Hardening

We've been studying Exodus in the Bible readings. We've spent a while discussing the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. People have been saying the same things I've heard for years: some think God hardened Pharaoh's heart first, others think Pharaoh hardened his own heart first.

I'm starting to think the bigger point is that when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, He got exactly the same results as when Pharaoh hardened his own heart. That is, man of his own will puts himself into the same hardness of heart that God brought to Pharaoh.

Occasionally God offers a divine commentary on Scripture, where one passage is a commentary on another. The story of Pharaoh's heart is one of those stories: Romans 9:14–22 is a divine commentary on the story of Pharaoh's destruction, and it really doesn't help very much. If anything, Romans 9 makes it more difficult.

Exodus 4:21 and Romans 9:14–20 are difficult passages. But the problem isn't that they're difficult to understand, it's that they're difficult to accept. What God actually tells Moses in Exodus 4:21–23 is something like this: "I want you to command Pharaoh to let My people go; and I will harden his heart so that he won't let them go, and then I will punish him for not listening." That's not very hard to understand, but it's really, really hard to accept, because it seems so unfair.

Romans 9 addresses this specific objection:

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (Romans 9:19, NASB).

And what is the scriptural reply to this question? It's very simple: who are you to judge God? (v. 20). That's not a very satisfying answer, but it is a deeply searching answer. It doesn't help us at all to understand Exodus 4, or even Romans 9:19. But it reveals our own hearts. And I have come to the conclusion that until we accept Romans 9:20, we can't really go on to the verses following. It's only after we accept the answer in that verse – that we have no right to judge God – that we can understand the following verses. And what do they say? That God has every right to take one man and show him mercy, while refusing to show mercy to someone else.

So let's go back to Pharaoh. Exodus tells us that before Moses ever spoke to Pharaoh, God had declared His intention to harden Pharaoh's heart "so that he will not let the people go" (v. 21). So yes, it was according to God's "determinate counsel" that Pharaoh did not listen: God was determined to destroy Pharaoh. But before there is any record at all of the state of Pharaoh's heart, the Scripture records his condemnation from his own lips: "Who is Jehovah that I should obey him?" (Exodus 5:2).

And this, I think, is a point we so often overlook in the story of Pharaoh. People who tend towards a "freewill" viewpoint spend a lot of time pointing out that Pharaoh hardened his own heart several times before God hardened it. People who tend towards an "election" viewpoint point out that God had already declared His intention to harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever spoke to him. (And as a point of fact, they're both correct.) But this is the bigger point, I think: whether it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, or Pharaoh himself (and Scripture teaches both), the result was the same. Fallen men and women may not be capable of coming to Christ on their own, but they are experts hardening their own hearts.

Which takes us back to this: Men and women – sons and daughters of Adam – are not only guilty sinners, they are lost, guilty sinners. I listened to a sermon several times over the last month or so on "The Dangers of Calvinism and Arminianism". It was really more of a long rant about "calvinists" than anything else. What I found interesting was that the speaker kept insisting the Scripture teaches a "whosoever will Gospel". This preacher would doubtless classify me as a "calvinist"; but I, too, believe Scripture teaches a "whosoever will Gospel". The problem isn't that the Gospel is limited, the problem is that men and women in and of themselves won't. The problem is that "whosoever will" is an empty set. No one wills. That's what Romans 3:10–18 teaches, right? None seeks after God. It's not so much that God prevents sinners from believing (although Matthew 13:13–16 seem to indicate He sometimes does), it's that there is no chance anyone would seek after God without His active interference. Which is, after all, what the Lord Jesus explicitly taught in John 6:37–44, but perhaps we'll save those verses for another time.

Judgement

I stumbled across William Kelly's article on wine. I wasn't really looking for it, but it was a fascinating read.

Near the end he discusses the whole issue of the inspiration if Scripture, including this gem:

The practical consequence also is clear. Man sits in judgment upon that word which shall judge him at the last day, and censures with various degrees of incredulity the Pentateuch of Moses, Canticles, Daniel, the Gospels, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. He cannot find what he expects a priori, and at once stigmatizes such and such books as at issue with his ephemeral notions, and therefore not given by inspiration of God. That is, his poor, proud mind, constitutes itself the umpire of what God ought to be and to reveal, and condemns whatever is against or above itself!

