Augustine on Free Will

I wanted to continue my diatribe from Matthew 23 even though as a church body we have finished this up a few weeks back. Augustine deals with the apparent conundrum from Matthew 23:37-39 in his commentary on Matthew. His question is, “in what sense does the apostle say that “God will have all men to be saved,” when, as a matter of fact, all are not saved?
Hence we must inquire in what sense is said of God what the apostle has
mostly truly said: “Who will have all men to be saved.” For, as a matter of
fact, not all, nor even a majority, are saved: so that it would seem that
what God wills is not done, man’s will interfering with, and hindering the
will of God. When we ask the reason why all men are not saved, the
ordinary answer is: “Because men themselves are not willing.” This, indeed
cannot be said of infants, for it is not in their power either to will or not to
will. But if we could attribute to their will the childish movements they
make at baptism, when they make all the resistance they can, we should
say that even they are not willing to be saved. Our Lord says plainly,
however, in the Gospel, when upbraiding the impious city: “How often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
chickens under her wings, and ye would not !” as if the will of God had
been overcome by the will of men, and when the weakest stood in the way
with their want of will, the will of the strongest could not be carried out.
And where is that omnipotence which hath done all that it pleased on earth
and in heaven, if God willed to gather together the children of Jerusalem,
and did not accomplish it? or rather, Jerusalem was not willing that her
children should be gathered together? But even though she was unwilling,
He gathered together as many of her children as He wished: for He does
not will some things and do them, and will others and do them not; but
“He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth.”

ODE to Emma

Today marks my daughter’s seventh birthday. Excuse the cliché but it is hard to believe. Emma has brought such joy to my life as she is full of life in every sense of the word. I praise Jesus for you my girl in the hope that He will give you The Gift that I cannot, and that will make all the difference. I love you much.

Sunday Sermon

As we begin a summer study on Learning and Living the Gospel, I wanted to present Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones’ five foundational principles in evangelism. I have referred to them over and over again in my own life. I believe they have their origins in Scripture, and because of this they liberate us to do work of the gospel rightly. They are as follows:

1. The supreme object of the work of evangelism is to glorify and enjoy God, not to save souls.

2. The only power that can do this work is the Holy Spirit, not our own strength.

3. The one and only medium through which the Spirit works is the Scriptures; therefore, we “reason out of the Scriptures” like Paul did.

4. The true motivation for evangelism is a passion for God and a compassion for souls.

5. There is a constant danger of heresy through false passion and employment of unscriptural methods.

To the Garden we Go!

So I have begun the garden harvest of 2010. I have harvested six radishes (radishes and carrots always do poorly at my house); several dozen onions, lettuce and spinach for salads, and a handful of strawberries. If any of my blog/garden followers can recommend a side fertilizer for my ever bearing strawberries, I would appreciate it.

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage who lived in the second century. He articulated well the belief that baptism should be administered only to the regenerate. He did a very thought provoking “Testimonies against the Jews”. I came across it while studying Matthew 23. Here it is in its outline form. Cyprian expounds each point in his sermons.

1. That the Jews have fallen under the heavy wrath of God, because they have departed from the Lord, and have followed idols.
2. Also because they did not believe the prophets, and put them to death.
3. That it was previously foretold that they would neither know the Lord, nor understand nor receive Him.
4. That the Jews would not understand the Holy Scriptures, but that they would be intelligible in the last times, after Christ had come.
5. That the Jews could understand nothing of the Scriptures unless they first believed on Christ.
6. That they would lose Jerusalem, and leave the land which they had received.
7. That they would also lose the Light of the Lord.
8. That the first circumcision of the flesh was made void and a second circumcision of the spirit was promised instead.
9. That the former law, which was given by Moses, was about to cease.
10. That a new law was to be given.
11. That another dispensation and a new covenant was to be given.
12. That the old baptism was to cease, and a new one was to begin.
13. That the old yoke was to be made void and a new yoke was to be given.
14. That the old pastors were to cease, and new ones to begin.
15. That Christ should be God’s house and temple, and that the old temple should pass away, and a new one should begin.
16. That the old sacrifice should be made void and a new one should be celebrated.
17. That the old priesthood should cease, and a new priest should come who should be forever.
18. That another prophet, such as Moses, was promised, to wit, who should give a new testament, and who was rather to be listened to.
19. That two peoples were foretold, the elder and the younger; that is, the ancient people of the Jews, and the new one which should be of us.
20. That the Church, which had previously been barren, should have more sons from among the Gentiles than the synagogue had had before.
21. That the Gentiles should rather believe in Christ.
22. That the Jews should lose the bread and the cup of Christ, and all His grace; while we should receive them, and that the new name of Christians should be blessed in the earth.
23. That rather the Gentiles than the Jews should attain to the kingdom of heaven.
24. That by this alone the Jews could obtain pardon of their sins, if they wash away the blood of Christ slain in His baptism, and, passing over into the Church, should obey His precepts.

