A Review of Scripture, Culture and Agriculture: an Agrarian Reading of the Bible by Ellen F. Davis: Part 1

I’m a couple chapters into Ellen F. Davis’s work Scripture, Culture and Agriculture: an Agrarian Reading of the Bible. I fully expect the book to satisfy its claim to examine the “theology and ethics of land use, especially the practices of modern industrial agriculture, in light of critical biblical exegesis.” Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible standard by which our faith and practice are to be guided. Yet Christians of the modern industrial era too often neglect our duties (as outlined in Scripture) in regard to land use and agriculture. For most of us, I guess, this is mainly because we fail to draw the lines between what we eat and where that food comes from and how it came to our plate. We need to be reminded that each of us is intimately and daily involved in the agricultural cycle. In “The Pleasures of Eating” Wendell Berry famously wrote that “eating is an agricultural act.” We need to be reminded that there are biblical guidelines on how land is to be responsibly used. We also need to be reminded that there are consequences if we fail to do so.

Wendell Berry wrote the foreword to Davis’s book. Berry wrote that the Israelites “were given, not a land, but the use of a land, along precise instructions for its good care. They could keep the land only upon the condition of their obedience. By their disobedience they were estranged from the land and the covenant by which they received it, and were removed into exile. . . . the Israelites [were] entrusted with what we would call ecological responsibilities. . .” Berry then reminds us of our tremendous failure as a culture:

“We Americans readily saw the parallel between the Israelites’ entrance into the land of Canaan and our own westward expansion. We adopted the simple nationalism of the old story along with its ‘promised land’ idea of ownership prior to settlement – we called it ‘manifest destiny.’ But we conveniently ignored the elaborate agrarianism and ecological stewardship implicit in that story’s insistence upon the land’s sanctity. The result, still continuing, has been desecration and destruction of the land . . . the dominant theme of our history so far has been opposite to beneficent settlement or responsible stewardship. It has been a thoughtless, heartless, greedy plunge into what apparently is still considered an inexhaustible plenty. The irony and absurdity are not fully apparent except in the context of our claim to be a ‘Christian nation.’”

We all, I think, would like to ignore the reality that we have destroyed the land that God has entrusted to our stewardship. What is more disturbing is that we continue to do so, sometimes even using Scripture in an attempt to justify our actions (and often, also, our inaction). Yet, clearly, Scripture tells us that “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor” (Romans 13:9,10). In reference to these verses, Charles Hodge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans wrote, “Love includes all our social duties. . . love delights in the happiness of its object, it effectually prevents us from injuring those we love. . .” Can we love our neighbors, or even our families, while actively destroying our means to live? “It is a contradiction to love your neighbor and despise the great inheritance on which his life depends,” wrote Berry in “The Gift of Good Land.”

In Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology, Francis Schaeffer wrote that Christians must “refuse men the right to ravish our land, just as we refuse them the right to ravish our women. . . . and the first step is exhibiting the fact that as individual Christians and as Christian communities we ourselves do not ravish our fair sister. . . . [we must] treat with integrity the things which God has made, and treat them this way lovingly, because they are His . . . If I love the Lover, I love what the Lover has made.” The Westminster Larger Catechism informs us that the “Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” It is from Scripture only that we learn “what duty God requires” of us. Principles of ecological responsibility are interwoven throughout the beautiful fabric of Scripture. If we were to apply the principles of love and stewardship to our own lives -- if we were to set the example of a holy and healthy life -- then our communities would be more fertile ground for the sowing of the gospel seed.

Wendell Berry on Abundant Life

“In an age of materialist science, economics, art, and politics, we ought not to be much shocked by the appearance of materialist religion. We know we don’t have to look far to find people who equate more abundant life with a bigger car, a bigger house, a bigger bank account, and a bigger church. . . . Abundance, in this verse (John 10:10), cannot refer to an abundance of material possessions, for life does not require a material abundance: it requires only a material sufficiency. . . . Jesus is not proposing to free us by making us richer; he is . . . talking about life. . . . The way to more abundant life is the way of love. We are to love one another, and this love is to be more comprehensive than our love for family and friends and tribe and nation. We are to love our neighbors . . . we are to love our enemies. And this love is to be a practical love; it is to be practiced . . . . To be free of the insane rationalizations for our desire to kill one another – that surely would be to have life more abundantly.” -- Wendell Berry, The Burden of the Gospels (2005)

A narrow fellow . . . on the flower

Sunday morning I found this baby snake curled around a zinnia in the front yard. (Jeremy took the picture.) I was reminded of the Emily Dickinson poem, although this encounter seemed a bit more benign.

Rock City and Wendell Berry

A few weeks ago, we went back to DeSoto State Park near Fort Payne, AL, having gone there last spring and thoroughly enjoying the canyons and trails. This year there weren't as many waterfalls or flowers since it was later in the year, but it was still relaxing. We stayed there and took a day trip to Chattanooga (less than an hour away) to visit the Tennessee Aquarium and Rock City. Naomi loved Rock City. Although I will admit parts of it were a bit kitschy, it was a beautiful stroll. We went early in the morning to avoid crowds, and it was raining lightly for much of the trip, but that just made things seem more ethereal. Along the trails there were signs displaying quotations from various naturalists and conservationists, among them Wendell Berry (although they spelled his name wrong): "We learn from our gardens to deal with the most urgent questions of the time: how much is enough?" Indeed, our culture is much more focused on excess than on limits. Growing a garden forces us to concentrate on simple questions: how much do I really need? How much is too much for me to handle? What if we asked these questions about everything? I think our society would look very different.