Submission

[L]et us remember that the human mind enters a labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus submit to be guided by the divine oracles, how much soever the mystery may be beyond our reach. – John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 13, Section 21

Seeking

I've heard a couple people say, "a seeking Savior and a seeking sinner will always find each other." That's a nice thought, but scripture seems to teach the opposite. Scripture says the Savior sought for seeking sinners, and He couldn't find a single one (Romans 3:11).
 

Root cause

I was interested to read through 1 Corinthians 8–10 a few months ago in the Bible Readings and see that Scripture differentiates between idols and idolatry. Idols are "nothing" in this world (1 Corinthians 8:4), but idolatry is very real (1 Corinthians 10:6–10, 14).

It's sort of cliche to say it, but really almost anything can become an idol. A lot of Christians have idols. It's probably safe to say that all Christians have idols. But 1 Corinthians 8–10 makes the point that really, the issue isn't the idol, the issue is idolatry. Consider the connection with Colossians 3:1–7. In Colossians, believers have died with Christ, we have been buried with Him, and we have been raised with Him (Colossians 2:9–12). But when we get to Colossians 3, we find to our surprise that we have "members on the earth" (Colossians 3:5). And notice, the final of those members that Colossians lists, is "unbridled desire, which is idolatry".

Let's think about idols for a moment. One of the hot-button topics today is pornography. There seems to be a lot of concern among Christians about it, so let's talk about it for a few minutes. No doubt pornography is a real idol for a lot of believers. Their bondage to it is real and the pain is real . But there is an obvious fact that doesn't seem to occur to a lot of people: pornography has basically no power over people who don't look at it.

I know people are going to object that there are secondary effects on all of us, and I'm sure there are. But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm making is that when a person is looking at pornography, the problem isn't the image on the page (or the computer screen); the problem is in the heart.

Many believers find themselves with some sort of besetting sin: some sin or vice or habit over which they have no apparent victory. And as much as they abhor that sin or vice or habit, they find themselves entangled in it again and again. What's the real problem here? It's not that they don't despise the sin, but they are missing the point. The key to victory over sin isn't to despise the sin, but to despise the self.

It has taken me many years (and a considerable amount of pain) to see this. It's not enough to despise some particular sin. It's not enough even to recognize the presence of sin in my own flesh (Romans 7:17–18, 23). It's not even enough to recognize my own powerlessness over sin, although that's absolutely necessary. There is a deeper truth even than that,the truth of Colossians 3: we all have members on the earth, and there is no remedy for them except death (Colossians 3:5). When I find myself tempted to sin, it's proof that there is some unmortified and unjudged flesh in me.

(I've mentioned before that I have come around to Darby's view that Romans 7 actually discusses a man who is born again, but not sealed with the Holy Spirit. But Romans 8:12–14 shows there is a practical sense where a believer who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit may find him or herself in a very similar experience.)

We have a tendency to think that temptation is not sin. It's all right to be tempted, as long as we don't give in to that temptation and actually sin. But that's not really what Scripture teaches (James 1:13–15). Johnny D. says,

Temptation is used in two senses in scripture. We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed, and we are tempted from without by the enemy. The latter the Lord underwent, the former of course never. All this is confounded by Mr. S. He says temptation is not sin... Does it come from the life and Spirit of Christ in us? – 'Review of R. Pearsall Smith on "Holiness through Faith."', Collected Writings, Volume 23, p. 190

Temptation might not be the same as sinning, but it is proof that there is sin in me. And this is really the point, isn't it? I couldn't be tempted if I hadn't lusts.

Ultimately, fornication, lust, and uncleanness aren't produced by temptation. They were there all along. It's that we haven't obeyed Colossians 3:5 – we haven't mortified our members on the earth. The real problem is that we have not been willing to judge the flesh in God's presence. It's proof that we haven't judged ourselves.

Perhaps Job illustrates this best. At the start of the story of Job, we're told, "this man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God and abstained from evil" (Job 1:1). Would that the same could be said of me! But the end of the story, we have a somewhat different Job, "I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6). At the start of the book, we have a man who doesn't sin. But at the end of the book, we have a repentant man. Why is he repentant? Because he started sinning? Not at all, because he learned that he was lost. It's one thing to recognize I am guilty, it's quite another to recognize I am lost.

So what should we do when we are tempted? Temptation is proof that there is a need for self-judgment. It's proof that one of those "members on the earth" has gone unjudged. It's proof that I have not accepted what God has said of me.

