How Should I Make a Decision Anyways?

I have always had a hard time discerning God’s will.  In the past I have gone with the approach of praying about an issue and asking God to slam the door to the opportunity in my face if he didn’t want it to happen.  That is, until I met people who claimed of receiving daily direction straight from God.  They told stories about praying in one place until they were given clear direction about what to do.  Unfortunately, that has ever worked for me.  Actually, I became a lot less decisive when I started “waiting on the Lord” for every minor decision. 

I am sure that I am not the only one who has struggled with trying to discern God’s will. Actually, after talking to my friends I am very sure.  Because of this I recently read Just Do Something by Kevin De Young.  De Young claims to offer “a liberating approach to finding God’s will,” and he does just that by pointing his readers to scriptures on the subject of how Christians are supposed to live.  De Young deals with hard questions for many young people today such as how to know what job to have, where to go to college, and who to marry.  Reading Just Do Something put my mind at ease as I read on God’s providence, declarative will, and decisive will.  At the same time I found myself being rebuked as De Young discussed the tendency of Christians to not make a decision and write it off as waiting on the Lord’s will. 

If you are having trouble making decisions and are perplexed with how to discern God’s will I highly recommend reading Just Do Something.  As ironic as that may sound, it is a good start to setting a Bible based foundation to your decision making process.  It is a short, easy read, it is practical, and it glorifying to God. Check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Just-Do-Something-Decision-Without/dp/0802458386

-Griff

The Truth about the Truth.

Finally! After several weeks of editing and waiting for a final grade, I have the finished product of my English term paper, "The Truth About the Truth." If nothing else, may I suggest the bibliography to my paper, as I'm sure the works inside it will be a blessing to all who read/listen to them.

So, here it is!

"The Truth About the Truth"

by Josh Brown

The purpose of every man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever (Spurgeon). This is how Charles Spurgeon, in his church's catechism, defines how to live a successful life. Furthermore, John Piper, Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, proclaims that a life without Christ is a wasted one. A religion that follow a “god” isn't enough to gain salvation. Man must have fellowship with the one, true God, if he is to gain salvation (Piper 38). Both of these men would probably be seen as intolerant in our culture for proposing such a narrow purpose to life. What about people that don't follow Jesus? How can anyone say their lives our wasted? How could the sole purpose of life be to glorify and enjoy God if so many opposing worldviews exist? These questions may arise from the fact that not everyone believes, worships, or enjoys the God described in the Bible. Consider the words of Jesus, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (ESV Study Bible, John. 14.6). What a heavy statement to make! What about the religions of Muslims, Buddhist, and Hindus? These worldviews do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible! So how does the world handle ideas like this? If Jesus really is the truth, the only way to God, and the way to life, what happens to those who reject this idea? Regardless of what you're own worldview may be, Jesus clearly expresses the falsehood of every ideology that contradicts his own.

In an attempt to understand how people perceive ideas like this, it's important to examine our culture, and see how our culture is programmed to exchange and understand ideas. Many factors shape the way people view the world surrounding them; family traditions, friends, personal experience, and the time and place we live all have an influence. According to Christian author Robin Boisvert, most people believe that mankind's most basic problem consist of ignorance or a lack of education. Racism, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if fewer misunderstandings and higher education took place (Mahaney and Boisvert 13). With that in mind, how do we discern what's right and wrong? In other words, people are always seeking for the “ultimate truth,” a better way of life, and a purpose for living, an answer to all answers. If this question is hard to answer, it may be because of an idea that's spread throughout every corner of the world; the postmodern idea, or postmodernism. Describing postmodernism, its consequences, and how we should respond to postmodern thinking may help us understand why people believe the way they do.

Postmodernism is an extremely difficult word to define because of its various meanings. Several Christian theologians, professors, and authors, however, have attempted to describe its origins and meaning. Erroll Hulse, author of the simply titled booklet, “Postmodernism,” describes the postmodern worldview by first describing its polar opposite worldview, Christianity. Christianity teaches that God is sovereign, and all of God's plans will come to pass. Every part of history was designed by God, and God accomplishes the goals of his heart. This is called a “meta-narrative” (Hulse 3). This Christian understanding can be summarized by saying, “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” (ESV Study Bible, Psalm. 115.3). Postmodernist; however, reject the Christian meta-narrative, and make their own narrative, or reality, often based on personal experience or understanding. Most people believe one of the two narratives, either the Christian one, based on God's revelation through the Bible, or the humanistic one, based on science, evolution, and progress (Hulse 3).

Phil Johnson, in his sermon “A Beginner's Guide to Postmodernism,” breaks down today's postmodern philosophy. Postmodernism is an idea that truth comes from personal experience, truth is relative to the individual, and any ultimate authority to truth doesn't exist (Johnson). Professor Heath White, in his book, “Postmodernism 101” explains: postmodernism is a worldview, but it's not a theory or creed, it's more like an attitude or a way of understanding things (White 11). Almost all religious thought, however, holds to some confession or creed in order to explain the principles behind their faith. Since postmodern philosophy believes that ultimate authority to any form of truth doesn't exist, creeds and confessions are not necessary. White also explains how understanding the Western culture enables a person to understand postmodernism: if you understand your culture, you'll also understand the attitudes and ideas that take place in your society. Postmodernism is the big idea of the twenty-first century (White 12, 13).