Excellent article on the oil spill

Gulf Oil Spill: a Hole in the World
by Naomi Klein


"This Gulf coast crisis is about many things--corruption, deregulation, addiction to fossil fuels. But underneath it all, it's about this: our culture's excruciatingly dangerous claim to have such complete understanding and command over nature that we can radically manipulate and re-engineer it with minimal risk to the natural systems that sustain us."

Berry Smoothie

-1 cup blackberries, blueberries, or both
-1/2 cup plain yogurt
-1/2 cup milk
-1/4 cup honey
-handful of ice

Mix in blender and enjoy!

corn, corn, and more corn

Last Monday we picked, shucked, scrubbed, blanched, scraped and froze a truckload (about 600 ears) of corn. (Jeremy grew it on a generous friend's land, not on our 1/4 acre.)

I'm trying to find new creative uses for it. On Sunday I made creamed corn pancakes, altering the recipe a little since the creamed corn was extra juicy. It was about a cup and a half of fresh creamed corn, 1 egg, 3/4 cup milk, 3/4 cup flour, and 1/2 tsp each baking soda, salt, and sugar. They turned out pretty well, especially covered in local honey!

Tonight's Supper

Homemade pizza on my new pizza stone

Toppings from our garden:

-Tomato sauce (peeled and pureed tomatoes cooked down to thicken with a pinch of sugar and salt)

-yellow squash

-garlic

-purple onions

-cherry tomato halves

-red bell pepper

-purple basil leaves

From the store:

-flour, olive oil, and yeast for homemade crust

-mozzarella cheese

The crust rose well this time and turned out perfect baked on the stone.

The Decades of Heinrich Bullinger

Heinrich Bullinger, one of the great Swiss reformers of the sixteenth century, has been identified as one of the most influential, and yet forgotten, figures of the Protestant Reformation. After Zwingli’s 1531 death on the battlefield of Kappel, Bullinger accepted, as successor, the head ministerial position of Zurich, and there, was pastor until his 1575 death. He was the principle author of the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, 1566. One of his greatest and widely distributed works was the Decades, a collection of five volumes, each volume containing ten sermons. Peter Opitz, wrote the following in “Bullinger’s Decades: Instruction in Faith and Conduct”:

“[F]rom the second half of the sixteenth century until well into the seventeenth century the Decades were one of the best-known theological works, performing a crucial role in the spread of the Reformed faith throughout Europe and beyond. . . . [It] became a familiar resource for countless Reformed preachers in preparation of their sermons. The book was also considered an essential possession for Reformed households . . . termed a ‘housebook’ (Hausbuch) to be read in homes by families for instruction in piety and Christian conduct.”

After impatiently waiting several years (it’s a rather pricey set), now a copy of Bullinger’s “housebook” has been added to my library. My wonderful wife bought me a copy for my birthday. Until now I would read bits and pieces of the work on googlebooks. One of the only irritating things about the set published by The Parker Society is the Table of Contents. It reads: “The First Sermon”, “The Second Sermon”, etc., without including the subject of the sermon. Perhaps that was the method also of the original publisher. So, for my own convenience I wrote the following catalogue of the complete sermon titles. Maybe it will helpful to you as well.

First Decade
Preface – 3
Of the four General Synods or Councils -- 12
Sermon One: Of the Word of God; the cause of it; and how, and by whom, it was revealed to the world -- 36
Sermon Two: Of the Word of God; to whom, and to what end, it was revealed; also in what manner it is to be heard; and that it doth fully teach the whole doctrine of Godliness -- 57
Sermon Three: Of the sense and right exposition of the Word of God, and by what manner of means it may be expounded -- 70
Sermon Four: Of true faith; from whence it cometh; that it is an assured belief of the mind, whose only stay is upon God and His Word -- 81
Sermon Five: That there is one only true faith, and what the virtue thereof is -- 97
Sermon Six: That the faithful are justified by faith without the Law and works -- 104
Sermon Seven: Of the first articles of the Christian faith contained in the Apostles ’ Creed -- 122
Sermon Eight: Of the latter articles of Christian faith contained in the Apostles ’ Creed -- 140
Sermon Nine: Of the latter articles of Christian faith contained in the Apostles ’ Creed -- 157
Sermon Ten: Of the love of God and our neighbor -- 180

