Video Resources on Courtship

 The Four Stages of Courtship

Dating, Courtship, and Marriage

What a Man Is Not

The True Nature of the Religion of Liberalism/"Progressivism"

Two men were seeking the affection of a young lady. Both decided that one night each of them would go to the father and ask to court her. The one took the usual long roads that led to the girl's house. The other man, however, thought that if he could get there first, he would have an advantage. So took a shortcut through the pig farm that would give him a straight path to her house. When he showed up first, however, his request was denied by her father. Just then the other man showed up and asked the same question. The father told him yes. The first man was confused as to why he was denied when the other man who came the same night and stood on the same porch with the same question was granted his request. The father replied, "Because what ended up mattering the most was not that you arrived at the same place, but rather what road you took to get here."

I often get labeled as a liberal by fundamentalists. Strange but true since liberal evangelicals see me as the staunchest of fundamentalists. I figure if fundamentalists and liberals both don't like you, it probably means that you're not brainwashed by either one of their cults.

But what is liberalism really? I get labeled that because of the way I may date a biblical book like Daniel, or pay attention to genres that evangelicals and fundamentalists often ignore like in the case of Ecclesiastes, or concede to the idea that a biblical author may have compiled sources in Isaiah or the Pentateuch (this last one is particularly weird since they are fine with authors using sources in any other book since those books state it explicitly, i.e., Luke, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). 

But none of this has to do with what makes up liberalism. Yes, liberals believe similar things about Isaiah or Jonah or Daniel, but they have attempted to undermine the authority of the Bible with these things and in no way do they accomplish that goal. In fact, the real reason why they have attempted to use this information to undermine the Bible's authority is because they are attempting an apologetic justification for a liberal epistemology. And that is the true identification marker of a liberal, his epistemology. How does he come to know what he knows about God, Jesus, heaven, hell, sin, the atonement, the virgin birth, etc.?

Liberal epistemology is self-referential  à la Kant or Schleiermacher. One knows what is true through his own reason and/or intuitions. The Scripture opposes this idea by saying that man cannot know these things in his finite and fallen nature and therefore must receive and has received revelation from God to inform him.

The liberal does not like that because it refutes his religion so he seeks to undermine biblical authority by showing it to be so human that it is prone to err, and hence, it is in the same boat as any other group of human beings who are left to their own intuitions.

Couple that with the arrogance of the Enlightenment in seeing itself as "progressing" in its understanding of spiritual things (a faulty non sequitur of an assumption made because it has progressed technologically) and now the liberal thinks he or she has some ground to critique the Bible for being more evolved in some places and lesser evolved in others in its understanding when judged by ours.

So liberalism has really nothing to do with whether you think there are one or three Isaiahs. 

Likewise, orthodox Christians better get wise real fast since the new liberals can affirm the Trinity and virgin birth (those were just originally denied by some liberals as a part of their antisupernaturalist apologetic--other liberals were fine affirming them). Instead, they are see in our day in their arguments that degrade the Bible to a compilation of human experience that may contain error about gender roles, sexuality, and critical race theory when compared to our enlightened understanding of these things.

In other words, these fundamentalists who are trying to safeguard Christianity from liberalism because they're looking for external denials of certain doctrines have missed the mark. Yes, whoever denies those things is not a Christian but whoever affirms them may still be a liberal in the church, infecting it with a completely foreign religion due to its completely opposite epistemology. 

In that regard, it isn't simply a matter that the person has come to the same place as other Christians have on certain issues. What really matters is what road they took to get there. 

Some More Reformed Commentators of the 16th Century on the Image of God

"Some refer [the image] to dominion over creatures, that humans should preside over all just as God does; others connect it to the mind. but I think the image and likeness is what we call the law of nature: "What you would have done to you, do to others!' This image is inscribed and impressed on our hearts. Brute beasts do not have this; rather, nature has assigned animals of every kind to protect themselves in life and body. Therefore, those who attend to justice, who seek God, who imitate God and Christ in innocence of life toward all as well as doing good to them in turn--these are the ones, in the final analysis, who bear that ancient image of God, which has been cleansed and restored by Christ. For just as in Adam we are all corrupted, so in Christ we are all renewed, when, having been endowed with the divine mind, we conduct ourselves according to the character of Christ." (Zwingli 1484-1531) 

"Adam himself, who felt and experienced this image before he first sinned, was able to discuss the image of God much more explicitly than his descendants. The difference between Adam and us is like that between someone who was endowed with sight for a while but became blind, and someone blind from birth. The former can argue about colors because he saw them once upon a time; the latter, because he has never seen colors, how can he dispute about them? In the same way, because we were conceived and born in sin, we cannot understand or explain the true nature of this image except insofar as the Scriptures teach us about it and to the degree that we regain it in this life in Christ and by faith . . . It cannot be regained except by being regenerated by faith in Christ. Truly, may it happen that we may be adopted as God's children, renewed by the Holy Spirit; and begin again to resemble God, until God's perfect image in us is finished and completed in the age to come." (Johannes Brenz 1499-1570)

". . . the image of God according to which humans were created is called the law of human nature, by which one ought to be absolutely eager to do good to all, just as God does. That [image] is possessed neither by brute beasts nor by the impious and the unjust, but rather by those who cultivate righteousness and bear the character of God the Father by imitating Christ the Son of God through their mercy and kindness, innocence of life and gracious generosity. These are the ones who truly bear the image of God--that image according to which they were made, which was immediately corrupted by Adam, and by which Christ was truly cleansed and renewed." (Konrad Pellikan 1478-1556)

