Sea Scrolls of portions of Psalm: Col. XXVII, 2 Sam 23:7; David’s Compositions.]
Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 182–184.
רָעָה (rāʿâ). Evil, misery, distress, injury, wickedness. The feminine noun rāʿâ functions much like the masculine adjective, though somewhat more frequently. Often rāʿâ is an adjective too, and qualifies its nouns in terms of the negative function, or condition, and the injurious activity of the noun. God’s own character and attitude measures the value of things and people (II Kgs 8:12; Jer 29:11; cf. Jon 4:2, 6). The phrase “in the sight of the Lord” appears twice (I Sam 12:17; II Kgs 21:20). God’s view deals mostly with moral qualities, but man has his own standards and tends to evaluate his environment as rāʿâ in terms of the pain he experiences.
In a non-moral sense, things are counted as of inferior quality on the basis of their condition. The cows of Pharaoh’s dream were inferior (Gen 41:3–4, 19–20), also land (Num 13:19), and the figs of Jer 24:2–3, 8 were useless for food because of their condition. Beasts were evaluated in terms of their danger to human life (seven references), so also the sword (Ps 144:10). Verbal reports, the times/days, events of life may be bearers of distress and so are rāʿâ (some thirty-five times). The term may designate injury done to the body (over twenty times), or the sorrow one may experience (a dozen times). The feminine noun has the capacity to collectively denote the sum of distressing happenings of life (over twenty times).
This word rāʿâ can label men (Num 14:27, 35; Jer 8:3) or thoughts (Ezk 38:10), but a number of times it is an abstract for the total of ungodly deeds people do, or a person’s inner condition which produces such deeds. The term may label a variety of negative attitudes common to wicked people, and be extended to include the consequences of that kind of lifestyle.
In Jud 9:23; I Sam 16:14–16, 23; 18:10; 19:9 the word qualifies the noun, angels, not to indicate that they were demonic, but that they brought distress, or an abnormal condition to the person affected.
In harmony with the contrast between rāʿâ and ṭôb “good,” God acts with painful punishment against the rāʿâ kind of people (over seventy times; particularly prominent in Jeremiah). He also acts with mercy toward those who will respond to his exhortations (Eccl 11:10; Jer ten times; Jon 3:8), but man must confess (I Sam 12:19; Jer 17:17). On his part, God acts to save man from rāʿâ (Ex 32:14; I Sam 10:19; 25:39) as he promised (I Kgs 21:29; Prov 1:33; Isa 57:1; Jer 23:17; 36:3; Ezk 34:25). And there was advice to the believers on how to keep themselves free from rāʿâ (Ex 23:2; I Sam 12:20; Prov 3:29; 22:3; 24:1; 27:12).
Herbert Livingston, “2191 רָעַע,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 856.
The arrival of David in the court of Saul (16:14–23)
As noted above, the two halves (vv.1–13, 14–23) of chapter 16 are linked together in various ways and therefore constitute a literary unit. One link is the position of David’s name. “In each of its first appearances it is the object of a verb: in v.13 the spirit of YHWH ‘seizes’ (ṣālaḥ) David, and in v.19 Saul asks Jesse to ‘send’ (šālaḥ) David to him.… The two verbs are very similar in sound, being distinguished only as the two sibilants s and š are distinguished” (Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” pp. 572–73).
In addition, however, the hinge of the chapter underscores, as described in the title of an excellent article by David M. Howard, Jr., “The Transfer of Power From Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13–14” (JETS 32, 4 [1989]: 473–83[PDF VIEWABLE HERE]). “The movements of the figures here—YHWH’s Spirit, Samuel, the evil spirit—in relationship to each other effectively tell the story of the transfer of political power and spiritual power from Saul to David” (ibid., p. 477).
14–18 The relationships of four movements in vv.13–14 are clarified in the following chart, which exhibits an ABB’A’ pattern:
Howard summarizes: “When YHWH’s Spirit came upon David his anointer left, leaving him in good hands. When YHWH’s Spirit left Saul an evil spirit came upon him, leaving him in dire straits” (ibid., p. 481).