Second Decade
Sermon One: Of laws, and of the law of nature, then of the laws of men -- 193
Sermon Two: Of God’s law, and of the two first commandments of the first table -- 209
Sermon Three: Of the third precept of the Ten Commandments, and of swearing -- 237
Sermon Four: Of the fourth precept of the first table, that is, of the order and keeping of the Sabbath-day -- 253
Sermon Five: Of the first precept of the second table, which is in order the fifth of the Ten Commandments, touching the honour due to parents -- 267
Sermon Six: Of the second precept of the second table, which is in order the sixth of the Ten Commandments, thou shalt not kill; and of the magistrate -- 298
Sermon Seven: Of the office of the magistrate, whether the care of religion appertain to him or no, and whether he may make laws and ordinances in cases of religion -- 323
Sermon Eight: Of judgment, and the office of the judge; that Christians are not forbidden to judge: of revengement and punishment: whether it be lawful for a magistrate to kill the guilty; wherefore, when, how and what the magistrate must punish: whether he may punish offenders in religion or no -- 345
Sermon Nine: Of war; whether it be lawful for a magistrate to make war. What the Scripture teacheth touching war. Whether a Christian man may bear the office of a magistrate. And of the duty of subjects -- 370
Sermon Ten: Of the third precept of the second table, which is in order the seventh of the Ten Commandments: thou shalt not commit adultery of wedlock, against all intemperance; of continency -- 393

Third Decade
Dedication to Edward VI -- 3
Sermon One: Of the fourth precept of the second table, which is in order the eighth of the Ten Commandments: thou shalt not steal. Of the owning and possessing of proper goods, and of the right and lawful getting of the same; against sundry kinds of theft -- 17
Sermon Two: Of the lawful use of earthly goods; that is, how we may righty possess and lawfully spend, the wealth that is rightly and justly gotten: of restitution, and alms-deeds -- 48
Sermon Three: Of the patient bearing and abiding of sundry calamities and miseries: and also of the hope and manifold consolation of the faithful -- 64
Sermon Four: Of the fifth and sixth precepts of the second table, which is in order the ninth and tenth of the Ten Commandments, that is, thou shalt not speak false witness against thy neighbour; and thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, &c. -- 111
Sermon Five: Of the Ceremonial Law of God, but especially of the priesthood, time, and place, appointed for the ceremonies -- 125
Sermon Six: Of the Sacraments of the Jews; of their sundry sorts of sacrifices, and certain other things pertaining to their Ceremonial Law -- 167
Sermon Seven: Of the Judicial Laws of God -- 217
Sermon Eight: Of the use or effect of the Law of God, and of the fulfilling and abrogating of the same: of the likeness and difference of the Testaments and people, the old and the new -- 236
Sermon Nine: Of Christian liberty, and of offences. Of good works, and the reward thereof -- 300
Sermon Ten: Of sin, and of the kinds thereof; to wit of original and actual sin, and of sin against the Holy Ghost: and lastly, of the most certain and just punishment of sins -- 358

Fourth Decade
Sermon One: Of the Gospel of the Grace of God, who hath given His son unto the world, and in Him all things necessary to salvation, that we, believing in Him, might obtain eternal life -- 1
Sermon Two: Of repentance, and the causes thereof; of confession, and remission of sins; of the old and new man; of the power or strength of men, and the other things pertaining to repentance – 55
Dedication to Edward VI -- 115
Sermon Three: Of God; of the true knowledge of God; and of the diverse ways to know Him; that God is one in substance, and three in persons -- 123
Sermon Four: That God is the Creator of all things, and governeth all things by His Providence: where mention is also made of the goodwill of God to usward, and of predestination -- 173
Sermon Five: Of adoring or worshiping, of invocating or calling upon, and of serving the only, living, true, and everlasting God: also of true and false religion -- 194
Sermon Six: That the Son of God is unspeakably begotten of the Father; that He is consubstantial with the Father, and therefore True God. That the sameself Son is true man; consubstantial with us: and therefore True God and man, abiding in two unconfounded natures, and in one undivided person -- 238
Sermon Seven: Of Christ, king and priest: of His only and everlasting kingdom and priesthood, and of the name of a Christian -- 273
Sermon Eight: Of the Holy Ghost, the third person in the trinity to be worshiped, and of His divine power -- 297
Sermon Nine: Of good and evil spirits; that is, of the holy angels of God, and of devils or evil spirits; and of their operations -- 327
Sermon Ten: Of the reasonable soul of man; and of his most certain salvation after the death of his body -- 365