"The image of God has two principle parts: wisdom and holiness. Concerning wisdom, Paul says, 'Put on the new self, which is created in knowledge after the image of him which created him.' This wisdom consists in three points. First, he knew God his Creator perfectly, for Adam in his innocence knew God as far as it was fitting for a creature to know his Creator. Second, he knew God's will, as far as it was fitting for him, to show his obedience thereunto. Third, he knew the wisdom and will of his Creator touching the particular creatures: for after Adam was created, the Lord brought every creature unto him, presenting them unto him as being lord and king over them, that he might give names unto them. Whereby it appears that Adam in his innocence knew the nature of all creatures and the wisdom of God in creating them, else he could not have given them fit names; and when God brought Eve unto Adam, he knew her at the first and said, 'This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, etc.' The second part of God's image in us is holiness and righteousness, which is nothing else but a conformity of the will and affections and of a person's whole disposition both in body and soul to the will of God our Creator." (William Perkins 1558-1602)

"My understanding of the image of God is this: that Adam had it in his being and that he not only knew God and believed that He was good, but that he also lived in a life that was wholly godly; that is, he was without fear of death or of any other danger, and was content with God's favor . . . For this reason, too, if the should transgress His command, God announces the punishment: 'On whatever day you eat from this tree, you will die by death', as though He said: 'Adam and Eve, now you are living without fear; death you have not experienced, nor have you seen it. This is My image, by which you are living, just as God lives. But if you sin, you will lose this image, and you will die.' So we now see what great dangers and how many varieties of death and chances of death this wretched nature is compelled to meet with and to endure in addition to the execrable lust and other sinful passions and inordinate emotions that arise in the hearts of all. We are never secure in God; apprehension and terror cause us concern even in sleep. These and similar evils are the image of the devil, who stamped them on us." (Luther)

Answering Some Questions on Free Will and Election

 I made a comment on a previous blogpost years ago, "God creates every moral creature with a free will to choose." A comment left asked a series of questions about it. Here they are and then my answers to follow.

What does the Calvinist mean by "a free will to choose?" A "free will" to "choose" to do only what God has determined through secondary causes that he will "freely choose" to do? A "free will" to "choose" to sin at God's decree? 

By "a free will to choose" I mean that nothing is restricting what he wants to do but his nature and desires alone. In other words, there is nothing and no one outside of himself that is forcing him to do contrary to his nature and desires. His own nature limits him and his own desires limit him, and he is influenced by numerous outside forces, but he, when all is said and done, is making a real choice in accordance with who he is.

Has God decreed whatsoever comes to pass, even the sin's of his creatures?

Yes. In fact, whether God actually decrees everything that comes to pass or not, He is ultimately the source of whatever comes to pass in every system, and therefore, had to actualize whatever comes to pass in one way or another. The issue is simply whether what He has actualized was part of a very well thought out plan that was either defensive (Arminian) or offensive (Calvinist), or just dumb luck (in the case of Neotheism).

The sins of his creatures, however, are not caused by God directly, as you note above. Instead, the sin nature of man, if without the restrictions God has decreed over it, would run complete and without restraint, which means that they would sin every second in the worst possible ways that they could. Instead, God restricts their acts through their desires (fear, love, honor/shame, etc.), so that He only takes those restrictions away when He has decreed to use their sin for His good purposes.

Can a person "freely choose" to believe on Christ for salvation? Or does the fact that God is sovereign over salvation mean that one can only "freely choose" to reject the Savior of himself, even when God graciously, but ineffectually "calls" him? 

Yes, absolutely. A person always freely chooses to believe in Christ for salvation. The free will of a person is effectually influenced by God, not commandeered. There is an enlightenment of the will through regeneration so that the desires of a person are changed and he then freely chooses to believe in Christ for salvation. If you're asking whether a man in his fallen state freely chooses to believe in Christ for salvation then I would say, no, but this has nothing to do with the freedom of the will to choose but the freedom of the will from influence. I do not believe the will is free from influence and it is, therefore, in bondage to the deception and fleshly desires of sin and rebellion. 

Does the fact that God is sovereign over salvation mean that one cannot freely choose to come to Christ for salvation unless God has chosen before the foundation of the world to effectually draw him to Christ? 

Right. Since a man will never choose contrary to his desires, it is again not a matter of an inability that the will has but rather the bondage of the will to deception and rebellion. Hence, he needs to be freed from this slavery as the Israelites were freed from Egyptian bondage. Once this occurs, his will is effectually influenced to choose Christ as he was predestined to do. 

Can a person freely choose to come to Christ if he is not one of the elect from before the foundation of the world? 

This may shock you but yes. He just won't ever do it. This question is sort of like asking whether a person who hates the taste of battery acid can choose to have it for dinner. Of course he can. Will he? No.

Can the number of the elect be increased or decreased?

Hypothetically, because man can choose, it can be. Will it be? No. We know this because God has decreed that number already and it is impossible for it to be a different number since it is impossible for God to be wrong. We also know that it will not be different because fallen man will never choose God without being regenerated. Hence, the number God has decreed is the number it will always be, but this is not because man cannot freely choose. It is rather because what he will freely choose is known by God due, not merely to God knowing the future, but to the fact that God has decreed not to grant to him the necessary regeneration in order to free his will from the influence of his own deception and rebellion.