Jack Cortell
Jack Cortell
Jack Cortell
PART ONE
Posted on January 20, 2011 by Jack Cottrell
ELECTION, CALVINISM, AND THE BIBLE, PART ONE
by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 3:58pm
All true Calvinists believe this; many others have simply latched on
to this idea and assume that it is true. True Calvinists, though, cite
Biblical texts such as Daniel 2:21 (above) to prove their view. To this
are added other texts, such as 1 Samuel 2:7, The LORD makes
poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts; Job 34:24, He
shatters the mighty without investigation and sets others in their
place; Psalm 75:7, It is God who executes judgment, putting down
one and lifting up another; Daniel 5:21, The Most High God rules
the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will (ESV).
The point is this: most of the Bible (from Genesis 12 to the end of
the Old Testament) is focused on this specific task of preparing for
the first coming of Jesus. To work out his purpose, God chose
Abrahams descendants through Isaac and Jacobthe nation of
Israelas his special physical family, and he worked with them
specifically for about 2,000 years until the time was right for bringing
Christ into the world. Thus almost the entire Old Testament is
describing how God was working within the context of physical
Israel, showing what he had to do to work out the preparation phase
of his purpose.
This is the context in which the Scriptures cited above (Dan. 2:21, et
al.) must be understood. They are talking about how God works to
carry out his purposive will. These are the kinds of things God could
do and actually did do in order to prepare for the incarnation of God
the Logos as Jesus of Nazareth. If it is necessary for God to raise
up the Pharaoh of the Exodus for a specific role in this purpose,
then he causes it (Rom. 9:17). If it is necessary to dethrone a
particular king in order to accomplish his purpose, then God does it.
If it is necessary for God to raise up Nebuchadnezzar and overthrow
him, then he causes it (Dan. 5:18-21). See the same for Belshazzar
(Dan. 5:22ff.). If it is necessary to raise up Cyrus for a certain role in
this process, then God makes sure it happens (Isa. 44:24-45:7).
But hear this: there is no reason to assume that God chooses and
appoints every single governmental leader on every level in every
tribe and nation in the whole world in every age! These texts tell us
what God CAN do, and what he HAS done within the context of his
purpose through Israel! But it is wrong
to generalize or universalize these statements, as if they apply to
everything that was happening (for example) in the Australian and
North American continents in the Old Covenant era. Also, it is wrong
to assume that they apply in the New Covenant era in the same way
as in the Old, as if God were working through some physical nations
today the way he worked through physical Israel in OT times. There
is simply no basis for thinking that these texts apply to the American
election in 2016 the same way they applied to Israel and her
neighbors in OT times. Jesus specifically says (John 18:36) that his
kingdom is not of this world. God is not working through any nation
todayincluding the U.S.A. and modern Israelas he worked
during the period of preparation.
The bottom line is this: we have no reason to believe that God has
any specific purpose for the U.S.A., and no purpose for determining
who was going to win the 2016 election. Rather than assuming
that everything has a purpose (as in Calvinism), we should assume
that nothing has a purpose except those things God declares to be
the case. And we can know this for sure only through the inspired
words of a prophet of God: For the Lord God does nothing without
revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7).
I am not saying that God had no interest in and no part at all in the
2016 American election. Many people (including yours truly) prayed
that God would intervene and bring about the result that will be best
for his spiritual nation today (the church). I believe that God did so
intervene through his special providence, to influence the outcome
of the election. But sometimes Gods providential intervention is
ignored by his free-will creatures (Amos 4:6-11). Thus we cannot be
sure whether the result of this or any other election is the result of
Gods purposive will, or whether it is the result of his permissive will.
The Scriptures cited above cannot decide this.
In summary, we have no reason to think that Trumps victory was
Gods purposive will: God did not cause (rig) it. It is much more
likely (in my opinion) that it was the result of the choices made by
free-will creatures under the permissive will of God, with some being
influenced by Gods prescriptive will (Rom. 13:1-5; 1 Tim. 2:1-4) and
by special (but resistible) providential intervention by God.
Be Sociable, Share!
This is true even if a baptized person has fallen from grace and has
now decided to return to the Lord and His church. The Bible itself
gives no teaching and no precedent suggesting that a rebaptism is
necessary in such a case. The incident that sheds the most light on
this issue is the case of Simon the Samaritan sorcerer, in Acts 8:4-
24. Verse 13 indicates that Simon had become a true believer and
had been validly baptized, as a result of Philips preaching and
miracles. However, his avarice and ambition led him into serious sin
(vv. 17-19). From Peters description of his situation (vv. 20-23), it is
fair to conclude that he was actually in a fallen-away state, but not
without hope. Verse 22 records Peters instruction about what
Simon must do to be restored to fellowship with God: Therefore
repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if
possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you (NASB).
There is no reference to any sort of rebaptism; his restoration could
be accomplished via repentance and prayer.
This means that the only circumstance that would require a
rebaptism is a situation in which the person in question was not
validly baptized to begin with. This means that it is necessary to
have a clear understanding of what constitutes a valid baptism, or
of what baptism is supposed to be, according to the Bibles teaching
about it. There is general agreement that three criteria must be met
for a baptism to be valid. I.e., a valid baptism is one which has been
applied in the proper FORM, to a proper SUBJECT, for the proper
PURPOSE.
Second, the only proper subject for baptism is an individual (1) who
is old enough and mature enough to understand that he or she is a
sinner who is lost and needs salvation; (2) who understands that
God is providing that salvation through the death and resurrection of
Jesus; and (3) who is able to obey the gospel as the understood
means of receiving this salvation. This means that infant baptism is
always invalid. No one who has had water applied in an infant
ceremony has been truly baptized; all such persons need to be
rebaptized. But as in the previous point, the application of water to
the infant (whether by sprinkling or by immersion) is not a real
baptism at all. Therefore the immersion of an understanding,
repentant believer will be the persons first actual baptism.
(This was the main point of the so-called Anabaptists
[rebaptizers] at the time of the Reformation. They did not consider
themselves to be rebaptizing at all. When they baptized those who
had received only infant baptism, they considered this to be these
folks first and only baptism. Thus they did not like to be called
Anabaptists. And FYI, the Anabaptists did not insist on immersion.)
The third criterion, i.e. the true purpose of baptism, is the most
difficult to apply. In my judgment the only consistent understanding
of Scripture is that baptism is for salvation. This means, at the very
least, that baptism is the point of time when God works the work of
salvation in the repentant believers heart and life. Certainly anyone
who understands this and receives baptism for that purpose will
never have to be rebaptized.
But what about an individual who did not have that specific
understanding of his or her baptism when the act was performed?
What about those who have been taught that the only reason you
need to be baptized is because Jesus commanded it, or to show
others that you are a believer? Does the efficacy of baptism really
depend on whether or not the person being baptized has a proper
understanding of what is going on?
Be Sociable, Share!