Would you think God as more gracious if you knew that babies who die in infancy go to Heaven?
Would you think him less gracious if that they went to Hell?
Does not God deserve our glory and honor and praise either way? Whatever God decides to do in this case, it is just and good because God is just and good
Here is the preference of my English Bible translations… hopefully in some accurate order:
1) English Standard Version (ESV) – Highly accurate yet easily readable. Recommended by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, etc.
2) New King James Version (NKJV) – Revision of the King James, yet some language has been eased over to make it more accessible.
3) New American Standard Bible (NASB) – VERY strict translation from the original language to the English language. The problem may occur, however, when some of the meaning may get lost in the translation itself, due to the rigid translation of words.
4) New International Version (NIV) – Most read English translation today and has been for several years. It is more of a functional or meaning-driven text, and some of the passages I depend on to be translated clearly for my discussion of reformed theology are glossed over in delivering a meaning that sometimes seems to try to pander to a wider Evangelical range of audience. Still can be useful for devotional times… but not necessarily serious Bible study.
This is probably to be understood though as more… idealistic.
Why? I do not own so many translations myself. What versions do I physically have?
Several ESVs, an NIV Study Bible, and a paperback outreach TNIV I got for free before it was released from Biblica… as well as an NRSV only because I found it in a book recycling bin at the end of the school year, and I figured I should have one, as my school uses the NRSV as their Bible translation.
For whatever reason… I am fascinated by the TNIV. No, it is not the most accurate 
version. However I do find myself drawn to it first if there is a passage that is somewhat confusing in the ESV. It is about as loosey-goosey of a version I will use – I won’t touch the Message or NLT or CEV or anything like that unless I have to… but they are not reliable enough for me to use or recommend using.
Truthfully there are problems with all English versions… but I would recommend the ESV for a very accurate yet readable version. Still, keeping that NIV around to compare confusing passages is not a bad idea either.
Reason #213 why use great discretion when using the TNIV (Today’s New International Version): Though it may clarify some passages, it muddies up others, and attempts to draw a distinction where one need not be in the original Greek.
Specifically, see 1 Peter 1:2 and 1:20 in the TNIV (and NIV).
Christians are said to have “been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Fair enough translation. Yet when the same meaning is conveyed to be speaking of Christ a few verses later, the translaters opted to use “chosen” only, and leave out “foreknowledge“… even though the actual word in Greek both instances is explicitly foreknowledge!
Understand… I am not quibbling that the TNIV (or any other version) is taking words OUT of the Bible… as many KJV Onlyists do. I recognize that difficulties in translating between Hebrew and English and Greek and English exist. The problem is that the meaning of the text itself seems to be different than that of the original Greek.
Why has this been left out? Why are the Christians said to have been “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”, yet when speaking of Christ, the translators leave out any instance of foreknowledge of God? While I cannot claim to know the exact reason, I think this poor translation on the part of the TNIV shows a stark theological bias away from the Reformed understanding of foreknowledge.
People like to think that foreknowledge implies God looks down the hallway of time and sees what you will do… so then he chooses you to do it! This is the obvious Arminian perspective. However… while such an understanding seems to work initially in verse 2… it is easy to see this would break down once verse 20 is reached. Are we to understand then that Jesus is the Christ because the Father looked down the corridors of time, saw what Jesus would do, and then made him the Christ to redeem a people unto himself?
This understanding just doesn’t work.
I really have tried to like the TNIV … I really have. It isn’t the worst translation available… and certainly it is more accurate than the NLT at least. Still, in instances like this, I can’t bring myself to switch. Not that I would ever switch away fully – but be more inclined to use it alongside my ESV as a more readable translation. But I cannot do this if while it may clarify some language it creates a distinction between two instances of foreknowledge and choosing, when the original Greek implies actually a comparison, not a contrasting.
May the 2011 NIV keep the good of the TNIV… and lose the bad translations… and the political correctness. (Seriously, whenever I run into “they” in the TNIV, I HAVE to consult either an ESV or NIV to see if the meaning is really plural or singular.)
*UPDATE*
I figured I should double check something… I just looked on BibleGateway.com @ the NIV rendering of 1Peter… and yes… they made the same error the TNIV did in drawing a distinction between “chosen according to the foreknowledge” and just “chosen”.