Understanding your culture will give you a great understanding in perceiving the ideologies that people around you have. Postmodernism is the very idea that is shaping today's society. So how did postmodernism begin? Like most ideas and philosophies, postmodernism didn't begin overnight. Postmodernism, perhaps as early as the 1950's, was a word used to coin a new style of the fine arts. Postmodernism was also used to describe literature, and even philosophies of a few French ideals (White 10). Based on the earliest concepts of postmodernism, postmodernism wasn't so much a worldview, but more like a materialistic fad. To go back further, the parent of postmodern activity would have been “modern” thought. Modernism was an idea that swept through human thought through the seventeenth century's Enlightenment period, which set the pace of human thought for the centuries to follow. Modernism was a worldview almost strictly secular, being formed from such things as the Scientific Method, the declining influence of the Catholic Church in politics, the change from monarchy to democracy, capitalism, and the Industrial Revolution. By the twentieth century, postmodernism began replacing modern thought (White 12, 13). The main difference between “modern” and “postmodern” philosophy, is the postmodern rejection of absolute truth. All though “modern” philosophy wasn't based on a religious confession; it was still a movement that believed truth was obtainable. This postmodern concept has changed the Western culture's way of thinking in several ways.

One way postmodernism is shaping our way of thinking is through our nation's government. Abraham Kuyper, the Netherlands prime minister between 1901 and 1905, pointed out a historical fact of all political movements in his book, “Lectures on Calvinism.” It's clear that every successful political scheme has been founded on either specific religions or antireligious ideas (Kuyper 65). Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explains the direction the United States Government has taken over the past 50 years due to postmodern concepts in his book, “Culture Shift.” Within the last 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has had to question the use of religious liberty, language, and symbols used in public squares. Within several decades, the Supreme Court has decided school prayer, religious symbolism, and references to any form of deity is intolerable (Mohler 37). Furthermore, Mohler explains that the reasoning behind this is often because our society doesn't want to risk the possibility of offending anyone. Gaining cultural momentum is this idea that human beings have a right not to be offended. One example from this idea comes from the riots which broke out in several European cities in 2006, due to a Danish newspaper that mocked the prophet Muhammad. The logic behind these riots were Muslims deserve to never be offended by any form of insult, whether it's real or perceived. Nothing should oppose the Muslim belief system (Mohler 29). This would probably explain why tolerance has become such an important value in our American society. Because of the diversity of belief systems in our American culture, it's become unethical to disapprove of any idea, ethic principle, or religion. Tolerance is one of the driving forces behind the postmodern movement.

Pastor John MacArthur, in his book, “Why Government Can't Save You,” explains how Christians have responded to this postmodern mindset. Instead of using the spiritual resources God offers, many Christians have been moved to protest, boycott, and blockade the immorality of our nation. Unfortunately, this reduces Christianity to just another political movement (MacArthur viii). This might explain why Christians are often identified as “republicans” or “right-winged politicians.” However, true Christianity doesn't base it's truth on a worldly political stance; it's based on sola scriptura – scripture alone, which tells of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

MacArthur also responds to a suggestion that he become President of the United States, he replies:

“No! I would never want to be president because the power to bring righteousness to this country does not now and will never reside in public office.” (MacArthur vii).

Though MacArthur often states strong opinions about politics, he often avoids political conversations:

“I avoid it simply because the political arena and its rhetoric have no power to bring about spiritual transformation our society needs.” (MacArthur vii).

Another consequence of postmodern thinking is our own nation's rejection of God. MacArthur, in “The Truth War, explains how this changes our perception of truth:

“If a person can't tolerate the thought of God, there is simply no comfortable place for the concept of truth in that person's worldview, either. So the consistent atheist, agnostic, or idolater might as well hate the very idea of truth.” (MacArthur xv).

This goes back to the Bible's definition of truth: Jesus Christ. Church history is full of examples of people accepting torture or death for the sake of truth. Previous generations considered martyrdom a heroic act. To die for what you believed in was honorable. That is not always the case today. Unfortunately, much of this is due to terrorist; who kill people for not believing like them. Terrorism, however, is the polar opposite of martyrdom. Many are willing to kill for a lie, but few are willing to die for the truth (MacArthur xii).

Not only is postmodern thinking affecting those who reject the truth of Christianity, it's also changing the way Christians understand their own faith. Postmodernism is quickly becoming a part of Christian thinking, and is rapidly filling the church congregation as well. One of the biggest ways postmodernism does this is by changing the understanding of literature. Postmodernism allows for any reader of literature to interpret an author's work anyway they please, leaving the author's intention often unnoticed. Theologian Edgar McKnight explains how this changes a Christian's view of the Bible in the book, “A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times.”

“Now a literary turn in taking place in biblical study. This turn is taking place at the same time that literary study has entered into a post-new-critical phase in which readers have become an essential ingredient in literature, vital in its “actualization.” (McKnight 65).

So how should we respond to postmodernism? Postmodern thinking, whether people realize it or not, is becoming the primary worldview of most Americans, all though many do not consciously realize it. It's all ready been established that if Christianity is the true worldview, then absolute truth must exist, and a postmodern, open-to-interpretation ideology can't work. It's impossible for Christianity to work in unity with the postmodern mindset. Is Christianity even a rational concept in our culture today, if we consider the postmodern dilemma? Conference speaker James Sire, in the book, “Telling the Truth,” puts it this way:

“The rationality or irrationality of Christianity is not important if rationality itself is not a useful test for believe. And that is the postmodern problem.” (95).

If today's society rejects the idea of absolute truth, Christianity can no longer be rational, because rationality doesn't determine truth anymore. Chuck Colson, author of “How Now Shall We Live?,” explains how this may be due to an ignorance of biblical truth. Western society no longer understands the basic tenets of Christianity. Previously, most people were familiar with biblical teaching, even if they didn't live by it. Today, many people are completely unfamiliar with sound biblical teaching (31).