Fifth Decade
Sermon One: Of the holy catholic church: what it is, how far it extendeth, by what marks it is known, from whence it springeth, how it is maintained and preserved, whether it may err. Also of the power and studies of the church -- 3
Sermon Two: That there is one catholic church: that without the church there is no light or salvation. Against schimatics. Wherefore we depart from the upstart church of Rome. That the church of God is the house, vineyard, and kingdom of God; and the body, sheepfold, and spouse of Christ; a mother and a virgin -- 49
Sermon Three: Of the ministry, and the ministers of God’s Word: wherefore and for what end they are instituted of God. That orders given by Christ unto church in times past were equal. Whence and how the prerogative of ministers sprang, and of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome -- 93
Sermon Four: Of calling unto the ministry of the Word of God. What manner of men, and after what fashion, ministers of the Word must be ordained in the church. Of the keys of the church. What the office of them is that be ordained. Of the manner of teaching the church; and of the holy life of the pastors -- 128
Sermon Five: Of the form and manner how to pray to God; that is of the calling on the name of the lord: where also the Lord’s prayer is expounded; and also singing, thanksgiving, and the force of prayer, is entreated -- 163
Sermon Six: Of signs and the manner of signs; of sacramental signs: what a sacrament is; of whom, for what causes, and how many sacraments were instituted of Christ for the Christian church; of what things they do consist; how these are consecrated; how the sign and the thing are signified in the sacraments are either joined together or distinguished; and of the kind of speeches used in the sacraments -- 226
Sermon Seven: That we must reason reverently of sacraments; that they do not give grace, neither have grace included in them. Again, what the virtue and lawful end and use of sacraments is. That they are not superfluous to the faithful; and that they do not depend upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister -- 293
Sermon Eight: Of holy baptism; what it is; by whom, and when it was instituted, and that there is but one baptism of water. Of the baptism of fire. Of the rite or ceremony of baptism; how, of whom, and by whom it must be ministered. Of baptism by midwives; and of infants dying without baptism. Of the baptism of infants. Against Anabaptism or re-baptizing; and of the power or efficacy of baptism -- 351
Sermon Nine: Of the Lord’s supper; what it is, by whom, when, and for whom it was instituted; after what sort, when, and how oft it is to be celebrated, and of the ends thereof. Of the true meaning of the words of the supper. “this is my body.” Of the presence of Christ in the supper. Of the true eating of Christ’s body. Of the worthy and unworthy eaters thereof: and how every man ought to prepare himself unto the Lord’s supper -- 401
Sermon Ten: Of certain institutions of the church of God. Of schools. Of ecclesiastical goods and the use and abuse of the same. Of churches and holy instruments of Christians. Of the admonition and correction of the ministers of the church, and of the whole church. Of matrimony. Of widows. Of virgins. Of monks. What the church of Christ determineth concerning the sick; and of funerals and burials -- 480

Footnote: Peter Opitz’s “Bullinger’s Decades: Instruction in Faith and Conduct” is the third essay of the 2004 work Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504-1575, edited by Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi.

Dabney on Calling

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." - 1 Cor. 10:31

". . . the only condition of discipleship permitted by Christ to any believer is complete self-consecration to his' service. In this the self-devotion of the minister is just the same as that of all other true Christians. If a Christian man proposes to be a teacher, physician, lawyer, mechanic, or farmer, it must be, not chiefly from promptings of the world or self, but chiefly because he verily believes he can, in that calling, best serve his heavenly Master. If he hath not this consecration, we do not say he is unfit for the ministry only, he is unfit to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. If any man think this standard of dedication too strict, let him understand at once that he is " not fit for the kingdom of God;" let him relinquish his delusive hope of salvation; let him at once go back among the dark company of Christ's enemies, on the ground scathed and riven by the lightnings of his wrath, and under the mountainous load of all his sins unatoned and unforgiven. There is no other condition of salvation. For did not Christ redeem the whole man ? Did he not purchase with his blood all our powers, and our whole energies, if we are his disciples? We profess to desire to love him with our whole souls, and therefore what reason is there which demands a part of the exertion and service in our power which does not also demand the whole?"

Dabney, Robert L., Discussions, Vol. III, What is a call to the ministry? (1891)

December Garden

Osaka Kale

Today's Dinner

C.S. Lewis on Progress

"If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

October Garden Pictures

John Murray on Menial Labour & Vain Ambition, 1957

“That Adam’s labour consisted in dressing the garden and keeping it informs us that it was highly worthy of man’s dignity as created after the divine image to be employed in so mundane a task. This is eloquent warning against the impiety of despising and judging unworthy of our dignity the tasks which we call menial. And one cannot but suspect that the widespread tendency to take flight from agricultural and related pursuits springs from an underestimate of the dignity of manual toil and oftentimes reflects an unwholesome ambition which is the fruit of impiety. There is warrant for the judgment that economics, culture, morality, and piety have suffered grave havoc by failure to appreciate the nobility of manual labour. Multitudes of men and women, if they had thought in terms of this principle and had been taught in the home, in the church, and in the school to think in these terms, would have been saved from the catastrophe of economic, moral, and religious ruin because they would have been preserved from the vain ambition of pursing vocations for which they were not equipped and which, on sober and enlightened reflection, they would not have sought.”

John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, 1957 -- Pages 35-36, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978

Top 10 Most Depressing Books

So Abebooks released a list of the top ten most depressing books. Not surprisingly, some of my favorites are on here.

Top 10 most depressing books

1. The Road by Cormac McCarthy (2006)
The first time I read this I sobbed for a solid hour after I finished it. I mean, not just “a single tear trickling down” kinda thing, I mean nearly hysterical boo-hooing. And I don’t cry at books. I’m an English major--we’re desensitized and can approach everything from a “critical distance,” blah blah blah. However, I don’t know that I would describe the book as depressing. I actually found the ending extremely hopeful. I think that was why I cried, actually. The final paragraph can be taken a number of different ways. How one interprets it, I think, can reveal much about that reader’s worldview.

2. The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (1963)
I read this in college and really liked it. I think most young females can identify with Esther Greenwood in some way, even if they aren't suicidal.

3. Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy (1895)
Okay, this one was a little much. I won’t give it away, but what happens is pretty harsh. But, it’s perhaps a welcome departure from 19th century marriage-plot novels.

4. Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell (1949)
This is the book I beat my students over the head with for five semesters, off and on, as Bush was waging his War on Terror and Congress was shredding the Constitution with the Patriot Act. Everyone should read this book. I actually found Brave New World more depressing, since I felt much of it was more realistic.

5. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (1957)
I tried to read it but only got about halfway through (which was itself a hefty 600 pages). I just didn’t get the point. Human beings are portrayed as driven by competition and bereft of any sense of morality (which I guess is pretty accurate considering our fallen state). However, there seemed NO possibility of redemption on the horizon (I don’t know since I didn’t finish it. Has ANYONE actually finished this book???) There just wasn’t a lot there to keep me reading.

6. Night by Elie Wiesel (1955)
Haven’t read it but I guess I should, since Oprah said to.

7. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck (1939)
Read it a long time ago, but I don’t know that I would describe it as depressing. Maybe bleak--but look at the setting.

8. On the Beach by Nevil Shute (1957)
Haven’t read it. Want to now.

9. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison (1970)
Read this in college and it stunned me. Beautiful and horrific. This is another one everybody should read.

10. Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954)
Read this when I was ten (my grandmother was horrified) and have loved it ever since.

I’m not sure what I would add to this list, as I don’t tend to think of books in terms of “depressing.” A lot of people think my favorite novel, Wise Blood, is depressing, but if you understand O’Connor’s theology, the ending is actually quite happy, at least for the protagonist. Some people think Faulkner is depressing; I think he’s prophetic. Slaughterhouse Five is pretty bleak, but it’s also funny. If more people had read it, Dalton Trumbo’s Johnny Got His Gun would probably be on here. I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t actually gotten around to reading it myself, but I saw the movie (haha), so you’ll have to ask my husband about it.

I’ve had students ask me why I assign such depressing books in my classes, especially since I don’t seem to be have that “dark” of a personality (at least in class I don’t, apparently). I usually respond that 1) “happy” things just aren’t as interesting, and 2), one of the ways we can identify a text as “literature” (that is, a text that invites study and rumination versus a text read for recreational purposes) is that it plunges us more deeply into the world rather than just taking us out of it momentarily. A book that does this can transform its audience. And because readers tend to be complacent and desensitized, to do that, sometimes you have to shake up your audience. As Flannery O’Connor once said, “For the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.” From a Christian perspective, I believe that a text that forces us to confront the reality of our fallen estate can draw us that much closer to God, even if that effect is unintentional--for example, if the author is an atheist.

Your thoughts? What would you add to this list? Or perhaps it should be re-named . . .

Irresistible Grace

My friend Brenden Camp wrote this article and posted it to facebook. He makes some really good points and has supported the Reformed position with a good collection of Scriptures. He has allowed me to repost his article along with my response to this blog.

Irresistible Grace? by Brenden Camp

What does the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" mean to you? Generally when one states the doctrine by this name, a common charge is brought against it which states that "people often DO resist God and His grace", in which case this doctrine is incorrect. On the contrary, it is understood that people do resist God, to the extent that ALL people in their lives have done so at one point, even if we were unaware of it, or maybe not so boldly outspoken. However, on the other hand we must realize that there WAS a defining cause as it were, that brought us to the salvation we have in Christ Jesus. In other words, there must be a reason why - if you are a born again believer - you can say from the depths of your heart that you believe, while another will deny Jesus straight to the grave. This is what I hope to show within the doctrine I will rather refer to as "Effectual Calling" [as "irresistible grace" may be too misleading for some].

In order for this to prosper, we must remember that the only way it can be true is if God's word reveals it as truth, where a mere human theory without Scripture should be done away with. With this in mind, we'll begin in everyone's favorite book of the Bible; Romans. Romans 8:30 tells us exactly this; that "whom He called, He also justified." Now right off the bat I want you to understand that Paul's words state the indefinite justification of those who are called. If you are called, you are justified. So is this call resistible? I have heard the view that this particular call Paul mentions is a call of service or duty. For example, God calling one to be a preacher, another to be a missionary, etc. There are a actually a few problems I hold with that view. It doesn't fit the entire context of Romans 8:29-30, which teaches the building up to our glorification from before the beginning of time. Also, Paul mentions this call several more times, even once in the exact same context, one chapter later. In Romans 9:23-24 Paul tells us "He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles." Compare this verse with Romans 8:30: "...and these whom He predestined, He also called..." My point? The entire context of Romans 9 is based on physical Israel [the Jews] being replaced as God's chosen people by the remnant, which is as Paul explains, made up of who God calls from among both Jews and Gentiles alike. This is a call from God that, rather than one of service, is one that must bring about the salvation of the called, which results in the remnant that is now God's chosen people [or Israel].