For years I have known Colossians 3. I memorized that chapter back when I [foolishly] thought that memorizing Scripture would somehow earn me favor with God. I memorized it again later, with much better motives, when I was part of a Bible study working through the epistle. But I have been freshly convicted by this passage in the last months. Probably at some point in my life, I thought Colossians 3:5 was a command to self-denial and spiritual discipline. Now I'm convinced it's teaching something quite different: it's self-judgment in God's presence. It's what Scripture calls "repentance".

No true theologian

I was reading a blog post a few weeks ago, I can't remember whose blog. But I do remember the author was defending "dispensationalism". Among the comments were several by people of the Reformed persuasion, who were quite adamant that there are really no "dispensationalist" theologians. By which I suppose they mean "no true theologian is a dispensationalist".

There are indeed formal theologians who hold to "dispensationalism". But the accusation that "dispensationalism" is a populist movement has a great deal of merit. I suppose the real question is, is that bad?

I'm not a theologian by any stretch, but I have read the Scriptures many times. And what I find when I read the Scriptures is that they were written to some pretty ordinary people. It's true that there were remarkable people like Paul (who was a theologian). But there were a lot more people like Peter, whom the religious leaders dismissed as uneducated (Acts 4:13–16).

It's interesting that Paul didn't seem to consider his formal training to be an asset in the Christian life (Philippians 3:3–11). In fact, it was Paul who said that the path to Christ-likeness is the path of abnegation. Paul wrote, "we ourselves had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:9). The more I read Paul's epistles, the more I learn that God is not interested in what I have to offer: talent, intelligence, education, training – God is not interested in any of these things, He is interested in new creation (Galatians 6:15).

Of course, when someone points out one's lack of formal theological training, what they're really saying is that one is not in any position to understand the Scriptures. This is really nothing more than poisoning the well. If the person without the formal theological training appeals to Scripture, then he or she can be dismissed: after all, without formal theological training, how can one actually understand what the Scripture says?

When Peter was questioned by the high priest, the audience noted that he was "unlettered" (Acts 4:13). But they also recognized that a miracle had occurred, and they couldn't deny that a man who was widely known to have been incurably lame could now walk (Acts 4:14).

Ultimately, this is the only true test of our faith: what is the result? Is there evidence that the power of God is working in me? Do my neighbors and co-workers and friends see the life of Jesus manifested in my mortal flesh (2 Corinthians 4:11)? If they don't, formal theological training (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. If they do, formal theological training (or lack thereof) adds nothing.

If we believe that the Scriptures are God's own words, then we believe that God has spoken. Call it populist, but a child of God doing his or her best to hear and understand what God has said is nothing more than the inevitable conclusion of the sincere belief that God has spoken.

I think about this frequently. I work in a very competitive company, surrounded by smart people. They don't need to see my intelligence (or lack of it). They don't need to see my mad skillz. They sure don't need to see I have a grasp of the intricacies of Hebrew grammar or the subtleties of Augustine's arguments. They need to see the life of Jesus manifested in my mortal flesh (2 Corinthians 4:11). They need to see the power of resurrection, and I ought to be showing it (Philippians 3:9–10).

Sealing with the Holy Spirit

John 14:1; Romans 4:5; Ephesians 1:12–13

I mentioned this is passing in a Bible reading, and I'm not sure people really understood what I was talking about. So I thought I'd clarify it here.

It is a well-known fact that J. N. Darby believed someone could be born again without being sealed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the falling-out between Darby and F. W. Grant was over this very issue: FWG taught that a believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit at the moment of new birth.

I don't know how many times I've read his "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost" (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 31, pp. 254–280). The first time I read it, I was struck with this statement:

That a person may be born again, and not have received the Holy Ghost, is perfectly certain according to Scripture, for "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," and this the disciples did while Christ was on earth, but could not have the Holy Ghost, which did not come until the day of Pentecost; though they had life, and were clean through the word. (p. 262)

The logic here is pretty much irrefutable; but there is some question as to whether we can apply that to believers today: of course the disciples weren't sealed with the Holy Spirit before He descended! But now that the Holy Spirit has come, is it still possible to be born again without being sealed?

I think the answer to that lies in John 14:1, "ye believe on God, believe also on me".