This would make sense, considering the definite absolutes the Bible describes. If the readers of the Bible are to take the scriptures literally, (which is what the authors of the Bible intended readers to do) then the reader would quickly see that the scriptures leave no room for open interpretations, and therefore, truth can't be simply relative to the person reading it. If most people are ignorant in their understanding of biblical text, then they wouldn't have an authoritative standard of truth to live by.

So why should anyone take the Bible seriously today? Pastor Voddie Baucham attempts to answerr this in his sermon, “Decoding Da Vinci,” The Bible is:

“A reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye witnesses during the life time of other eye witnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine rather than human in origin.” (Baucham).

Baucham came to that conclusion simply by reading the writing of Peter in the New Testament epistle of 2 Peter. In the sermon, he explains how scripture defends itself and that the scriptures are designed to shut the mouth of non-believers.

In short, the ideas of postmodernism should move people to realize how truly vague and irrational it is to believe that all truth is relative to a person's experience and understanding of truth. It is highly irrational to believe that any and all worldviews can be consistently correct. People cannot make a truth claim based on their own experiences or intellectual understandings, they must have an authority. The Bible is that authority, because it was written under the divine power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, just intellectually understanding biblical truth won't make a lasting change in a person's worldview, unless there is also a heart change. A person who intellectually decides that the Bible is the source of truth, must also put their faith in the man the Bible tells the story of; Jesus Christ. Bible believers must also be born again in order to be saved from the wrath of God. God has revealed himself to all creation; he has done so by both nature and the scriptures. For the person who's determined that scripture tells the truth about how mankind is supposed to live, the person must also realize the need for a savior. The Bible is clear on man's evil condition, and the breaking of God's moral law, which separates man from God. The good news is that any man who turns from his sins and puts his faith in Christ will be saved. To the man who's come to the truth of scripture, God commands to repent, and trust in Jesus Christ, who is the savior to all who believe in him. This is the truth of all truths. The truth of Jesus Christ.

Bibliography.

Baucham, Voddie. “Voddie Baucham – Decoding Da Vinci – pt 2 of 5.” themamboman. YouTube. 21 Feb. 2008. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Colson, Charles., and Nancy Pearcey. How Now Shall We Live?. Wheaton: Tyndale House. 1999. Print.

ESV Study Bible. English Standard Version. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008. Print.

Hulse, Erroll. Postmodernism. Attack on th Heart of Biblical Christianity. Johbunyan.org. Chapel Library, 2007. Web. 17, Nov. 2009.

Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Peabody: Hendrickson. 2008. Print.

Johnson, Phil “A Beginner's Guide to Postmodernism.” Gracelife, Valencia. 30 June. 2006. Sermon.

MacArthur, John. The Truth War. Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007. Print.

Why Government Can't Save You. An Alternative to Political Activism. Nashville:

Word Publishing, 2000. Print.

Mahaney, C.J. And Robin Boisvert. This Great Salvation: Unmerited Favor, Unmatched Joy.

Gaithersburg: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 1993. Print.

McKnight, Edgar V. A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times. Ed. Michael S. Horton. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000. Print.

Mohler, R. Albert Jr. Culture Shift. Engaging Current Issues With Timeless Truth. Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2008. Print.

Piper, John. Don't Waste Your Life. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003. Print.

Sire, James W. Telling The Truth. Evangelizing Postmoderns, Ed. D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 2000. Print.

Spurgeon, Charles Hadden. A Catechism With Proofs. Johnbunyan.org. Chapel Library, 2007. Web. 17, Nov. 2009.

White, Heath. Postmodernism 101. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006. Print.

12 Gift Ideas for Aspiring Speakers

12 Gift Ideas for Aspiring Speakers: "

I am always on the lookout for unique gifts that would resonate with people’s secret aspirations. If you know someone who aspires to be a professional speaker—or perhaps someone who is already doing some speaking—then these gifts might provide you with an idea or two.

I personally use all these items, and they are the “tools of choice” in my own speaking. I have tried to include gift ideas at a variety of price levels. I have arranged the list from least expensive to most expensive. Hopefully, you can find just the perfect gift for a friend or maybe even yourself!