Possibly my favorite passage of all on God's effectual call [irresistible grace] comes from Jesus Himself in John 6:44-45. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." The word 'unless' generally shows us one thing in particular. That is, there are two options present. In this passage the options would be, either you are drawn by the Father and can come to Jesus, or you are not drawn and cannot come to Jesus. But if that's not enough, Jesus goes on to explain Himself further. He quotes a prophecy from Isaiah, in which the prophet claims of Zion, "all your sons will be taught of the Lord" [Is. 54:13 / entire chapter for context]. The fact that Jesus uses this statement signifies two things for us. It shows us that the Zion prophesied by Isaiah was God's kingdom. And it also shows us that all of the sons of God's kingdom would be taught of God. [The phrase 'taught of God' is equal to 'taught by God' as is apparent in several other translations including KJV & NKJV.] But again, we see that Jesus doesn't just stop there. He uses Isaiah's words to expand His own teaching of God's drawing; "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." I want you to catch that first Jesus said that "no one CAN" come to Him, unless the Father draws him; now Jesus states that all who the Father teaches DOES come to Him. Jesus never lied and never misspoke, so we can understand that Jesus didn't mean to say that those who the Father teaches CAN, but rather that they DO [indefinitely] come. Can we say then that those who do not come to Jesus, were never taught by God? I believe we safely can. And who decides to be taught by God, if God's teaching brings you to your very belief?

The last point I'll make is in accordance with Jesus' words in Matthew 22:14. "Many are called but few are chosen." This is not the same calling that Paul mentions in Romans or that Jesus mentions in John. Rather, this is the call of the gospel. Paul and Jesus [especially] understood that the gospel call would not save everyone it reached. This is in fact a sad reality for us, and if it's not, it should be. Our hearts should be conformed to the image of Christ and we're told that "Jesus wept." Does this mean that we can't come to an understanding that perhaps God the Father does choose to effectually call or teach whom He pleases? Of course not! God's ways are NOT our ways. [Is. 55] In 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 Paul says "We should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." Notice that in verse 14, Paul states two important truths. First, he makes a clear distinction between the gospel call and God's call. "He called you through our gospel..." Second, he explains what the purpose of this call is. "...that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." So you see that not only is this calling separate from the gospel call, it is a calling separate from one of service as well. The purpose of this particular calling of God is for salvation [justification] unto glorification. James also uses this same kind of language in James 1:18. "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures." Again, the clear distinction is made between the call [or drawing] of God and the call of the gospel. First James tells us why God would call us, "In the exercise of His will"; that God DID in fact call [or draw] us, "He brought us forth"; God's way of presenting His call to us, "by the word of truth"; and what the purpose of this particular calling is, "that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures." I'll leave you with a few more thoughts from Paul on why you believe and others don't, and the difference between the gospel call and God's effectual call. 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul refers to his recipients as "saints by calling". Verse 9 "God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Verse 18 "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." And then what the difference is between the perishing and those being saved, in verses 22-24; "For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Notice that those who are "the called" are the ones Paul mentions are being saved, while the others are perishing.

Your thoughts?

------------------------------

My response to Brenden Camp’s Irresistible Grace?

Brenden, You certainly begin from the correct approach, Sola Scriptura: “the only way it can be true is if God’s word reveals it as true.” You have a good collection of Scriptural evidence to support the doctrine of effectual calling. You distinguish between the three Scriptural usages of the word “calling” – vocation or service, gospel summons or external calling, and effectual calling. That’s very important. The church of today usually ignores or confuses those distinctions. I think you would like Thomas Watson’s A Divine Cordial. It’s an entire book on Romans 8:28. He writes of effectual calling: “It is an irresistible call. When God calls a man by His grace, he cannot but come. You may resist the minister’s call, but you cannot the Spirit’s call.” Charles Hodge in his Commentary on Romans wrote: “The word calling . . . is never, in the epistles of the New Testament, applied to those who are recipients of the mere external invitation of the gospel. It always means effectually called.” In another place Hodge wrote a similar statement but added that the effectually called are “those who are so called as to be made obedient to the call. . . . [it] is applied to Christians, since they are drawn by grace, and do not come of themselves.” That’s most certainly language of irresistibility.

On this subject I found helpful the guidance of Arthur W. Pink. In The Sovereignty of God, Pink looks at Acts 13:48, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Pink makes four observations: (1) “believing is a consequence and not the cause of God’s decree.” (2) “a limited number only are ordained to eternal life.” (3) “this ordination of God is not to mere external privileges but to eternal life, not to service but to salvation itself.” (4) “all . . . not one less . . . will most certainly believe.” This is consistent with our confession: “These angels and men, thus predestined, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished” (WCF 3.4) And in chapter 10: “All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time effectually to call . . .”

If effectual calling could be resisted then that foreordained number of men would fluctuate based on the will and faithfulness (and more often unfaithfulness) of men. Therefore, by necessity, “predestination” would be contingent not upon God’s foreordination, but upon God “foreseeing” those who would believe and choosing to save them. That idea strikes at the very heart of free grace and the nature of God’s sovereignty. Also, Christians would have absolutely no assurance that they are, in fact, saved. And that, of course, leads us into the subject of perseverance, and, I think more importantly into an examination of the nature of the atonement.