The Spirit’s coming on David and the Spirit’s leaving Saul were two climactic events that occurred in close sequence to each other (cf. esp. 18:12: “The Lord was with David but had left Saul”). Just as the accession of the Spirit by David was an expected accompaniment of his anointing as Israel’s next ruler (v.13), so the departure of the Spirit from Saul (v.14) should be understood as the negation of effective rule on his part from that time on. No longer having access to Samuel’s counsel, Saul eventually was forced to resort to the desperate expedient of consulting a medium because God had “turned away” from him (28:15; the Heb. verb is the same as the one rendered “departed” in v.14).
The “evil spirit” (v.14), the divinely sent scourge that “tormented” (lit., “terrified,” “terrorized”) Saul, returned again and again (18:10; 19:9). Just as God had sent an evil spirit to perform his will during the days of Abimelech (Judg 9:23), so also he sent an evil spirit on Saul—“both of whom proved to be unworthy candidates for the office” of king in Israel (Howard, “The Transfer of Power,” p. 482). In both instances it was sent in response to their sin, which in Saul’s case was particularly flagrant (13:13–14; 15:22–24). Although the “evil” spirit may have been a demon that embodied both moral and spiritual wickedness, it may rather have been an “injurious” (so NIV mg.) spirit that “boded ill for Saul, one that produced harmful results for him” (Howard, “The Transfer of Power,” p. 482 n. 36). It was thus doubtless responsible for the mental and psychological problems that plagued Saul for the rest of his life.
That God used alien spirits to serve him is taken for granted in the OT (cf. esp. 2 Sam 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1). On occasion God’s people “were not very concerned with determining secondary causes and properly attributing them to the exact cause. Under the divine providence everything ultimately was attributed to him; why not say he did it in the first place?” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988], p. 131; cf. also Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], p. 180: “Saul’s evil bent was by the permission and plan of God. We must realize that in the last analysis all penal consequences come from God, as the Author of the moral law and the one who always does what is right [Gen. 18:25]”; cf. Fredrik Lindstrom, God and the Origin of Evil [Lund: Gleerup, 1983]).
As French marechal (“blacksmith”) developed into marshal, and as chambellan (“bedchamber attendant”) developed into chamberlain, so also ʿeḇeḏ (“servant”) came to mean “attendant,” “official” in royal circles in Israel, beginning during the days of Saul. The title was conferred on high officials and is found inscribed on their seals. It was also employed side by side with the use of the term as a conventional way of referring to oneself while addressing a superior (cf. conveniently Talmon, p. 64 and nn. 34–36). Thus Saul’s “attendants,” aware that their king was being tormented by an evil spirit (v.15), referred to themselves as his “servants” (same Heb. word) who were ready and eager to help (v.16; cf. v.17; 17:32, 34, 36; 18:5 [“officers”], 22, 24; 19:1; 28:7).
Perhaps sensing that “music hath charms to soothe the savage breast,” Saul’s attendants offered to look for someone to play the “harp” (kinnôr; cf. comment on 10:5) to make their master “feel better” (v.16). Pictorial representations of the asymmetrical harp or lyre ranging from the twelfth to seventh centuries b.c. can help us visualize what David’s harp looked like (cf. Biblical Archaeology Review 8, 1 [1982]: 22, 30, and esp. 34). Walters (“The Light and the Dark,” p. 582) points out that of the fifteen OT occurrences of niggēn (“play [an instrument]”), seven appear in this section of 1 Samuel (vv.16 [bis], 17, 18, 23; 18:10; 19:9) and thus serve at the outset to highlight the reputation of David as “Israel’s singer of songs” (2 Sam 23:1).