Gift Suggestion		Amount
	Admittedly, I am a big fan of Steve Jobs. Without question, he is my favorite business presenter. He is passionate, articulate, and polished. In The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs, author Carmine Gallo talks about “How to Be Insanely Great in Front of Any Audience” (the book’s subtitle). She deconstructs the ingredients that make Steve great and shows you how to use them in your own presentations.	$14.93
	Made to Stick is my favorite general communications book. The authors, Chip and Dan Heath talk about why some ideas and survive and some die. Drawing extensively on their study of memory, emotion, and motivation, they analyze the concept of “stickiness.” Using the mnemonic, SUCCES (sic), the authors outline six key principles—Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotions and Stories—for making your ideas more sticky.	$17.16
	Beyond Bullet Points is the first book that really got me to thinking about the limitations of bulleted slides. You know the type, where the presenter simply reads his slides to you one after another until you fall into a hypnotic trance. Cliff Atkinson, the author, teaches you the fine art of classical story-telling and you can apply it to almost any presentation.	$19.79
	In terms of actually preparing your slide deck, slide:ology is the best book available. Nancy’s agency creates some of the most beautiful slideshows you have ever seen, including the slides for Al Gore’s now-famous speech, “An Inconvenient Truth.” I have personally worked with her agency and can vouch for her design savvy. The book is down-to-earth and practical with dozens and dozens of real world examples.	$23.09
	Presentation Zen is a great companion to slide:ology This book extols the virtue of simplicity, instilling in me the conviction that every slide should make a singular point—and only one point. His book is a wonderful departure from the brain-numbing types of slideshow presentations we take for granted in corporate America. If you want to stand out from the crowd, this is a good place to begin.	$23.09
	I have tried half a dozen different slideshow remotes. I’ve used the native one that comes with Apple laptops, along with the iPhone version. However, I keep coming back to the Keyspan Easy Presenter remote. The main thing I like about it is that it is simple and really small. It fits in the palm of my hand, so the audience can’t even really see it. It makes advancing slides look like magic.	$37.96
	Yes, you can create beautiful 3D books, software boxes, and brochures with Photoshop—if you are a professional designer. But for the rest of us BookShot 3D is the easy alternative. As the CEO of a publishing company and a big believer in the value of reading, I refer to a lot of books in my presentations. This program makes it simple to create stunning book 3D covers, boxes, and more.	$60.00
	I am an outliner by nature. I literally think in outlines. I always start preparing a speech by starting with an extensive outline. OmniOutliner Professional is the best outlining tool I have found. It is intuitive and easy to use. It also has enormous flexibility. It simply works the way my mind works, making it easy to get the thoughts out of my head and into a form I can organize and begin to package.	$66.99
	I used to use PowerPoint for my slide presentations. Once I saw Apple Keynote (part of the iWork suite), I chunked PowerPoint for good. In my opinion, Keynote offers a professional edge that is unparalleled. It is easier to use, deals with type beautifully, and offers jaw-dropping transitions and effects. If you want to present like Steve Jobs, you can start by using the software he uses.	$72.99
	I try to record all my speeches. This was always a hassle until I discovered the Zoom H2 Digital Recorder. It is super easy to use and the audio quality is superb. When I am done recording, I connect the device to my laptop via a USB cable and copy the mp3 files to my hard drive. They are then immediately available for editing or uploading to my server. It runs on either batteries or a power cord.	$141.29
	The Professional Communicators Summit is a one-of-a-kind educational opportunity for speakers. It doesn’t focus on how to make better speeches. Instead it focuses on how to actually make money speaking. I attended last year and was blown away. The conference is hosted by veteran speaker, comedian, and author Ken Davis. This is the best investment an aspiring speaker can make in his or her career, which is why I list it first. It’s not cheap, but it’s worth every penny.	$997.00
	I used to be a die-hard Windows user. Then I saw a friend of mine make a presentation using a Mac and was blown away. At first, I bought a Mac with the intention of only using it for presentations. But it eventually stole my heart, and I have never looked back. In my humble opinion, nothing tops a Mac when it comes to producing compelling slideshows. I use the 15″ MacBook Pro .	$1,629.00

Disclosure: Most of the links above are affiliate links.

Question: What other gift ideas do you have for aspiring speakers?

---

---

12 Gift Ideas for Aspiring Speakers

Related posts:

1. Don’t Use Your Logo on Every Slide
2. Five Rules for Better Presentations
3. How Not to Use PowerPoint
4. 10 Rules for Better Presentations
5. So You Want to Be a Professional Speaker?

"

Those Christians caused the economy to crash!

Those Christians caused the economy to crash!: "

Throughout history, societies facing a crisis have blamed unpopular minority groups, turning them into scapegoats. Jews were the frequent victims. Now, The Atlantic Magazine publishes an article entitled Did Christianity Cause the Crash?.

The thesis is that all of the believers in the “prosperity gospel” were encouraged by their megachurches to take big risks that brought the economy down. The author cites lots of poor people who testified about how God gave them a house, even though they had no money and bad credit.

There may be a point here about the churches in poor communities. But the prosperity gospel is so alien to any kind of orthodox Christianity that to say “Christianity caused the crash” is surely guilt by association, scapegoating a religion by citing people who really don’t follow it.

Still, the article is an interesting window into the prosperity gospel phenomenon. I’ll blog more on that tomorrow.

HT: Jackie

"

Q&A on Jesus' Birth

Calling all Calvinists- Listen Well

Calvinists and Their Response To An Unbelieving World




In the 'politically correct' world we live in today, how are Calvinists to deal with those that hold to differing views than their own? Let's listen in on James White's response.

I speak to my Calvinist Brothers and Sisters:

As always, we need to always be seeking to uphold the truth and refute error. When dealing with differing opinions it is important to keep a perspective of where you came from- if it were not for the sovereign grace of God bringing about revelation through His Word by the Holy Spirit, you would be as confused as the person you are talking to. Two passages come to mind, I pray that we consider these well and apply them to our lives.

Philippians 2:1-5 "Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion,make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not {merely} look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus," NASB

2 Peter 3:14-18 "Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord {as} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him {be} the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." NASB


Grace and peace.

What Is the Biggest Upcoming Theological Battle?

What Is the Biggest Upcoming Theological Battle?: "

In this video Mark Driscoll asks R.C. Sproul, 'What is the biggest theological battle the next generation will face?'

Click through to the Resurgence if you can't see the video.

Resurgence RSS Feed

Subscribe to the Resurgence syndicated feed and have all our content delivered straight to your feed reader. Find out more.

<!--break-->

"

Organizing a Silence and Solitude Day (Part 5 of 5)

Organizing a Silence and Solitude Day (Part 5 of 5): "

This the last post in a series by Pastor Mark where he helpfully lays out the importance of silence and solitude, as well as how he approaches and utilizes the time. We hope it has been helpful for you as you grow in your faith in Jesus.

Journaling

The following is a copy of the template I created for myself to organize my days of silence and solitude for the purpose of journaling. I offer it knowing that you can and should change it to fit your life. This is not Scripture, it’s not perfect, and I don’t claim it is. Rather, it is a simple tool for you to adapt as you need. For me, I keep notes in my Moleskine throughout the week, and sit down to answer these questions on my laptop in a Word document. This keeps it simple for me and allows me to see God’s work in my life over time.