There is no question that God justifies the one who believes Him (Romans 4:5). We've covered this ground many times before, so we needn't go into great detail now. But Romans is clear that all God is looking for is for sinners to believe Him. Abraham, scripture tells us, was counted righteous when he believed what God told him about his having a son (Genesis 15:3–6). God has set the lowest possible bar: believe Him, and He counts you righteous. In fact, Romans goes farther even than that, and assures us that when someone believes God, God counts that person as one to whom He will not account sin (Romans 4:6–9). So if we believe God, He counts us righteous; and when He counts us righteous, He also counts us as people whose sins He will not count. In other words, it's not possible for God to think of sin in connection with someone who believes Him.

I've said before that this is Old Testament truth, and it certainly is. Romans 4 makes that argument very clearly: the whole point of Romans 4 is to demonstrate that righteousness without works is the teaching of the Old Testament. God has never counted anyone righteous on any other basis than faith.

But the sealing with the Holy Spirit is explicitly not Old Testament truth. John 7:39 clearly names the coming of the Holy Spirit as a result of the exaltation of Christ. Peter takes up this theme in Acts 2, and says that the [very visible] signs of the Holy Spirit's presence in and among the disciples was proof that Christ has been glorified in heaven (Acts 2:32–33). In other words, he claims that the Holy Spirit's presence on earth was a direct result of Christ's sitting on God's right hand in Heaven.

So Romans says that a sinner is justified when he believes God (Romans 4:5). But John and Ephesians say that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe on Christ (John 7:39; Ephesians 1:12–14). Is there a difference between believing God and believing on Christ? Apparently there is, because the Lord Jesus said, "ye believe on God, believe also on me" (John 14:1).

Let's consider the story of Paul meeting John's disciples in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7). There's no doubt they had believed God (v. 2); they were on their way to Heaven, their sins all forgiven. But they hadn't received the Holy Spirit (v. 2). So Paul told them they needed to believe on the Lord Jesus (v. 4), and he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 5). Then, after he laid his hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit (v. 6).

Were they justified before Paul met them? Of course they were! They had believed God (v. 2), and Romans assures us that God justifies the one who doesn't work but believes (Romans 4:5). So they certainly were justified. But they hadn't received the Holy Spirit, because they hadn't believed on Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4–5).

And this is exactly what Ephesians 1:13 affirms, isn't it? It is having believed on Christ that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit (note the "in whom" in v. 13 refers back to "the Christ" in v. 12).

Can the same thing happen today? Certainly! It is the revelation of Christ ascended to God's right hand that is followed by the sealing with the Holy Spirit. God has set that bar as low as possible for justification and new birth: all He wants is for someone to believe Him. But the bar for the sealing with the Holy Spirit is much higher: it's believing on a risen, ascended, and glorified Christ. Does that mean someone can't be born again and sealed with the Holy Spirit at the same time? Of course it doesn't! But it certainly means that in many (most?) cases, there is some finite period of time between those two events.

So what is the sealing with the Holy Spirit? Galatians 4 says it's the difference between being children and being sons (Galatians 4:1–7). Make no mistake: children of God clearly are part of the family, but they're still treated like little more than the domestic staff (v. 1). Sons, on the other hand, are heirs, on intimate terms with the Father, and fully involved in the family's business and interests (v. 7). And what is the effect of the Spirit's presence in our hearts? It is confidence in God as Father (v. 6). Romans 8:15–18 echoes this same idea, perhaps in more detail.

Johnny D. says it this way:

I add here what Scripture plainly states. If a soul can in truth before God say, Abba, Father, that soul is sealed. If a person really knows that he is in Christ, and Christ in him, he is sealed. If the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, the man is sealed. (Rom. 8; Gal. 4; Rom. 13; John 14; Rom. 10.) Other proofs may be given of if, for the whole life of a man is, save particular failures, the evidence of the Spirit of God dwelling in him; but I take the simplest and most immediate evidence in a man's soul purposely and such as are in terms stated in Scripture. Now what hinders the simple acceptance of this truth is, that the full doctrine of redemption is not believed. (p. 274)

The testimony of Scripture is that Christ has ascended to God's right hand, and I am accepted in Him there. God sees me as complete in Christ. Our place is to honour Him here, while we gaze on Him there (Colossians 3:1–4; 2 Corinthians 3:18). This is the central truth of Christianity: God isn't improving flesh, He accepts me only in Christ. It is as we accept and are content with that place that we begin to walk as Christians.

So yes, I am quite convinced that a man or woman can believe God (thus having eternal life) and not be content to rest in Christ (thus not having the seal of the Holy Spirit). I'm glad to have that off my chest, so to speak.