This may have come across as me just ranting against the TNIV itself… but this was because at the time I wrote this, I was reading from the TNIV rather than the NIV. Still… the issue remains the same. The bad translation choice used in 1 Peter by CBT muddies the truth of God’s foreknowledge, allowing for one to understand it as foresight rather than a sovereign and loving relationship with a specific group of people.
I recently received a series of questions from a good friend dealing with some issues/objections she had with Calvinism/Reformed Theology. I truly appreciated the opportunity to share what I explicitly believe in the realm of the Doctrines of Grace with her, and humbled she came to me to know how a Calvinist deals with each of these questions. This is a continuation of this series.
Because these questions are quite common inquires into Reformed Theology, I figured it would be profitable to the body of Christ for me to post my answers here as well. Perhaps I will continue on beyond her questions in writing on/replying to other objections common to Calvinism. Again, I hope this is useful to all who read this.
I am fairly familiar with this question, though in a different way: the “divine rapist” argument. I would state this is far from a genuine description of the Calvinist argument. I say “divine rapist” because famed apologist Norman Geisler says Calvinism turns God into a “divine rapist,” forcing himself upon people who did not choose him of their own free will. It would seem, from this argument, that the one who chooses to love and serve the lover “of their own free will” is happier than the one who is forced by a kind of rape into the relationship. I kindly reject this notion.
I pose another, perhaps more biblical question.
A blind man is walking toward the edge of a cliff. You plead with him to stop… to turn around… to REPENT, as it were. He refuses. He continues walking. Is it then LOVING for the man who sees the danger to say “Okay… you made your choice of your own free will… I offered love, but you didn’t take it. Enjoy”?? Would the person, falling to his death from the edge of the cliff, say of the one who just let him make the choice to fall “well, surely THAT was the LOVING thing to do, rather than actually save me”??
Or would Pastor Mark Driscoll have been loving if he had allowed his infant daughter to exercise her will over and above his? Please please watch.
This video concludes my main “point” of my example.
As to the notion of “free will” of the blind man… I offer this up.
<><
If God’s foreknowledge is merely foresight… or future-seeing… and God is truly actively trying his hardest to save everyone – but will ultimately fail b/c not all will abide in him… doesn’t God know that his attempts are futile? Why is he then wasting his time?
I recently received a series of questions from a good friend dealing with some issues/objections she had with Calvinism/Reformed Theology. I truly appreciated the opportunity to share what I explicitly believe in the realm of the Doctrines of Grace with her, and humbled she came to me to know how a Calvinist deals with each of these questions. This is a continuation of this series.
Because these questions are quite common inquires into Reformed Theology, I figured it would be profitable to the body of Christ for me to post my answers here as well. Perhaps I will continue on beyond her questions in writing on/replying to other objections common to Calvinism. Again, I hope this is useful to all who read this.
It gives me a great boldness in the presentation of the gospel. I can firmly proclaim the truth, unwatered down, because I am assured that all the Father gives to Jesus will come to Christ; that person shall never be cast out, and that Christ will raise that person on the last day (John 6:35-44). I have assurance that God will use my sharing the gospel to accomplish all of his purposes. It isn’t my fault if they don’t respond to the gospel… they are not rejecting me, they are rejecting God. I offer them the good news of Christ’s saving work to atone for sin, that if they repent and believe they will believe, they will be adopted into the family of God. I share them the law of God – which shows their wickedness and that they are actually bad, not good. Then I share the news of God’s glorious grace. 
The gospel is just that: good news. Not good news about me – I am not the gospel! The gospel isn’t something that happened to me. It happened 2,000 years ago. The sharing of the gospel is telling the wondrous news of what CHRIST did to save sinners: his death, burial, and resurrection, atoning the sins of all who repent and believe. Because of the Doctrines of Grace, as it were, I can proclaim this message with boldness, without fear. Will some be turned off by the message? Yes, because their hearts are hearts of stone. But I know God, not I, will not allow his word to return void. He is the one who can take my pitiful voice or words, proclaiming a “foolish” gospel, and turn their hearts of stone into hearts of flesh.
We don’t talk people into becoming Christian… we share the good news of God’s glorious grace when they are made aware of their wretchedness before a Holy God, and God does the work of bringing them to repentance and faith.
