A Christian Worldview Reflected Through the Centuries.

            Like a flower, which draws its existence and life sustaining energy from the nutritious soil in which it is planted, I believe that any value, principle or ideal has its root in, and draws life from, a particular worldview. I mean to say that the soil of a worldview is what holds and sustains any value that a person may posses. Worldviews ought to be exposed and tested, we should evaluate the presuppositions that produce and sustain our values. What follows is a reflection on a worldview, a particular set of core truths that, as I understand them, produce the many principles that flow through history. I don’t mean to eisegetically impose my worldview on to or into the examined texts, but to speculate on the ribbon that I believe runs through history and which, even in the midst of varying and sometimes exclusive worldviews, holds and nourishes what principles I consider to be valuable. I am someone who believes in the necessary and objective existence of an infinite, singular, personal and creating God and who furthermore believes that humanity is made in the image of that God and has received the words of God that they may know how to live obediently to the laws of God; laws which are his by right of his sovereign kingship. This has massive implications on what is valuable and virtuous, and how those values and virtues are mediated. I value deeply such principles and ideals as honor, propriety, piety, honesty, love, infinity and creativity, particularly because I believe they are aspects of God’s attributes, that are necessarily pleasing to him and are given to us as part of the imago dei.  

Matthew 23:37 Response

There is much to be dealt with in your article, like the assertions that Calvinists believe that 1) “man’s will is not involved in the salvation of the believer,” and 2) “the grace of God is superimposed upon the believer regardless of whether he wills to be saved or not.” However, I want to focus on your own use of Matthew 23:37, and your rebuttal to what you have called argument #2.

            You said that Calvinists believe that,

 “Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and not to Jerusalem as a whole.”

This is however only part of the argument, and not even the principle part. It seems you have dismissed the other parts without giving us a reason for doing so. Like you said, the point made by Reformed readers of this text is that Jesus is speaking to the religious establishment in Jerusalem, when he says “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” he is addressing those who spiritually lead the city and the nation, and in this way, the city as a whole is being indentified by those who lead it. The rebuke he gives concerns their children, by children we are obviously talking about the children of Jerusalem, that is all of the city dwellers who are lead and cared for and watched over by the Pharisees. Your rebuttal points out rightly so that Jesus tells the leaders of Jerusalem that he would have gathered their children together as a mother hen gathers her chicks. However you completely miss the point of the distinction made between the leaders Jesus is talking to, and the people those leaders lead. Lets have an example.

Suppose I have a brother and sister in law. John, my brother and Rebekah, his wife have 3 children. These children are my nieces and nephews, and I want to visit them and tell them about how much I love them. Now lets say that my brother and sister in law do not like me and want me to stay away from their children. I love my nieces and nephews, and I want to be a part of their life, so I send them letter after letter, and gift after gift to tell them how much I love them. My brother and his wife however, burn all my letters and gifts as they come in, and teach my nieces and nephews to hate their uncle. So then I say to my brother and sister in law when I come to visit them, “John and Rebekah, I have longed to gather your children to me, to show them my love, but you were not willing for me to be in their life, you hated me and took every opportunity to destroy everything I sent them that told them how much I loved them.

I am trying to point out the distinction between those Jesus is talking to who are unwilling, and those he desires to gather to himself. Jesus does NOT say, “I longed to gather you but you were not willing.” Jesus also does NOT say, “I longed to gather your children but your children were not willing.”

He says, I longed to gather your children but you were not willing.  Confusing these two is the problem, and leads to people believing that those Jesus desires to draw are resisting his drawing.

You yourself make this error. You said,

“Jesus clearly states that He would have gathered them together, but they would not.”

That is it right there, the ones Jesus wants to gather, and the ones who are unwilling are two different groups. This is the principle point made by Reformed readers that you have dismissed. Furthermore, the error dispelled by properly reading the text, is the error you continue to make in your other rebuttals and into your conclusion when you say,

“If Jesus WOULD HAVE gathered them, then that means He COULD HAVE gathered them, and the parallel between verses 37 and 39 show that he COULD NOT because they WOULD NOT.”