Saul agreed with his attendants’ counsel (v.17), and one of his “servants” (lit., “young men,” a different Heb. word than that rendered “attendants” in v.15 and “servants” in v.16) suggested that a certain son of Jesse would meet Saul’s needs admirably (v.18). In the course of doing so, the servant gave—in a series of two-worded Hebrew phrases—as fine a portrayal of David as one could wish. Understandably he began with a characterization of him as a musician and then continued by describing him as a “brave man” (the same Heb. phrase is used of Saul’s father, Kish, and is translated “man of standing” in 9:1), a “warrior” (translated “fighting man” of Goliath in 17:33 and “experienced fighter” of David in 2 Sam 17:8), a discerning and articulate speaker, and a handsome man as well. The servant’s final descriptive phrase—set off from what precedes by a major disjunctive accent in the MT (Masoretic text)—reminds us that just as the Lord was with Samuel (3:19), so also he was with David. This latter attribute becomes yet another Leitmotif for David (17:37; 18:12, 14, 28; 2 Sam 5:10; so Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” pp. 570–71; McCarter, “The Apology of David,” pp. 499, 503–4). Although unwittingly, Saul’s servant has just introduced us to Israel’s next king.
A modern assessment of David’s character and career sees him as “giant-slayer, shepherd, musician, manipulator of men, outlaw, disguised madman, loyal friend and subject, lover, warrior, dancer and merrymaker, father, brother, son, master, servant, religious enthusiast, and king” and then asks, “What are we to make of this enormous portrait? Where do we begin?” (Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, “King David of Israel,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives edd. Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis and James S. Ackerman [Nashville: Abingdon, 1982], 2:205). The rest of our commentary can only tentatively analyze these and other aspects of the personality and deeds of this most complex of all Israelite kings. For now, a gentle irony: Although Saul’s servant agreed with the positive contemporary consensus that kings and courtiers should be “fine-looking” (v.18), the same Hebrew word is preceded by a negative particle in its description of great David’s greater Son as one who had “no beauty” (Isa 53:2).
19–23 Again Saul, influenced by a servant’s suggestion, sent for the man described: Jesse’s son—here, for only the second time so far, identified by the name David (v.19). Saul’s reference to David as being “with the sheep” thus identifies him as a shepherd and uses “language which refers allusively to him as a kingly figure” (Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” p. 575). Like Jesse earlier (cf. v.11 and comment), Saul unwittingly characterizes David as Israel’s next king.
It is often stated that numerous inconsistencies, especially in matters of detail, exist in the early stories of David and Saul (for a typical list, see Emmanuel Tov, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985], pp. 121–22). The appropriate response to such alleged discrepancies is not, however, to seek refuge in the fact that in chapters 16–18 “the Masoretic Text has 80 percent more verses than does the LXX” (ibid., p. 99) and thus to attribute the differences to an attempt by the standardizers of the present Hebrew text to include variant readings whether or not they could be harmonized. Nor should one assume the prior existence of two or more different narratives of how David rose to power, along the lines of the now discredited documentary hypothesis (for a lively survey of this approach, cf. North, “David’s Rise,” pp. 524–44). Much to be preferred is the method of examining each so-called discrepancy on its own merits in an attempt to determine whether it is more apparent than real.
A case in point: If Saul recognizes David as Jesse’s son in v.19, why does he later ask him whose son he is (17:58)? In the light of the differing contexts in the two chapters, a possible solution comes to mind. In chapter 16 Saul’s initial interest in David was as a harpist, while in chapter 17 he is interested in him primarily as a warrior (according to his customary policy, 14:52). Saul’s question in 17:58, in any event, is only a leadoff question; his conversation with David continued far beyond the mere request for his father’s name (18:1). He probably wanted to know, among other things, “whether there were any more at home like him” (Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 175). It is of course not beyond the realm of possibility that Saul simply forgot the name of David’s father during the indeterminate period between chapters 16 and 17.