It’s important for Christians to understand that the doctrine of irresistible grace does no damage to the will of man, which is actually in bondage, but instead frees it. We are not reluctantly coerced into believing, but as the Canons of Dort explain, the Holy Spirit “revives, heals, reforms, and -- in a manner at once pleasing and powerful – bends it back . . . It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists.” Nor does this doctrine nullify the use of means, i.e. the external gospel call. It is a sincere and universal promise. Cornelis P. Venema in But for the Grace of God wrote that there is nothing in the “description of irresistible grace that would lessen in any degree the gospel summons to faith and repentance, together with the promise of salvation and blessedness to all who heed this summons.” However, as you note in your last point, not everyone who hears the gospel will be saved – to some it will be stumbling blocks and to others foolishness. Thomas Watson wrote: “This external call is insufficient to salvation, yet sufficient to leave men without excuse.” So then the gospel call always accomplishes the purpose God intends. Likewise, effectual calling always accomplishes its design – it saves all who are ordained to eternal life. Inseparable from the unchangeable decree, effectual calling is irresistible in the sense that all who are predestined will in time be justified and will afterwards be glorified.

The Amazing Millie

So this is the gigantic egg laid by one of our hens, Millie. The top picture shows it in comparison to one of her normal (but still large) eggs. Jeremy was hoping it would turn out to be a rare double egg (not just a double-yolker but an actual egg inside another egg--it actually happens) and that we would make it to the front page of the local paper. (That is why I am posing like a crazy person in the second picture.) Well, we boiled it and cracked it open and no such luck--it's just a big egg. Jeremy ate it with gusto anyhow. Just had to share, especially seeing as how it was probably rather painful for Millie, and she deserves recognition for her accomplishment.

Grace is a flower

"Grace is a flower of eternity. . . . Death does not destroy grace but transplants it and makes it grow in better soil." -- Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm, 1669

He Performs What Is Appointed For Me: Some Thoughts on Predestination

Jeremy Andress, 2009

Upon crossing paths with the ninth chapter of Romans, a Bible study group decided to just skip ahead to the less controversial more “practical” chapters -- leaving behind “He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” I have a few thoughts on this matter I wish to convey to my fellow Christians. It is not my intention that this article be an exhaustive defense of the doctrine of predestination; for throughout the two millennia of Christian church history there are ample books by competent churchmen that have successfully defended the doctrine. Nor am I writing a new and enlightened explanation of the doctrine. This will be apparent as you continue. It is my prayer that Christians are encouraged to examine the doctrine, and instead of bypassing this difficult and important subject they come to an understanding of predestination grounded firmly in Scripture. This will only result from the intimate study of the Word of God. Essential doctrines, wrote B. B. Warfield, “stand at the root of the Christian life . . . [it is] the duty as well as the right of the Christian man to study them, to seek to understand them in themselves and in their relations, to attempt to state them with accuracy and to adjust their statement with the whole body of known truth” (Warfield 24). Pray with the psalmist:

Make me know Your ways, O LORD;

Teach me Your paths.

Lead me in Your truth and teach me,

For You are the God of my salvation.

-- Psalm 25:4, 5

We are not only directed to study the Scriptures, but also to defend the faith. Whether you’re dealing with the infallibility of Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, the nature or extent of the atonement, the resurrection, the sacraments, etc, know that all Christian doctrines are controversial. If we stand firm on the fundamental doctrines of our faith we will be in the midst of controversy. Should we stand firm? J. Gresham Machen wrote: “The type of religion which . . . shrinks from ‘controversial’ matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight” (Machen 1-2). Upon the text of 1 Thess.5:21, J. C. Ryle wrote that each Christian “must do their part in contending for the truth. Each should work, and each should pray, and each should labour as if the preservation of the pure Gospel depended upon himself or herself and upon no one else at all. . . . If we would hold fast that which is good, we must not tolerate or countenance any doctrine that is not the pure doctrine of Christ’s Gospel. . . . . There is an intolerance which is downright praiseworthy: that is the intolerance of false teaching in the pulpit” (Ryle). True love for God, wrote Thomas Watson, “infuses a spirit of gallantry and fortitude into a Christian. He that loves God will stand up in His cause, and be an advocate for Him” (Watson 57). I encourage you not to avoid those doctrinal subjects that are difficult to understand or controversial. Instead, stand firm upon the Rock of our Salvation. Stand vigilantly and hold fast “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, is an underpinning and primary doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. It is a fundamental of our faith. William Ames wrote in 1623: “All things necessary to salvation are contained in the Scriptures and also those things necessary for the instruction and edification of the church . . . Therefore, Scripture is not a partial but a perfect rule of faith and morals. And no observance can be continually and everywhere necessary in the church of God, on the basis of any tradition or other authority, unless it is contained in the Scriptures” (Ames 187). In addition to Scripture being the only guide to our Christian life, each and every Scripture is inspired by God and has been given to us for our instruction in doctrine and practice: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).

It is our responsibility and privilege to understand what has been revealed in Scripture. However, there are secrets or mysteries which God has not unveiled to us: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us” (Deut. 29:29). Undoubtedly, there are aspects of predestination that are reserved within the mind of God alone. But does Scripture reveal something of predestination? Certainly, numerous Scriptures speak of God, for His own glorious purpose, choosing (or electing) specific people to everlasting life before the world was even created: “You did not choose me but I chose you” (John 15:16); “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44); “God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9); “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13); God “has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9); “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48); “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love: He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:4-12); “And we know that God causes all things to work for good for those that love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. . . these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified” (Romans 8:28-30). And of course there’s Romans 9:11-24:

“[T]hough the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works but of Him who calls . . . Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. . . . . I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. . . . So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this’, will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?”