Ideally, every Christian would do a modified version of this plan every week as an act of worship, taking around an hour to answer a few of the questions that are most pressing for them. In addition, it is wise to take at least one full day a month in silence and solitude to answer all the questions without being rushed, leaving time to open your Bible, pray, repent, worship, and ponder.

Silence and Solitude Journaling Template

“. . . the report about him [Jesus] went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray.” — Luke 5:15–16

Date:

Modified or Full Plan:

Note: Here I am making note if it’s one hour or one day for silence and solitude.

Place and Conditions:

Note: I am someone for whom space deeply matters. On a nice day I sit outside by a river or at the beach in a beautiful spot. I don’t like coffee shops (too noisy and crowded) or the office (too much distraction). I like to be up high with a view, crave fresh air, love the sun, and cannot relax where it’s loud, busy, ugly, stinky, disorganized, poorly designed, uncomfortable, or too hot or cold, and yes, I am picky. So, I note where I was and that helps me keep a record of nice spots for silence and solitude days. I borrow friends’ vacation homes, have spots I like outside of town in the mountains, and so forth.

Part 1 – Recent Evidences of God’s Grace

“Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.” — 2 Thess. 2:16–17

Note: To have good words and works, we need hope and comfort by seeing and savoring evidences of God’s grace. I start with this topic to get me into a mode of worship. I can be quite a gloomy and moody person, so this gets me going in the right direction for my time with God. I often take an hour on this topic alone and make a long list, thanking God and praying as I go.

Part 2 – Deep Questions

“The purpose in a man’s mind is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out.” — Prov. 20:5 (RSV)

Note: These are my questions and you can make your own or change mine. I don’t include Bible reading and study because they are like breathing to me, but you may want to add them. In question four I’m talking about my wife, Grace. I list each of my kids in question five because with a big family it’s too easy to treat the kids as a herd rather than knowing and pastoring each one. I put my work last, figuring that if the rest of my life is in order, work will go well. I rate every question on a scale so that I can be honest about how I’m doing and track progress over time. The prayer points are things I pray about as I’m journaling and things to put on my prayer list that week. The action items go on my calendar. Lastly, I share a lot of this with my wife, kids, friends, and others, and a lot of my blogs and ministry training are simply sharing what comes out of my journaling on days of silence and solitude.

1. How accurate is my view of God lately?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

2. How are my joy in the Holy Spirit and corresponding hope?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

3. What temptations and sins are most ensnaring?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

4. How is my connection with my wife?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

5. How is my connection with each of my children?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

6. How is my health (e.g., weight, diet, exercise)?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

7. How is my sleep (e.g., bed time, quality of sleep, length of sleep)?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

8. How is my energy level?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

9. How is my dominion over my technology (e.g., cell phone, laptop, email, text)?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

10. How is the stewardship of my wealth (e.g., finances, possessions, property, investments)?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

11. How is my social life with friends and extended family?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

12. Who or what is filling my tank lately?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

13. Who or what is draining my tank lately?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

14. Who has sinned against me and how am I responding?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

15. Who do I need to confide in and where should I seek wisdom?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

16. Are there any warning signs that I am burning out?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

17. Am I successfully getting out of the river onto the bank enough through silence, solitude, study, and Sabbath?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

18. What do I need to stop doing, do less of, or hand off to someone else?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

19. How are my self-deception and truth suppression?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

20. How is my writing (e.g., books, blogs, papers)?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

21. How is my preaching (preparation and results, in and out of Mars Hill)?

• Scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high)

• Prayer Points

• Action Items

---

Pastor Mark on Twitter

Join Pastor Mark on Facebook as he uses it to be a nobody trying to tell everybody about Somebody.

"

It has nothing to do with Calvinism

My response to this post on my status is at the bottom.

The post on my Status:
As i have watched and listened to discussions like this i wish to only say one thing and leave it. From what i continue to see Ryan... this keeps coming back to Calvinism and if it doesn't then please pretend i never even spoke.

Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, Tozer, Ravenhill, Billy Graham and of course Ron Luce... from what i have heard... never even made a thought on Calvanism or Armenianism. Yes of Course Christ, paul, and peter wouldn't but look at history. These men of God changed the world through the Gospel alone. They were too busy preaching to the hearts of men that they didn't have time for such petty arguments and discussions... and indeed it is a waste of time.

Yes this view can help in your theology, but leave it to yourself. This is why though i have read and understand both views, i will not make a voiced opinion on one or the other simply because in this day and age too many of my brothers and sisters in the faith will close their ears to such opinions. So i simply fight the one's that i consider life and death in the spiritual sense.

Beyond this please go back to the very place where Paul spoke on predestination and consider the context all of you. Paul's words were for ENCOURAGMENT, not for argument and mind games. He was explaining to believers why they should be thankful and rejoice in God because they were chosen. He didn't mean for us to use his words as weapons on to one another and i'm sure if he saw this done today he would cry out to God in sorrow. So if you are a Calvanist then go and preach the gospel to others... i find it quite a bit interesting to see how many more people become "Elect" when they are presented the Gospel.

Please hear my words in light of my concern and no personal opinion. I love you guys.


My Response:

In truth it has nothing to do with Calvinism. it has to do with the Gospel it has to do with our preconceived notion that if God is love he is absent of wrath or that a loving God could never send people to hell a loving God would never through people into an eternity without his love and only his wrath (Revelation 20:15, Mark 9:47; Matthew 13:41-42) it has to do with the fact that we refuse and reject the God of the Bible. It has to do with our depravity. It has to do with human nature, our nature is to sin against a perfect, holy, righteous, loving, just, and wrathful God (Romans 3:10-18).