A firm believer in the truth later expressed in Proverbs 18:16—“a gift opens the way for the giver/and ushers him into the presence of the great”—Jesse sent David to take bread, wine, and a young goat (staple items; cf. 10:3) to Saul (v.20). Obviously impressing Saul (v.21), David “entered his service” (wayyaʿamōḏ lep̱ānāyw lit., “stood before him,” a common idiom in the ancient Near East [cf. v.22, “remain in my service”]; the Akkadian semantic equivalent is uzuzzu pani) as an armor-bearer. Although skilled men can expect to be pressed into service by kings (Prov 22:29), Saul also “liked” David personally (the same Heb. verb describes Jonathan’s relationship to David and is translated “loved”; cf. 18:1, 3; 20:17). At the same time the narrator may well be playing on the ambiguity of the verb ʾāhēḇ (“love”) in these accounts, since it can also have political overtones in covenant/treaty relationships (so J.A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel,” VetTest 24, 3 [1974]: 335[PDF VIEWABLE HERE]).
Obviously delighted with David, Saul engages him as one of his servants (v.22). Sandwiched between the two occurrences of the noun rûaḥ (“spirit”) in v.23 is the verb rāwaḥ (“relief would come”). The noun and the verb both come from the same root (rwḥ) and thus constitute an elegant wordplay, stressing that David’s skill as a harpist brings soothing “relief” that drives the evil “spirit” from the disturbed king (cf. similarly Walters, “The Light and the Dark,” p. 578).
The chapter ends with a gifted young man, Israel’s future king, coming to serve a rejected and dejected ruler who is totally unaware of the implications of his welcoming David into his court. Not just “a handsome yokel with a rustic lyre,” Jesse’s son is the anointed king (ibid., p. 581).
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 687–691.
The initial anointing of David was a private, even secret, matter (vv. 1–3). Now it is time for David to become publicly visible. At the outset of his “reign,” David has only three constituents: Yahweh and Samuel, who are his relentless patrons, and Saul, who is to become a more ambiguous patron. He has been dealt with already by Yahweh (and Samuel); now it is Saul’s turn to deal with David.
There is a deep and intentional tension in the story of 16:14–23, requiring us to trace two story lines. Ostensibly this story is about Saul, Saul’s sickness and Saul’s source of health. But underneath that interest is the story of David’s road to power. Of this second story, Saul knows nothing. Conversely, David’s relentless road to power renders Saul (and the story line of Saul’s illness) fundamentally irrelevant and finally of no interest to the life and faith of Israel. How ironic that a story apparently featuring Saul is in fact interested in Saul only as a foil for David’s advance.
There are twin dangers in approaching the pathology of Saul. On the one hand, we can read his situation as though it were the result of a supernatural theological verdict without reference to the experiential reality of life. On the other hand, we can seek to banish such supernaturalism by reducing his ailment to psychology. We shall misunderstand, however, if we appropriate the sickness as mere theology or only psychology. Israel’s faith is much more embedded in living reality than to deal only with a theological conclusion. Conversely, the narrative itself guards against an absolute psychological assessment in verse 23. (The rsv does the interpreter a disservice through its translation of this section. In the rsv, “Spirit” is capitalized in v. 14 and is in lower case in v. 23, suggesting a theological and then a psychological reading. But that is only a translator’s inclination. In fact “the spirit” is the same at the beginning and at the end of the narrative, capitalized or not.)
Saul is indeed a disturbed man, and the disturbance has to do with alienation rooted in a theological disorder. The disorder must be seen, however, as both theological and psychological in order to understand the powerful ministration of David, who is Yahweh’s antidote for every ailment in Israel.
16:14–18. Saul’s problem is the visitation of an evil spirit (v. 15); the solution is healing music (v. 16). The problem is with Saul; the solution will be carried by David. It may trouble our positivistic minds that the disorder of Saul is attributed to an evil spirit, and it may trouble us more that the evil spirit is credited to God. We must remember that the world of biblical perspective is a world without secondary cause. All causes are finally traced back to the God who causes all, who “kills and brings to life” (2:6). This narrative simply assumes that the world is ordered by the direct sovereign rule of God. All the spirits that beset human persons are dispatched from this single source (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23).
