The following is a paper I wrote on the topics of reprobation, double predestination, hardening, and the like, based on an in depth study of Paul’s words in the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. Below you will find links to my Romans 9 translation/diagram as well as a download of the entire paper in PDF format.
My Romans 9.1-2 translation and diagram which I used throughout this paper.
Ephesians 2:8 states that one is saved by grace through faith. Now, this is a relatively well known verse. And the concept of salvation by means of faith in Christ and His saving work alone is also relatively well known, at least among evangelicalism.
Maybe your familiar with this truth. I hope you are. But have you ever thought to yourself, “why faith? Why is it that faith saves as opposed to something else like good deeds, joy, sorrow, gladness, or a sense of surreal peace?” Obviously it was God who determined faith to be the means of man’s salvation; it’s not as if this was some external law or obligation that was imposed on Him. So, why faith? Why is God’s plan of saving people by His grace through faith. Why does He count those with faith as righteous (Rom 4:3; cf. Gen 15:6)?
On January 28th I posted a youtube video of an excerpt of a sermon by John Piper in which he described the real difference between the Arminian view of atonement (unlimited or universal) and the Calvinistic view of atonement (historically called limited atonement). (Click here to see that post). Yesterday I was reading a book by Mark Dever entitled The Gospel and Personal Evangelism. At one point in the book, Dever makes a statement in passing regarding the the decisiveness of Christ’s atonement which really hits at the crux of this “extent of the atonement” debate. Again, instead of being a debate over universal v. limited extent, the centerpiece of the issue is whether Christ’s death was a potential or effectual atonement.
The apostles clearly learned from Jesus how they were to understand his death on the cross; and to teach Christians about this, the Holy Spirit has inspired various images in the New Testament that convey the reality to us: Jesus as a sacrifice, a redemption, a reconciliation, a legal justification, a military victory, and a propitiation.
I just finished this book yesterday. This is certainly not some high academic, grit-your-teeth-through-it book. It is written at the average person’s level, very easy to read (I read it in three days without much dedication), and very enjoyable.
The book is about evangelism, but more so, as Mark Dever says in the book’s foreward, “Mack puts the evangel [the Gospel] back in evangelism.” In other words, the main thrust of the book is not directly the idea of sharing the Gospel but understanding the Gospel and then seeing how a precise understanding of the Gospel affects the way you share it. It is an excellent book and the truths within it are surely something, as Christians, we all need to hear and be reminded of constantly. If we think we know the Gospel, we don’t know ourselves. We are inclined to forget the Gospel, neglect the Gospel, de-emphasize the Gospel, add to the Gospel (which in reality subtracts from the Gospel), distort the Gospel, tone down the Gospel, etc. We need reminders such as this.
Here is an excerpt from the last chapter of the book. I believe this portion summarize the main themes rather well.
On January 13th I published a post analyzing and critiquing the viral video by Jefferson Bethke entitled, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” (see my earlier post here). This post got lit up with lots of attention and traffic–far more than I expected. I got plenty of feedback from plenty of people, some positive, so not so positive. Among those who responded more negatively, some seemed to have the impression that I did not see any value or benefits in the video (on the contrary, I was simply presenting a caution). Due to this, I’ve decided to write a “part 2” on the strengths/benefits of Bethke’s “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.” By doing so, I want it to be clear that I am not attempting to retract my initial criticisms/cautions. However, I am presenting a balanced perspective that probably should be taken.
Continue reading
Kirk E. Miller 