Let me give you an example. if God were to say... I don't know...bring a flood to wipe out all of mankind except for one man and his family, God would not only be perfect, holy, righteous, loving , and wrathful but he would be absolutely just in doing so(Genesis 6:1-8:22). Why? You might ask. I would say because god is sovereign. What does that mean? Well it mean that God does whatever he wants to do, whenever he wants to do it, and He is perfect, holy, righteous, loving, and just for doing it, because he is God (Ps. 115:3, Ps. 135:6, Rom. 11:36).

In regards to keeping “opinions” to myself I am afraid I cannot do that. If I have the truth and I do not speak it, it would be as if I did not care that people were being thrown into hell. I am no lukewarm man, I do not intend to compromise the truth of the Gospel because it makes some uncomfortable, and I will not be on the fence waiting to “see how things go”. Jesus commanded and prefers that we either be hot or cold not in the middle (Revelation 3:15-16).

You are right that the Gospel brings about repentance to those who hear and are elect. But you cannot “become” elect. You either are or you are not, you are a sheep or a goat, you are wheat or weeds, God willed this before anything was ever created. On this point I will not bend Scripture is clear you do not choose God he chooses you. (John 6:65, Jonah 2:9, John 8:47, Ephesians 1:4-5,11, Romans 8:28-30, Matthew 11:27, 13:24-30, 13:36-43, 15:12-15, 22:12-14, 24:22-24, 25:31-46 etc.)

You see it is not about Calvinism, it’s about Scripture and ultimately God. Scripture is complete it is not faulty, God breathed it into existence. Scripture is our only absolute truth it is the thing we know will never contradict God because every bit of it represents God. So it is not about Calvinism it is about accurately representing Scripture and Truth, whether we like what is true or not. The fact that we have distain toward an idea does not negate the fact that it is true. (2 Peter 1:16,20-21, Luke 1:1-4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

So I encourage everyone, take a stance, do not be lukewarm, represent truth to the best of your finite ability, and be willing to submit your pride to what scripture says because you more you read the more you mindset will conform to God and the more you realize on some level you were wrong.

For more on Elect read this

Why We do what We do.

If you have read any of the blogs that have been posted on our sight you might be wondering “why in the world are these college age guys so opinionated and obsessed with theology? Why do they think their opinion matters anyways?” 

Well those are good questions, and are probably worth asking since we don’t have a ton of life experience and all together have a whopping total of zero doctorates in theology… or bachelors degrees for that matter.  We even believe that our opinions do not really matter. Really.  However, we believe that God’s opinion’s do.  This is why we are so passionate about Theology.  We want to know what God says about HIMSELF through HIS word, the Bible.  We do not just want to learn these facts about God for the sake of knowledge but we firmly believe that we can apply these facts to our everyday lives. 

Now why am I blogging about this?  Because I along with the rest of petoReformata believe that as young Christians who hold views on the Bible such as ours it is necessary to inspire others to dig into the word and pursue Truth in a day and age where the pursuit of Truth is so often discouraged.  This is why we are blogging.  This is why we talk about our passion for God and Theology.  This is why we give examples from our everyday lives and what we are learning from God.  We want to see others catch a love for God as they realize his love, holiness, justice, mercy, and grace.  I pray that the thoughts and words of some young radical nobodies would bring God glory on this page and that somehow someway they would inspire someone in their Christian walk to draw closer to God.

This is the passion and mission of petoReformata as we follow Christ in truth.

-Griff

Not everyone needs to be a Theologian; But every one has a Theology

Well like normal this post is on a topic that I feel our generation is completely lax on and one that has immersed my thoughts for a time. I am writing out of conviction and concern. The topic is Theology.
Now I know what some of you are thinking “Oh no here Ryan goes on another Theology tangent.” Well hopefully it is not a tangent. But in all seriousness our generation and society in general has “Theology” very confused.

Not everyone needs to be a Theologian; but everyone has a Theology. If you don’t believe in God than that is your Theology. If you think God is your neighbor’s dog that is your Theology. If you know that Christ is the center of your life, the Bible, history itself that is a part of your Theology. Everyone has a Theology this statement cannot be argued or refuted.

What is Theology? Very simply it’s the Study of God. So what’s Ryan’s issue? Well my issue is this we are hypocrites, but more than that my issue is why we are hypocrites. We say things like I trust God or God is sovereign. That is a part of our Theology. But then we say things like I trust God but I want to know “this” or God is Sovereign but I don’t think he should do “that” what is that “but”? (Romans 2:17-24)

And here is where I get to my point. That “but” is what we say all too often and everything that follows it is our humanity, it is our flesh. So we, who are depraved (Romans 3:9-18) incorporate our humanity in to our study of a perfect God. This is my main issue. We cannot allow our humanity to enter into our Theology. Why? Because if we do where does it stop? Does it stop at God promoting abortion? Or how about condoning homosexuality? Does it stop with God thinking all roads lead to heaven? Or that sex outside of the context of marriage is permissible? The fact is that it would not stop. If we allow humanity to enter into our Theology somewhere in our Theology it is possible for God to be sinful and that simply cannot be.

I will end with this the other day I was thinking about what I would like people to say about me at my funeral. I thought will people say he was a great theologian, or a wonderful father, how about a devout husband, or a loyal friend. No I don’t want any of that to be said. I simply want people to say to each other “God was glorified” that’s all. I am on a search for truth my friends and all I know is that truth cannot come from me. My greatest desire is to glorify God I cannot do that properly with a Theology salt and peppered with humanity. Let us be the Righteous Heralds of the Gospel that we are called to be.

Philemon 1:3
-Ryan

Nate Pfeil - The Fire

http://strivevideos.blip.tv/

Why I Abominate the Prosperity Gospel

Why I Abominate the Prosperity Gospel: "

(Author: Tyler Kenney)

John Piper explains why the so-called "prosperity gospel" is not the gospel.