Saul is eager to be healed (v. 17). He orders immediately that help be secured. He is an influential person entitled to the best health care available. Through verse 17 there are no surprises in this episode. We have an ordinary sequence of illness, diagnosis, prescription, and instruction to get available help. Yet, lingering not too far below the story line of Saul’s illness, the David story line already begins to assert itself. Saul’s imperative “provide” (see, ra’ah, v. 17) is the same word Yahweh used in referring to the choice of David (v. 1). David is “provided” by Yahweh and now is “provided” to Saul.
It is verse 18 that claims our attention. The speaker who answers Saul is too eager and knows too much. It is as though this character in the narrative has memorized his long line and is waiting for a chance to speak it. He “overnominates” David, who is overqualified for the job of musician. The royal appointment of a “therapist” must be well qualified. He must be skilled as a player, of “good presence,” and it is fortunate if God is with him (v. 18). David overpowers the job—and the narrative. In addition to those qualifications, David is brave, a man of war, a man of good speech. The narrator is obviously presenting David’s credentials for more than court musician.
The narrative invites us to wonder how it is that a member of Saul’s company should have ready a nominee from an obscure Judean village. Verses 1–13 provide the answer to our wonderment, however. The present availability of David is because of the secret anointing. The anointing will govern David’s story in the way the blessing governs Jacob’s story (Gen. 25:23) and as the dream governs the story of Joseph (Gen. 37:7–9).
16:19–23. The story turns decisively with the appearance of David. After the nominating speech of verse 18, Saul responds in verse 19. He calls David by name. Notice the servant had alluded to David but had not named him. Saul knows and speaks David’s name. David had been named by the narrator in verse 13, but no character in the narrative has yet uttered his name. It is appropriate and compelling that Saul knows it and is the first to name him.
Moreover, Saul invites David into his court. Saul unwittingly summons the very one who now possesses the spirit and will in the end displace him. David is not an intruder. He does not force his way in but comes by royal invitation. Saul knows more than he should about David. He knows David is “with the sheep” (v. 19), a fact not announced in verse 18. We had known it in verse 11, but again Saul is privy to information not previously given him.
The relation between Saul and David is a positive one. “Saul loved him greatly” (v. 21). David is irresistible. Saul might have feared or resented David if he had known the end of the story. He knows only what he sees in David, however.
David’s ministry to Saul does all that Saul might have hoped. (The rsv translation of v. 23 is inadequate, because the text contains a double use of the word “spirit.” When David plays, not only does the evil spirit depart but the spirit comes to Saul. In the rsv this is rendered, “Saul was refreshed.”) Saul’s desperate concern was how to have the spirit of life available, rather than the evil spirit. The narrative makes clear that David makes the spirit of life available to Saul. Saul has life only because David mediates it to him. David is a life-giver, even to Saul!
Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 124–127.
I found the “noun” thing very interesting. In the New Testament, there are only three nouns used of God:
God is Love;
God is Life;
God is Light.
A Trinity… if you will.
I am capitalizing the nouns because in God these aspects are full, complete, perfect. In this video, Ben Witherington III here shares his reasons why he’s not a Calvinist.
There is no guarantee that future historians will accurately depict the American story. In PragerU’s 2025 commencement address, @glennbeck warns that we all have an obligation to preserve history in our own “clay pots.” If we don’t, historical truth might disappear forever in a fog of political correctness.
HOT AIR has a 5-year anniversary marker of the FALL OF MINNEAPOLIS. The entire post should be read and watched… but here is the documentary that busts holes in the narrative. It is long, but so is the depravity of the Democrat Party:
We have reached the 5-year anniversary of the George Floyd riots, which began here in my hometown of Minneapolis and spread throughout the country.
2020 was the year of unrelenting propaganda. By May 2020, you could just assume that anything you were told by the “experts” was a steaming pile of bovine excrement.
The whole point was to create hysteria, because hysteria makes people look to authorities for help. Fear about COVID was ramped up to such a level that only a few people had a decent grasp on reality.
When George Floyd, who died from a drug overdose and not asphyxiation, as we were constantly told, was videoed resisting arrest and dying while being restrained by a white police officer, it became a national obsession, and the world became even more insane.