Catching up on my Scripture reading according to the ENGAGE plan from The Journey in St. Louis, I came to Genesis 10. A genealogy. A long list of names of members in the family. So and so begot so and so. This guy has 3 sons, A, B, and C. To A was born G and H, from which the Ginitites were from. … etc. When arriving at one of these genealogies, there is GREAT temptation to skip over it… or skim over it. I did read it… but I admit I had the help of the ESV Listener’s Bible on my iPod as I read along. This made it easier to read through, for certain.
Yet there is no denying the importance of these genealogies. It is part of what separates the Bible from fairy tales and folklore in many cases. When you sit down to hear the story of Hansel and Gretel, there is no mistaken it is a mere fable. These stories are set, for good reason, Once Upon A Time, In A Land Far, Far Away… (George Lucas would masterfully remix this famous opening to: “A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, Far Away…”). It is because they have no real setting in reality. The stories themselves exist not within reality, but only in the context of a make-believe story.
The Biblical narrative, by stark contrast, is firmly grounded in reality. The Genealogies in Genesis, in Matthew and Luke attest to this. It is not as if these characters, for the most part, appear out of thin air. This is not to say that everyone in the biblical story are given a deep back story. They aren’t. But the core of the biblical narrative is grounded, if read plainly, in a historical reality. Noah really did live – here is his family line, and here are his list of children and family line after him. Jesus really existed and was born of Mary. Here is his family tree to show the legitimacy of him being a real figure. It gives enormous credibility to the Bible.
So don’t just read over it as fast as you can or merely ignore it. The Holy Spirit chose to reveal it in this way for a reason, and it is therefore important. The Bible is not a mere collection of fables and folklore. It is truth – the most important truth to ever be conveyed in this history of the universe.
While attending The Journey this summer, I received several inserts in bulletin inserts containing amazing quotes. Currently I am using one of these inserts to read CS Lewis’ Surprised By Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. In any case, this particular collection of quotes are amazing reflections/insights into the importance of the cross of Christ, where the gospel resides. I will proceed to post these as status updates on facebook, but I wanted to write them down in a more organized location also. Here they are, in the order presented on the page.
.jpg)
“The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man… puts himself where only God deserves to be; God… puts himself where man deserves to be.”
- John Stott, The Cross of Christ.
“Learn to know Christ and him crucified. Learn to sing to him and say, Lord you are my righteousness, I am your sin. You took on you what was mine; yet set on me what was yours. You became what you were not that I might become what I was not.”
- Martin Luther
“Man is alienated from God by sin and God is alienated from man by wrath. It is in the substitutionary death of Christ that sin is overcome and wrath averted, so that God can look on man without displeasure and man can look on God without fear. Sin is expiated and God is propitiated.”
- David Wells
<><
This was the responsive reading today @ Boulevard Baptist, where Kacey and I currently attend. When I sat down this evening to read 1 Tim, I did not know that I would choose this verse, necessarily, to write about on here. Interesting.
I will not take the time to quote the verse in length… feel free to look it up yourself and then proceed. As always, I recommend the ESV, but also see the benefit in the NIV, NASB, and NKJV, depending on the verse.
I do want to focus, however, primarily on verse 15: ”The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” This seemingly simple statement boldly proclaims why Christ came in his humble incarnation, which many Christians around the world celebrate between December 25 – January 6. It wasn’t to merely show us an example of how to live and love. Did he live a perfect life, free from sin? Absolutely. Did he also love perfectly? Yes. (It is interesting, then, that Christ’s perfect love included the action of calling false teachers and the Pharisees ”vipers” and accusing them of being children of Satan… we in 21st century America do not see this as a very “loving” thing to do… but that is a problem not with Christ but with our fallen understanding of what true love indeed is.) To say that he did not provide a perfect example would be to say that he was sinful.
Providing an example was NOT, however, his reason for coming to this fallen realm. Even if that was our goal as Christians – for us to follow and to get others to follow Christ’s example… guess what? We just epically fail. We can’t follow his example. We can’t. Do you love perfectly? Yeah, neither do I. Even if we started now in following his example… and could do it perfectly… the old bag/bird lady from Home Alone 2 is wrong… good deeds do NOT erase bad deeds, whether or not it is Christmas Eve. So you are still stuck with x # of years of crap you’ve done prior to your pathetic attempt to follow Christ’s example.