"

Why Bad People Do Good Things – Pastor Mark in the Washington Post

Why Bad People Do Good Things – Pastor Mark in the Washington Post: "

Pastor Mark’s latest column for the Washington Post’s On Faith column is now up. The question posed to him was:

Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?

In response, Pastor Mark points to the Imago Dei, the biblical teaching that God made man in his own image.

Even those who do not believe in a god, or worship Jesus as the only God, cannot altogether erase the deep imprint of right and wrong because God stamped it on their very nature so that, despite being marred by sinful rebellion, it cannot be denied or ignored. In fact, we each appeal to this moral law every time evil is done against us; we appeal for something more than merely the survival of the fittest, where might makes right and morality is determined by those holding power. Therefore, we image God by respecting all of human life, particularly the weak, oppressed, sick, elderly, poor, unborn, and racial and cultural minorities because God values them as his image bearers.

You can read “Why Bad People Do Good Things” in it’s entirety at the Washington Post.

Death By Love

Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears tackle some of the most serious redemptive aspects of Jesus' work in these twelve letters of counsel to individuals. Find out more.

<!--break-->

"

The Truth about the Truth.

The Truth about the Truth

and why the world can't handle it

By Josh Brown

This will be the title for my English essay due in two weeks, and I've spent the past several weeks gathering resources to write it. When my final draft is completed, I'll make sure to post it.

So why did I decide to write a paper on truth? It's simple. Any truth will always point me to my Savior, Jesus Christ. If I need reminded where Christ went, where He is, and where I'll soon be, I simply remember the truth:

5 j Thomas said to him, “Lord, k we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am l the way, and m the truth, and n the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 o If you had known me, you would havep known my Father also. [4] From now on you do know him andq have seen him.” John 14:5-7

These are sweet words of comfort whenever I find unbelief in my heart. When I'm lost on my own path of righteousness, Jesus never fails to bring me back to this:

"Remember Josh, I am the way. I am the truth. I am the life. Your own way, your own truth, and your own life will fail. Your ideas, understandings, and desires are utterly wrong if I'm not the center of them. So look towards me! Fix your eyes on me!"

By God's grace alone, I can truly say, without arrogance, that I know truth. I know truth, because I know Christ. i did not reach truth on my own by any means. Christ conquered my false ideas, understandings, and desires, and replaced them with the truth of Himself.

This doesn't mean I'm infinitely superior, or that I've obtained all possible knowledge. Quite the opposite. I simply acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the truth, and He's allowed me to share in that truth by revealing Himself to me through Scripture.

So with that as my foundation, I'm writing a paper on truth, and why I believe the World can't handle it. More appropriately, why the World hates it. I'll also include the consequences of the rejection of truth.

I'm reading (bust mostly skimming) through several books that I will source as my evidence, and I hope to conduct a few interviews with Pastor's on the subject.

Here are the books I'm using:

- ESV Study Bible

- Telling the Truth - Edited by D.A. Carson

- How Now Shall We Live? - Chuck Colson

- A Confessing Theology for Postmodern Times - Michael Horton

- The Truth War - John MacArthur

- Why Government Can't Save You - John MacArthur

- Lectures on Calvinism - Abraham Kuyper

- Postmodernism 101 - Heath White

- Culture Shift - Albert Mohler

I'm pretty sure I can write a good paper with these sources, but let me know if you recommend others.

soli deo gloria,

- josh

"DOUBLE" PREDESTINATION

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2spr0001.htm

"DOUBLE" PREDESTINATION

---

by
R.C. Sproul
1939 - present

---

"A horrible decree ...." "Most ruthless statement. . . ."
"A terrible theological theory. . . ." "An illegitimate inference of logic. . ."

These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.

The "Double" of Predestination

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the "double" aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God's sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.

The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term "double" has been set in contrast with a notion of "single" predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

Viewing double predestination as a distinction from single predestination may be seen in the work of Emil Brunner. Brunner argues that it is impossible to deduce the doctrine of double predestination from the Bible. He says:

The Bible does not contain the doctrine of double predestination, although in a few isolated passages it seems to come close to it. The Bible teaches that all salvation is based on the eternal Election of God in Jesus Christ, and that this eternal Election springs wholly and entirely from God's sovereign freedom. But wherever this happens, there is no mention of a decree of rejection. The Bible teaches that alongside of the elect there are those who are not elect, who are "reprobate," and indeed that the former are the minority and the latter the majority; but in these passages the point at issue is not eternal election but "separation" or "selection" in judgment. Thus the Bible teaches that there will be a double outcome of world history, salvation and ruin, Heaven and hell. But while salvation is explicitly taught as derived from the eternal election, the further conclusion is not drawn that destruction is also based upon a corresponding decree of doom.¹

Here Brunner argues passionately, though not coherently, for "single" predestination. There is a decree of election, but not of reprobation. Predestination has only one side_election. In this context, double predestination is "avoided" (or evaded) by the dialectical method. The dialectical method which sidesteps logical consistency has had a pervasive influence on contemporary discussions of double predestination. A growing antipathy to logic in theology is manifesting itself widely. Even G. C. Berkouwer seems allergic to the notion that logic should play a role in developing our understanding of election.
It is one thing to construct a theology of election (or any other kind of theology) purely on the basis of rational speculation. It is quite another to utilize logic in seeking a coherent understanding of biblical revelation. Brunner seems to abhor both.