Liz Collins’ The Fall of Minneapolis carefully takes you through the facts of that and the subsequent days–something the news media never did–and conclusively demonstrates that Floyd was not “murdered,” that officials committed perjury to cover that fact up, and that Governor Tim Walz and other Minnesota officials allowed–you could even say encouraged–the destruction of the civil peace and of much of my city.
Others have made the ultimate sacrifice so that you could be free. Remember them—today, and always. A moving tribute, written and narrated by former Navy SEAL and author Jocko Willink.
A few of the below are from the same heroes funeral,
a link to the story is in the pictures
Heroes!
Ronald Reagan’s Memorial Day Speech | President Reagan commemorates those Americans who have willingly sacrificed their lives for their country, during the Memorial Day ceremonies held at the Arlington National Cemetery, May 31, 1982. Video (5/28/18) by Airman 1st Class Ryan Brooks, 31st Fighter Wing Public Affairs. Courtesy DVIDS. The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) was an influential German Anabaptist leader and one of the most well-known and respected Anabaptist theologians of the Reformation.
In the closing of his work entitled “Freedom of the Will” he laid out a very strong argument against theistic determinism and fatalism which are the undercurrent of Augustinian philosophy and Calvinist “Sovereignty”.
Let me say something to ppl who do not take the time to know what something is and dismiss with labels. Stalin called Lenin a fascist
Which brings me to an excerpt from a book I have a PDF form of… so the pages and the footnotes will not be properly marked.
As I am going thru this book (pictured), I am rejecting more of my compatibilism and drilling down on a more solid foundation.
Note also how Paul wheels the argument of Romans 1—11 to a climactic conclusion: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (Rom 11:32, emphasis added). Here the scope of God’s intention to have mercy matches the scope of human sinfulness, as indicated by the repeated all. If Paul has already established in Romans 1—3 that all human beings without exception have been consigned to disobedience, then the symmetry of Paul’s expression in Romans 11:32 strongly implies that God intends to have mercy in a similar scope: on all human beings without exception. Even if we allow that Paul may here be referring to Jews and Gentiles as people groups, we must not imagine that God’s desire to show mercy fails to apply to every individual within each group. After all, Paul establishes that all humans are under sin by arguing that both Gentiles (Rom 1:18-32) and Jews (Rom 2:1—3:20) as people groups are under sin. If we accept Paul’s strategy of indicting every individual through indictment of the group, then consistency requires that we allow the same extension to hold with regard to God’s mercy, as Romans 11:32 seems to say.
The Pastoral Epistles abound with passages pointing toward God’s universal saving intentions: “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4); “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6); “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10); “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all” (Tit 2:11). Given the unqualified use of all in these passages to identify those whom God desires to save, the burden of proving otherwise is on those who hold that biblical writers assumed a limitation on those who would be saved.1
Of course Calvinists have offered their own accountings of these passages. Some argue, for example, that the “world” loved by God in John 3:16 must refer only to “the elect within the world.”2 Similarly, they read the unqualified all in restricted senses (e.g., “all types of people” or “all the elect”). Accordingly, the scriptural claim that Jesus died not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world means that Jesus died not only for the sins of (some) Jews but also for the sins of (some) Gentiles. But D. A. Carson, certainly no Arminian sympathizer, considers such moves to be clever but unconvincing exegetical ploys that feebly attempt to overcome “simply too many texts on the other side of the issue.”3 These restrictive interpretations of all require such textual gymnastics that they condemn themselves as invalid.
[….]
… compatibilism is a popular position among Calvinists, particularly among the philosophically informed, we want to stress that not all Calvinists embrace it. Some Reformed theologians have argued for another option. These writers do not agree with Feinberg that a Calvinist must either give up freedom altogether or accept compatibilism. To the contrary, they hold that we are required by Scripture to accept both God’s control of all things and human freedom, but they insist that it is not up to us to find a way to reconcile these truths. Popular evangelical author J. I. Packer is a proponent of this view. He endorses this position in his widely read book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.