I hope that since I have pointed out your misunderstanding of our argument and reading of the text, I will not need to show you how you commit the error again in the lines quoted above. Remember the ones he would have gathered,   are   a   completely   different   group   from   those that would not.

Let me prove my point further and press it home by color-coding the pronouns in the verse.

Matthew 23:37

“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 were not willing!”

He longs to gather the children, but the city that kills the prophets is working against him, because their wills are bent against him, and so they do not want him to gather the children to himself. The point is, that the Pharisees are doing everything in their power to oppose Jesus and to work against the will of God. And this is what all people are doing all the time. The fact that people oppose the will of God is not an anti Calvinist point, but a very Calvinistic one! It is the very point made by the doctrine of Total Depravity, and exemplified in such texts as John 6:44, Romans 1:18-25, Romans 3:9-18 and Ephesians 2:1-3.

Jerusalem should be the center of praise and love toward Jesus, the very temple of God itself was there, and so it is dear to Christ. The history of his people is wrapped up in and around that city. Yet, it is in that very city and from those very wrong religious leaders that Jesus is rejected. That is why he says in v38, “See, your house is left to you desolate.” And in v39, “For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” The children of Jerusalem, who may or may not have actually come to Jesus, are being prevented from coming to him by the Leaders of the city. We should note that Jesus never says that he was unable to gather the children, all he says is that the leaders of Jerusalem were working against him at every turn. There is a parallel passage, which explains this very thing.

1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16

“For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!”

The point is that Jesus is expressing his sorrow for the state of affairs in Jerusalem where his sheep, his children are being held back from him by the unbelieving brood of vipers who rule the city. I am worshipful and thankful that Jesus is the good shepherd who lays his life down for his sheep (John 10: 11, 15), his sheep know his voice, follow him and he gives them eternal life (John 10:27), and no matter what, no matter how the world may try, no matter how hard the Pharisees may work, they cannot snatch Jesus’ sheep out of his hand (John 10:28-29). I am thankful that the Lord accomplishes whatever he pleases in heaven and earth (Psalm 135:6), and no one can stay his hand (Daniel 4:35). We should also pray for those who lead us that they would not be a hindrance to the gospel, and reap judgment and wrath upon themselves like those in 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16. Thank you for reading.

The Text of "John 6. A Very Brief Walkthrough."

This was written as a response to a question given to me via YouTube. It moves fast due to the length constraints I was putting it under. Please read John Chapter 6 through fully and prayerfully prior to reading this, and then re read the sections listed as they come. I hope this is helpful and useful to anyone who may read it. Despite length constraints, even a very brief walkthrough such as this still took up considerable space, so I created a video from it which can be seen on my YouTube channel or HERE at Things of Old.

Verses 1-15

When I zoom out to the whole chapter, I see in vs. 1-15, Jesus feeding the 5000, who followed and gathered around him because they saw the healings he had done (v2) and for his miracle of multiplying the loves and fishes, the crowd call him the prophet (v14) and are desirous to make him king (15).

Verses 15-20

John 6: A Very Brief Walkthrough

A fellow on YouTube asked me to take a walk through John 6, and the written response turned out longer than can be easily given...  so I made a video!

The Reactionary God of Paradise Lost

I perceive the question of God’s foreknowledge of temporal events to be critical in understanding the ways of a good, perfect and just God as they relate to men in an obviously imperfect world. As I have read, Paradise Lost, I have done so asking, “What does Milton believe and teach concerning how God knows what he knows?” Reading the work has lead me to believe that Milton does not give a full answer to that question. Instead the how of God’s knowledge is lost amid the details and appeal, as explanation for culpability, to a libertarian moral freedom in humanity. This explanation, and defense of the goodness and justice of God, is without merit if Milton does not address how God foreknows the fall, and all other events in human history, because the nature of human freedom and God’s governance in Paradise Lost is dependant upon what Milton believes concerning God’s foreknowledge. Though Milton writes Paradise Lost to justify the ways of God to man, he ultimately cannot do so and maintain a foundational trust in God’s control or ultimate victory because he has a theology of God’s foreknowledge, that creates the problem he purports to dispel by making God a mere reactor to temporal events.