Let us examine the "logic" of Brunner's position. He maintains that (1) there is a divine decree of election that is eternal; (2) that divine decree is particular in scope ("There are those who are not elect"); (3) yet there is no decree of reprobation. Consider the implications. If God has predestined some but not all to election, does it not follow by what Luther called a "resistless logic" that some are not predestined to election? If, as Brunner maintains, all salvation is based upon the eternal election of God and not all men are elect from eternity, does that not mean that from eternity there are non-elect who most certainly will not be saved? Has not God chosen from eternity not to elect some people? If so, then we have an eternal choice of non-election which we call reprobation. The inference is clear and necessary, yet some shrink from drawing it.
I once heard the case for "single" predestination articulated by a prominent Lutheran theologian in the above manner. He admitted to me that the conclusion of reprobation was logically inescapable, but he refused to draw the inference, holding steadfastly to "single" predestination. Such a notion of predestination is manifest nonsense.
Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: "Now tell me your theology without the dialectic, so I can understand it!" Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner's view of predestination the only way to avoid "double" predestination is with the use of "double-talk."
Thus, "single" predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.
The much greater issue of "double" predestination is the issue over the relationship between election and reprobation with respect to the nature of the decrees and the nature of the divine outworking of the decrees. If "double" predestination means a symmetrical view of predestination, then we must reject the notion. But such a view of "double" predestination would be a caricature and a serious distortion of the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

The Double-Predestination Distortion

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."² Luther continued:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.²

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all_in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

The Reformed Confessions

By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man's evil into good. . . . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: "What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly." (Art. VIII)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. Ill_Art. VI and VII)

These examples selected from confessional formulas of the Reformation indicate the care with which the doctrine of double predestination has been treated. The asymmetrical expression of the "double" aspect has been clearly maintained. This is in keeping with the care exhibited consistently throughout the history of the Church. The same kind of careful delineation can be seen in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettini, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, et al.

Foreordination to Reprobation

In spite of the distinction of positive-negative with respect to the mode of God's activity toward the elect and the reprobate, we are left with the thorny question of God predestinating the reprobate. If God in any sense predestines or foreordains reprobation, doesn't this make the rejection of Christ by the reprobate absolutely certain and inevitable? And if the reprobate's reprobation is certain in light of predestination, doesn't this make God responsible for the sin of the reprobate? We must answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second in the negative.
If God foreordains anything, it is absolutely certain that what He foreordains will come to pass. The purpose of God can never be frustrated. Even God's foreknowledge or prescience makes future events certain with respect to time. That is to say, if God knows on Tuesday that I will drive to Pittsburgh on Friday, then there is no doubt that, come Friday, I will drive to Pittsburgh. Otherwise God's knowledge would have been in error. Yet, there is a significant difference between God's knowing that I would drive to Pittsburgh and God's ordaining that I would do so. Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it, but He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining. But in either case, the future event would be certain with respect to time and the knowledge of God.

Luther, in discussing the traitorous act of Judas, says:

Have I not put on record in many books that I am talking about necessity of immutability? I know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ willingly. My point is that this act of the will in Judas was certainly and infallibly bound to take place, if God foreknew it. That is to say (if my meaning is not yet grasped), I distinguish two necessities: one I call necessity of force (necessitatem violentam), referring to action; the other I call necessity of infallibility (necessitatem infallibilem), referring to time. Let him who hears me understand that I am speaking of the latter, not the former; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but whether it was infallibly bound to come to pass that Judas should willingly betray Christ at a time predetermined by God.³

We see then, that what God knows in advance comes to pass by necessity or infallibly or necessity of immutability. But what about His foreordaining or predestinating what comes to pass? If God foreordains reprobation does this not obliterate the distinction between positive-negative and involve a necessity of force? If God foreordains reprobation does this not mean that God forces, compels, or coerces the reprobate to sin? Again the answer must be negative.
If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate's being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion. Berkouwer states the boundaries of the discussion clearly:

On the one hand, we want to maintain the freedom of God in election, and on the other hand, we want to avoid any conclusion which would make God the cause of sin and unbelief.⁴

God's decree of reprobation, given in light of the fall, is a decree to justice, not injustice. In this view the biblical a priori that God is neither the cause nor the author of sin is safeguarded. Turrettini says, "We have proved the object of predestination to be man considered as fallen, sin ought necessarily to be supposed as the condition in him who is reprobated, no less than him who is elected."⁵ He writes elsewhere:

The negative act includes two, both preterition, by which in the election of some as well to glory as to grace, he neglected and slighted others, which is evident from the event of election, and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery; which, however, is as to be understood, 1. That they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them, nor are immediately deprived of all God's favor, but only of the saving and vivifying which is the fruit of election, 2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness

The importance of viewing the decree of reprobation in light of the fall is seen in the on-going discussions between Reformed theologians concerning infra- and supra-lapsarianism. Both viewpoints include the fall in God's decree. Both view the decree of preterition in terms of divine permission. The real issue between the positions concerns the logical order of the decrees. In the supralapsarian view the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall. In the infralapsarian view the decree to permit the fall is logically prior to the decree to election and reprobation.
Though this writer favors the infralapsarian view along the lines developed by Turrettini, it is important to note that both views see election and reprobation in light of the fall and avoid the awful conclusion that God is the author of sin. Both views protect the boundaries Berkouwer mentions.
Only in a positive-positive schema of predestination does double-predestination leave us with a capricious deity whose sovereign decrees manifest a divine tyranny. Reformed theology has consistently eschewed such a hyper-supralapsarianism. Opponents of Calvinism, however, persistently caricature the straw man of hyper-supralapsarianism, doing violence to the Reformed faith and assaulting the dignity of God's sovereignty.

We rejoice in the biblical clarity which reveals God's sovereignty in majestic terms. We rejoice in the knowledge of divine mercy and grace that go to such extremes to redeem the elect. We rejoice that God's glory and honor are manifested both in His mercy and in His justice.

Soli Deo Gloria.