As he notes, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both clearly taught in Scripture. And he understands sovereignty in the Calvinistic sense that God unconditionally determines everything that happens. “Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent.”4 Packer identifies this pair of claims as an “antinomy” because he believes we cannot dispense with either one of them, nor can we understand how they are compatible. From the standpoint of finite human reason, it may seem contradictory to affirm both of these claims and therefore impossible to do so. Here is Packer’s advice for dealing with such antinomies.
Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other.5
Apparently Packer means to affirm that both determinism and freedom in the libertarian sense are true. It is the affirmation of both of these that produces antinomy. By contrast, the affirmation of determinism and the compatibilist account of freedom produces no such intellectual tension. The resolution of antinomy will need the perspective of eternity, but it is easy to see here and now how freedom and determinism can be held together if one accepts a compatibilist account of freedom.
[….]
Second, we believe that there are large stretches of Scripture that are hard to make sense of if humans aren’t free in the libertarian sense of the word. In chapter two we examined some of these, but now let us consider another one, namely, Jeremiah 7:1-29. In this passage God calls his people to repentance. God enumerates the sins of his people and reminds them that while they were doing such things, he spoke to them again and again (Jer 7:13). But instead of repenting, they persist in idolatry and other self-destructive behavior. God promises to punish them for their sin, but he again reiterates that he repeatedly sent his prophets to them to urge them to obedience (Jer 7:20-26).
This passage is hardly unusual. The book of Jeremiah contains several other similar passages, as do most of the Prophets as well as some other biblical texts. Now the question we want to raise is, what view of freedom is implied in such texts? Of course, as we have already noted, Scripture does not expressly define the nature of our freedom or draw philosophical distinctions for us. But it is still worth asking what sort of freedom is implied by various texts of Scripture.
For a helpful treatment of such terms as all and every in the Pastoral Epistles, see I. Howard Marshall, “Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1989), pp. 57-63.
See D. A. Carson’s characterization of this point of view in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2000), p. 17.
Ibid., p. 75.
John S. Feinberg, “God, Freedom and Evil in Calvinist Thinking,” in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), 2:465.
J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1961), p. 23. […] 21.
So there is wiggle room in orthodoxy – is my main point. Spurgeon is wrong:
And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
— Charles Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. I (Baker Books, reprinted 2007), 88-89.
And, I can disagree with Pink:
When we say that God is Sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody. — A.W. Pink
Originally posted January of 2016 – fixed some media today
Description of the above video:
If there is a God, why is there so much evil? How could any God that cares about right and wrong allow so much bad to happen? And if there is no God, who then determines what is right and what is wrong? The answers to these questions, as Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, go to the heart of ethics, morality and how we know what it means to be a decent person.
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either.
[….]
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
Isn’t human suffering proof that a just, all-powerful God must not exist? On the contrary, says Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft. How can “suffering” exist without an objective standard against which to judge it? Absent a standard, there is no justice. If there is no justice, there is no injustice. And if there is no injustice, there is no suffering. On the other hand, if justice exists, God exists. In five minutes, learn more.
Description of the above video:
A student asks a question of Ravi Zacharias about God condemning people [atheists] to hell. This Q&A occurred after a presentation Ravi gave at Harvard University, and is now one of his most well-known responses in the apologetic sub-culture. This is an updated version to my 2nd edit of this on my YouTube.
Description of the above video:
Is evil rational? If it is, then how can we depend on reason alone to make a better world? Best-selling author Dennis Prager has a challenging answer.
Description of the above video:
Atheists Trying to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too on Morality. This video shows that when an atheist denies objective morality they also affirm moral good and evil without the thought of any contradiction or inconsistency on their part.
EVERY ONE HAS HEARD people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”–‘That’s my seat, I was there first”–“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”–“Why should you shove in first?”–“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”–“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that some thing has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.
(accuser) “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”
(responder) “Your right, I apologize.”