I am thankful that this isn’t the gospel, after all!! If it were… who would be saved? To say nothing about those who died in their sins before the incarnation… if the good news of Christ consisted of: “Hey y’all! Follow me! Walk this way!”… who could be saved? That would not be good news… it’d be pathetically bad news, because we can’t do it. That’d be like Jesus coming to me and saying “Okay Ryan, to be saved, just use your free will and teleport to New Zealand and you’ll be saved! Oh… you can’t telport anywhere? TOO BAD! Guess you’re screwed and damned to Hell! See ya!” I hope I was not too crass concerning our Lord, but I find the example still remains. (It is this same example I would use to describe why I’m so gracious for God’s sovereign choice in electing and saving me rather than leaving it up to my own free will to somehow choose what is inherently contrary to my nature as a sinful spiritually dead creature.)
Jesus as an example? Not his mission. What is it? To save sinners. How does he do this? The cross of Christ. 1Corinthians 15 provides and excellent, if brief, summary of the Gospel. Romans 3 is another amazing example. Christ came, lived the perfect life we could not live, died the atoning death we could not die as an acceptable atoning sacrifice on our behalf, and he rose on the 3rd day conquering death and the grave, and now is seated at the right hand of the Father, until the day he comes again in his second coming to judge the quick and the dead. Our response to this is repentance and trust in Christ’s work on our behalf to save us and bring us new life – not new life in terms of freedom from financial trouble or a better more fulfilling sex life with a spouse… but new life as in no longer enslaved to the sinful nature. This is the gospel in its beauty.
Especially beautiful about 1Tim 1:15… even though I may not spend as much time on it as it may deserve… is the phrase “of whom I am the foremost.” The term, “I am” here is, in the Greek, eimi, and conveys a present indicative. Paul did say “Christ came to save sinners… of whom I was chief.” Do you see the difference? Numerous YouTube nuts, such as OpenAirPreacher, try and preach this horrid teaching that you can just, by your will power, stop sinning. It is semi-Palagian at best… and out and out Palagian heresy at worst from the pit of Hell. Paul himself here and in Romans 7 identifies himself presently as as sinner. Not as a former sinner. Truly, there is a sinner and saint distinction in the scripture… often “sinner” is the one who is unregenerate, while “saint” is the one who is saved by grace through faith and therefore is in Christ. But as far as perfect sanctification… someone ceasing sinning all together… not found here or anywhere else in Scripture preached aright.
Paul himself identifies himself as a sinner… a sinner Christ came to save. Christ’s blood is not only effectual up until the point you repent and believe… and then the rest is up to you. Christ’s blood is sufficient for me even in my present sinful state. It is not someone that just gets me in the door of Christianity… it is the whole of Christianity in many ways! It is all about Christ’s atoning sacrifice, period. Christ came to save sinners… of whom I am, presently, one of them. I do not boast in my sin… rather I boast in Christ whose blood is sufficient to cover my sin. I boast in Christ who daily intercedes on my behalf.
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
I recently received a series of questions from a good friend dealing with some issues/objections she had with Calvinism/Reformed Theology. I truly appreciated the opportunity to share what I explicitly believe in the realm of the Doctrines of Grace with her, and humbled she came to me to know how a Calvinist deals with each of these questions.
Because these questions are quite common inquires into Reformed Theology, I figured it would be profitable to the body of Christ for me to post my answers here as well. Perhaps I will continue on beyond her questions in writing on/replying to other objections common to Calvinism. Again, I hope this is useful to all who read this.
Question #2:
How do you know Ryan Gill is a chosen one (a member of the elect)?
How do I, Ryan Gill, know I am “numbered among the elect”? Simple: I have responded to the Gospel call (to turn form my sin and believe/trust in Christ’s atoning work alone to save) by repentance and faith. I do not trust in my work to save, but only in God alone to save me. I do believe in Christ, and therefore I have eternal life (John 3:15; 6:47). In light of John 6:44 &65, I know I CAN’T come to Christ unless the Father draws me. I came to faith in Christ as a direct result of the Father drawing me… like a fisherman draws his net full of dead fish upon a shore. … And this may not be very “Baptistically correct” … but I can also look toward my Baptism… for in my Baptism I was “buried with Christ in baptism, in which I was also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised me from the dead” (Colossians 2:12). And because of this, I also have assurance that I have been sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, a guarantee of our inheritance (Eph 1:13-14). I know I am “chosen” because I desire the God of Scriptures… and I would hate him if I were still in my sins.
For a more articulate explanation… this video may serve better. It addresses a girl who texts Pastor Mark and asks, “How can I know if I am elect?”