Coffee with Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards gets my monthly nod in the rotation of guys that I appreciate. I will attempt to make this as helpful and whimsical as possible. I will embark on some sermons of Edwards. So many wrong caricatures of Edwards abound, but this man still speaks for God’s glory. His preaching coupled with the itinerant preaching of George Whitefield ushered in what is known as the “Great Awakening”. Edwards life and ministry is filled with both trials and triumphs, and the Christian today would do well to read his “Religious Affections”.

Three View of Matthew 23:39

This past Lord’s Day we concluded Matthew 23. The passage does have some interpretative challenges. I didn’t want to deal with all the views in a sermon, so here is my attempt to fairly represent each position. Good and godly people disagree here and there is much to learn. I tend to be in between the second and third view with a slight nod to the second.

THREE VIEWS OF MATTHEW 23:39
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

NATIONAL REPENTANCE OF ISRAEL VIEW
This view holds that the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:39 is conditional on Jerusalem acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. Interpreters of this view emphasize, you will not see me again, until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”. They hold to the fact that Jesus is willing to return and bless Jerusalem as He once before, if they acknowledge Him as the Messiah. They apply this verse not to mean when the Messiah comes, His people will bless Him, rather it means when His people acknowledge Him as the Messiah, and He will come and bless them. Proponents of this view hold that Jesus condemnation is directed to Israel’s leaders, not Israel as a whole. They also point to many statements in the Old Testament regarding God’s covenant with Israel, and therefore they believe God’s credibility is at stake in verse 39.

Strengths of this view
1. Emphasizes the Messianic promises of Psalm 118.
2. Compliments many of the Old Testament passages concerning God’s faithful promises to Israel.
3. Highlights that much of Jesus condemnation is directed toward Israel’s leaders (woes of chapter 23) than to Israel as a nation (since many Jews did acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah).
4. Seeks to be exegetically sound by emphasizing the until of verse 39.

Weakness of this view
1. The immediate context is one of judgment.
2. Jesus does address more than just the religious leaders according to verse 37, and it isn’t the religious leaders who exclusively participate in the killing of Jesus.
3. Exegetically this position loosely puts verse 38 and 39 as clearly Matthew has them tighter together.
4. Nowhere in Matthew’s gospel does he explicitly speak of a national conversion of Israel. In many passages it is quite the contrary.

JUDGMENT VIEW
This view holds closest to the immediate context. Interpreters of this view emphasis the final judgment of Jerusalem. The context is that Jesus is lamenting Israel’s rejection of Jesus and all He has sent her. He then judges them with desolation which is connected with His presence departing. See your house is left to you desolate, for I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” This view connects verses 38-39 together with the “for” a key preposition stating cause. In other words, the cause of Jesus departing is connected to the desolation that is coming on Israel. Many Old Testament texts teach a similar thing, God’s presence departs from the Temple; the land is left to waste. This seems to go with the surrounding context of Matthew 23 and 24 as well. The ‘woe’ oracles preceding and the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem all illustrate God’s judgment to a people that reject Him.
But what does one do with the quotation from Psalm 118 a purely Messianic psalm? The interpreters of the Judgment view believe this should be taken to other similar passages of universal acknowledgment of Jesus the Messiah (Isaiah 45:23; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10-11). In other words, the inhabitants and religious leaders of Jerusalem will acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, but they will do so at the Judgment when it is too late for redemption. They will confess Jesus as the Messiah not in voluntary faith, but in involuntary worship. This has been the majority position throughout church history. Its proponents run from John Calvin to modern day commentators.

Strengths of this view
1. This view holds the immediate context together the best.
a.This view places the preposition “for” in its proper position of linking verses 38 and 39 together.

b. The entire context is one of judgment: the woes of chapter 23, the pronouncement of desolation verses 37-39, and the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24).

2. There will be a universal acceptance of Jesus the Messiah by all people.

Weakness of this view
1. The original purpose of Psalm 118 was to give a Messianic hope. How does this reconcile with the judgment language of verses 37-39?
2. How does this square with the teaching of Paul in Romans 11?

HOPE OF REMNANT VIEW
Those who embrace this view take verse 39 to be a hope of some in Jerusalem acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah; the remnant. The proponents of this view see a parallel here to Paul’s words in Romans 11 (11:1, 17-32) concerning an end time conversion of Israel so that “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” means that there will be a joyful acknowledgement of Jesus the Messiah. Interpreters of this view point to the quotation of Psalm 118 and prophetic literature as a whole. Many prophets who prophesy judgment (as is taken place in Matthew 23) will often end their doom with a message of hope. Also if one reads Psalm 118 the refrain, “the Lord’s steadfast love endures forever” is repeated no fewer than five times emphasizing this hope.

Strengths of this view
1. Exegetically, this compliments the entire immediate context.
a. It deals with the clear judgment passages in Matthew 23.
b. It applies the hope of Psalm 118 as Jesus quotes it in verse 39.

2. It seems to be consistent with most prophetic oracles.
a. First the doom.
b. Concluding with the hope of the faithful.

Weakness of this view
1. The hope of the remnant is there by implication, and assumes that Jesus is using Psalm 118 for that reason.
2. The overall context of judgment seems for one verse of hope to be misplaced.