(accuser) “That’s my seat, I was there first!”
(responder) “Your right, you were. Here you go.”
(accuser) “Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine.”
(responder) “Oh gosh, I forgot, here you go.”
(accuser) “Come on, you promised.”
(responder) “Your right, lets go to the movies.”
Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the Law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law–with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.
This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are color-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced! If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the color of their hair.
I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to–whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong–in other words, if there is no Law of Nature–what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, 1 apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:
I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people. There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the money–the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done–well, you never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were going to be. And as for your behavior to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at it–and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much–we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so–that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 17-21.
After reading that portion of CLASSIC Lewis, here is some thoughts from a philosopher that I disagree with on many points (he is an atheist after all), but he argues well for the following, even if later rejecting it:
If the reader is not familiar with Mere Christianity, I would urge him or her to buy it. The first chapter alone is worth the cost of the book. It is a brilliant piece of psychology. In it, Lewis sums up two crucial aspects of the human condition. We can see the first aspect in the passage quoted. Human beings do quarrel in the way Lewis describes. We are moral agents who cannot help feeling that there are some things we ought to do, and that there are other things we ought not to do. We believe, sometimes despite ourselves, that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that there are certain principles of conduct to which we and all other human beings ought to adhere. In our dealings with other people we constantly appeal to those principles. We are quick to notice when others violate them. We get defensive and make excuses when it appears that we have violated them ourselves. We get defensive even when no one else is around. We accuse ourselves when no else does, and we rationalize our behavior in front of our consciences just as we would in front of another person. We cannot help applying to ourselves the principles we firmly believe apply to all. To use Alvin Plantinga’s term, the belief in morality is basic. Even when we reject that belief in our theoretical reasoning, it comes back to haunt us at every turn. We can never really get away from it. There is a reason why our legal system defines insanity as the inability to tell right from wrong: people who lack that ability have lost an important part of their humanity. They have taken a step down towards the level of beasts.
Even if, in our heart of hearts, we all believe in morality, we do not necessarily share the exact same moral values. Differences regarding values are at least a part of what we quarrel about. Yet Lewis correctly recognizes that our differences in this area never amount to a total difference. The moral beliefs human beings entertain display broad cross-cultural similarities. Ancient Egyptians did not appreciate having their property stolen any more than we do. A brother’s murder, a wife’s infidelity, or a friend’s betrayal would have angered them, just as it angers us. Human nature has not changed much for tens of thousands of years. It does not change at all when one travels to the other side of the globe.
I did not believe Lewis the first time I read him, or even the second time. This idea, that there is a fundamental underlying unity to the moral fabric of humanity, is a hard one to accept. Think about those suicidal fanatics who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. They “knew” they were doing the right thing, that Allah would reward them in heaven with virgins galore. How radically different from our own values the values of some Muslims must seem! Yet there is common ground. Even the most militant Muslims despise thieves, cheats, and liars, just as Christians. Jews, and atheists do. They value loyalty and friendship. just as we do. They love their children and their parents. just as we do. They even condemn murder, at least within their own societies. It is only when they deal with outsiders like us that some of them may seem like (and in fact, be) monsters. To distinguish between insiders and outsiders, and to treat the latter horribly, is actually not so unusual in human history. Expanding one’s “inside group” until it encompasses all of humanity is something of an innovation. When we consider all this, the moral gulf between us and them does not seem so unbridgeable. Our admittedly great differences occur against a background of fundamental similarities. Similarities guaranteed by the fact that we are all stuck being human. So it seems Lewis was right, despite my earlier skepticism. Universal moral themes can and do underpin the diversity of our moral opinions.
[….]
Moral statements, then, cannot be mere matters of taste and opinion. They essentially involve an appeal to principles that transcend both the wishes of any one individual, and the customs of any one culture or society. That there are such principles, and that we cannot really escape from them, are points Lewis successfully illuminates. It thus seems very plausible to suppose that when our moral statements appeal to these principles in an appropriate and rational manner, they deserve to be called truths.
