Say What? Ordo Salutis Edition

It is reported that someone recently said: “No offense, but there is no ordo salutis in John 6; but there is ‘believe.’”

It leaves me wondering about John 6:40:

This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Does it seem clear that belief precedes glorification? This is why most ordos have belief prior to glorification.

What about John 6:44:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Assuming that “come” is virtually synonymous with “believe” (as vv. 35, 37 seem to make clear, and I can’t imagine anyone would disagree, though I have been accused of having a weak imagination), isn’t it clear that drawing of the Father precedes belief, and belief precedes glorification. So here we have drawing, belief, glorification. That, my friends, is an ordo salutis.

What about John 6:65:

And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Not to be pedantic with the text, but isn’t it clear that “coming” (see above) comes after the “granting”?

If the above comment that started this post is a proper representation of what was said, perhaps we have another reason why some are dissatisfied with institutional fundamentalism: Too many of them preach in spite of the text, and not because of it. They preach whatever they believe, and the text becomes a prop for it. They will easily gloss or ignore whatever does not make their point, or whatever makes it weaker.

Define coming, drawing, giving, belief, granting however you will. It is impossible to say that John 6 has no ordo salutis.

Wait, I take that back. It is obviously possible to say it.

Perhaps the greatest need in fundamentalism is a revival of studying the Word itself.

Say What?

This is the type of weird stuff that some put forth as teaching:

Fundamentalism traditionally demands a strict moral code when it comes to engaging media. Holiness and a consistent witness notwithstanding, a hard-line "don't taste, don't touch" ethic would seem to dictate that 95 percent of the Bible is inappropriate for daily devotions. For some reason, when we put the same kind of mature subject matter that appears in the very pages of Scripture into a song and discerningly engage with it, it suddenly becomes a moral issue.

It doesn’t interact (or seem to even understand) what fundamentalism actually says, nor does it interact with the reasons that fundamentalism says what it says.

To suggest that fundamentalism believes that 95% of the Bible is inappropriate for daily devotions is, quite frankly, absurd. Furthermore, to suggest that the “mature subject matter” of the Bible is dealt with in popular music the way it is dealt with in the Bible, is past absurd.

Why do people say these kinds of things? And why do people accept this?

This is the type of stuff that masquerades as serious reflection on the believer and modern culture.

While we might disagree on the particular nature and extent of the believer’s use of and involvement in modern culture, surely we can all agree that this type of argument demonstrated above is completely useless since it is uninformed, unthinking, and therefore unhelpful (aside from helping to demonstrate how not to make an argument).

On Bad Arguments Against Pre-Tribulationism

Graeme Goldsworthy in Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (a rather unnotable book) says,

It would be difficult on the basis of Old Testament texts alone to arrive at this structure of two coming with the overlap of the ages between them (p. 224).

No, that’s not the bad argument. He is exactly right.

But how many times as someone argued against a pre-tribulation rapture because “no NT texts says that Christ is coming twice.”

I object to that argument on several grounds.

1. I don’t think most dispensationalists would grant that the pre-tribulation rapture means Christ is coming back twice. I think most would say the Rapture and the Second Coming are two aspects of the same coming. (I could be wrong about that.)
2. I don’t grant that the NT does not make any distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming. I think it does, exegetically, if you don’t start with a presupposition against it.
3. Their own argument works against them because, as Goldsworthy admits, the OT does not speak of two comings, and yet we know there are two. How much more will we know in the future that will cause us to look back and see what Jesus meant (cf. John 2:22 where Jesus prophecy of his own resurrection made no sense until after he had arisen).

In short, there may be valid arguments against pre-tribulationalism. I am okay with someone making valid arguments against anything. But by all means, don’t make bad ones.

You’re Kidding, Right?

Mark Dever reveals his week’s vacation reading list. I counted fifteen books.

In the Diner

I am sitting here this morning listen to Jimmy Buffet sing about Margaritaville which made me start thinkin’ about drinkin’.

This coincides with my preparation for Sunday’s message on Matthew 6:13 praying for God to not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil.

I will start with my conclusion: I am totally opposed to the use of alcohol (unless you have a cough or are preparing your arm for a shot). If someone asks me, I will tell them I do not think they should drink.

I think drinking is silly. I see no useful purpose for it, particularly given the variety of beverage options available to us today.

I think drinking is dangerous. I know many people drink moderately with no discernible affect on their lives (at least yet). They control it. I know that wine is like women, allegedly according to Luther. I have probably seen most of the arguments in favor of the beverage use of alcohol. And I agree with most of them.*  And I still think it is silly to drink.

I have seen the affects of drinking on personal lives, on families, on communities. I have talked to people who do not remember what happened last night because they were too drunk. I have talked to people whose spouse is ready to divorce them over their use of alcohol. I have talked to people who are in court-mandated counseling for their drinking.

And I have to wonder, Why take the chance?

I know … You are saying, “They weren’t drinking in moderation. They were drunk and we all agree that is wrong.”

And I still have to wonder, Why take the chance?

I do not think the Bible categorically condemns moderate consumption. I think some passages assume the beverage use of alcohol and say to control it. I think the Bible absolutely condemns drunkenness. I think it possible to drink without getting drunk.

I also do not think the Bible condemns jumping off a thirty foot wall into a three-foot pool of water. Flying through the air can be one of the most exciting, liberating feelings in the world. The view is great, and God created beautiful vistas for us to enjoy. You can do it without hurting yourself or your family.

But wisdom seems to say there might be a better way.

Now, of course, we can have all the discussions about the difference between our wine and their wine. And there probably are some, and perhaps not as much as many people like to argue.

I roll my eyes every time I see an evangelical talk about having an adult beverage with friends. It is like a badge of freedom, almost a flaunting of it. It reminds me of Jr High.

In the end, my argument about the beverage use of alcohol is not a biblical and exegetical argument. Which will no doubt cause some to question whether or not I am even a Christian, much less a fundamentalist.

My argument about the beverage use of alcohol is about plain old common sense. I do not think it is a sin. I just think it is silly and unnecessary.

No, you will not cause me to stumble if you invite me out to eat and have a glass of wine. So feel free to invite me out to eat.

I am not going to attack you or question your Christianity. I think you can be godly and have a glass of wine with your dinner.

I just think there is a better way.

___________________________

*No, it isn’t like caffeine, which I rarely drink either, except when I am at the diner, where it is the only choice. And it isn’t like overeating.