Therefore, based upon the Word of God, election is defined as “the eternal and unchangeable decree of God, by which he has graciously decreed to convert some to Christ, to preserve them in faith, and repentance, and through him to bestow upon them eternal life” (Ursinus 297).

While unswervingly declaring and thankfully accepting what has been revealed to us about predestination, we must nevertheless be cautious that we don’t inquire beyond what has been revealed in Scripture: “The preaching of election,” wrote Cornelis P. Venema, “must be carefully disciplined by the Word of God, declaring neither more nor less than God has been pleased to reveal to us . . . . we are not to pry ‘inquisitively’ into the subject of election beyond the limits of Scriptural revelation” (Venema 30-31). Upon this caution John Calvin explains further:

“The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty, is rendered very perplexed, and hence perilous by human curiosity . . . when they inquire into predestination, let them remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom . . . For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself . . . Those secrets of his will, which he has seen meet to manifest, are revealed in his word -- revealed insofar as he knew to be conductive to our interest and welfare . . . Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness. . . . There are others who, when they would cure this disease, recommend that the subject of predestination should scarcely if ever be mentioned . . . in order to keep the legitimate course in this matter, we must return to the word of God, in which we are furnished with the right rule of understanding. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which nothing useful and necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but what it is of importance to know. Everything, therefore, delivered in Scripture on the subject of predestination, we must beware of keeping from the faithful . . . allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation, i.e., that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry. . . . This is clearly expressed by Moses in a few words, ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever’ (Deut. 29:29) . . . I wish it to be received as a general rule, that the secret things of God are not to be scrutinized, and those which he has revealed are not to be overlooked, lest we may on the one hand, be chargeable to curiosity, and, on the other with ingratitude” (Calvin 607 – 609).

Nothing taught in Scripture is unnecessary to our growth in Christ. But what is the practical value of the doctrine of predestination? To answer this it must first be established that doctrine and practice are inextricable. “[D]octrine is the very base of the practical life,” wrote Arthur W. Pink, “There is an inseparable connection between belief and practice. . . The relation between Divine truth and Christian character is that of cause to effect” (Pink 261). Machen wrote that “the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life . . . but a way of life founded upon a message. . . . In other words it was based upon doctrine. . . . Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first” (Machen 21, 23). “The assertion often heard in our day, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life, may have a rather pious sound . . . but is after all a dangerous falsehood” wrote Louis Berkhof. He continues: “Participation in the life of Christianity is everywhere in the New Testament made conditional on faith in Christ as He has revealed Himself, and this naturally includes knowledge of the redemptive facts recorded in Scripture. Christians must have a proper understanding of the significance of these facts. . . .They who minimize the significance of the truth, and therefore ignore and neglect it, will finally come to the discovery that they have very little Christianity left” (Berkhof 28-29). What about predestination? What is its value as a doctrine? I return to the words of A. W. Pink:

“The doctrine of God’s sovereignty [which includes predestination] then is no mere metaphysical dogma which is devoid of practical value, but is one that is calculated to produce a powerful effect upon Christian character and the daily walk. . . . [It] is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces gratitude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords comfort for the present and a sense of security respecting the unknown future. . . . it ascribes to God . . .the glory which is His due, and places the creature in his proper place before Him – in the dust” (Pink 263-264).

The doctrine of predestination, wrote R. L. Dabney “exalts God, his power, his sovereign, unbought love and mercy. . . [It] humbles man in the dust. . . while it lays man’s pride low, [it] gives him an anchor of hope, sure and steadfast, drawing him to heaven; for his hope is founded not in the weakness, folly, and fickleness of his human will, but in the eternal love, wisdom, and power of almighty God” (Dabney 79-80 ). Our salvation is secure. Charles Hodge wrote, “the plan of God cannot fail; those whom He has called into this state of reconciliation . . . He will certainly bring to the glory He has prepared for his people” (Hodge 257). Let us draw comfort and assurance from knowing that we have “been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” Let us boldly declare with Job the absolute sovereignty of God: “what His soul desires, that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me” (Job 23:13, 14).

Sola Dei Gloria.
----------------------
Ames, William. The Marrow of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Dabney, Robert L. The Five Points of Calvinism. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1992.
Hodge, Charles. Romans. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.
Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975.
Ryle, J. C. “Hold Fast”. Sermon. http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/hold_fast.htm .
Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954.
Venema, Cornelis P. But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 1994.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Right of Systematic Theology. Edinburg, Scotland: Clark, 1897.
Watson, Thomas. A Divine Cordial. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace, 2001.
New American Standard Bible, http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB/.

Dabney on John Knox and God-less Compulsory Public Education

“Were that iron man to return to the earth just now, and to hear these pretended successors to his creed quoting him as authority for the educational rights of a State which they have stripped of all Christian character and of every right of Christian inculcation, one can imagine the thundering disclaimer which would come from the roughest side of his rough tongue. He would declare that such a State, giving such an education, was a conception of the devil himself.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, The Practical Philosophy, Book IV, Chapter III.1 (1897)