Depravity, or Inability?

(This post is the second in a series dealing with the difficult subject of Reformed theology.)

In our last installment on the subject of Calvinism, we discussed the issue of God’s sovereignty (or rather, Reformed theology’s definition of God’s sovereignty).  As we noted previously, the sovereignty of God is not in question, but the Reformed view of sovereignty – that God foreordains and is therefore the cause of every decision ever made by man – is in question, as it necessarily makes God the cause of sin.  Scripture tells us that the Lord is holy and commands His children also to be holy (Leviticus 11:44), that He is without sin (1 John 3:5), that in Him there is no deceit (Isaiah 53:9) or unrighteousness (Psalm 92:15), and that He does not even tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13), much less cause a person to sin.  Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty stretches well beyond the common understanding of the term and well beyond the plain teaching of the Scriptures on the subject.  Reformed theology’s peculiar view of sovereignty is made necessary, however, by its equally singular view of man's condition, expressed in Calvinist doctrine as Total Depravity, the “T” in the Calvinist TULIP.  Or, taken in reverse, Reformed theology’s view on man’s depravity is made necessary by Calvinism’s view of God’s sovereignty.

Now, most Bible-believing Christians would have little or no problem with the idea that man is totally depraved – in the sense that we are born wicked, and that sin touches every aspect of our lives. However, just as the Calvinist definition of sovereignty stretches beyond the common understanding of “having autonomy, supreme power or authority,” the Reformed definition of Total Depravity stretches beyond the common understanding of the idea as total “moral corruption.” 

As R.C. Sproul notes in his book What is Reformed Theology?:

“The Westminster Confession of Faith declares: ‘Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so, as a natural, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.’

            If ever the Reformed doctrine of total depravity has been crystallized into one brief statement, it is here.” (R.C. Sproul: What is Reformed Theology, BakerBooks, 1997, P. 128).

On the surface, there does not appear to be much to quibble with in this Reformed definition of depravity.  Few students of Scripture would argue that man, left to his own devices, would seek out a relationship with the Lord (Romans 3:10-12), or that he could effect his salvation through any amount of works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16).  But the definition of depravity offered by Reformed theology goes beyond the idea that all that we do is tainted by moral corruption and extends to the idea that, not only do we not seek God of our own volition, but that we cannot even respond to God of our own volition:

“Our wills are such that we cannot freely choose what we have no desire to choose.” (R.C. Sproul: What is Reformed Theology, BakerBooks, 1997, P. 135).

In other words, though God has given us the Law in order to convict us of our sin, and of our need for a savior (Galatians 3:24, Romans 3:20), and though He has written it on the hearts of all men – as well as an awareness of eternity, that we might be drawn to Him (Ecclesiastes 3:11, Romans 2:15), and though we are admonished that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), we are to believe that man is nevertheless unable to hear, comprehend, and believe the Gospel unless he is first regenerated by God. So in the Reformed view, a person is first regenerated, and then believes the Gospel (never mind that the logical progression found in Scripture invariably describes the opposite).  This view of man’s depravity necessitates a sovereign act of God apart from man’s will in order to accomplish salvation.

Now, we might reasonably ask; “even if man is wicked and would not seek after God of his own volition, could not the knowledge of sin and its consequences motivate the lost sinner to receive the Gospel, even if initially out of a desire to escape judgment?"  Therein lies the issue. Sproul’s argument (and that of Reformed theology in general) hinges on the assertion that, if man trusts in the Lord out of any other motivation than that of pure love for God, his conversion is not genuine:

“We draw the inference that, because people are seeking what God alone can supply, they must be seeking God Himself.  This is our error.  In our fallen condition, we desire the benefits that only God can give us, but we do not want Him…” (R.C. Sproul: What is Reformed Theology, BakerBooks, 1997, P. 125).

The clear implication of the text and the surrounding context is that, if one seeks or is drawn to God by something only God can provide (such as eternal life), rather than out of unselfish love for Him, that person remains lost.  As we will see in a future installment, it is this dogmatic assertion that makes the “I” in the TULIP – Irresistible Grace – necessary to the salvation of the individual (It also renders the Gospel essentially powerless in the eyes of Reformed theologians, though they will vehemently deny this).

While I do not take issue with Sproul’s assertion that unregenerate men are only drawn to God out of selfish motivations (self-preservation for one), the question I have for Sproul, MacArthur, Piper, Calvin, and the authors of the Westminster Catechism is this:

Where in the Scriptures are we taught that responding to God’s call out of selfish motives invalidates our conversion?

Indeed, if anything, Scripture seems to indicate the opposite.  When Christ is abandoned by the multitudes who cannot abide His teaching, He asks if His disciples will also leave Him.  Peter responds:

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68).

Similarly, Sproul’s reasoning would invalidate the conversion of the Philippian jailor who, in fear, asked “what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:29), or the righteousness imputed to Lot, who was “oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked” while dwelling in Sodom, and yet remained unmotivated to leave that rich city until warned of its impending destruction by the Lord’s angels (2 Peter 2:7, Genesis 19)

In fact, the Scriptures are replete with accounts of men and women who responded to the Lord out of seemingly selfish motives and yet are named righteous because they believed God. A quick survey of the Scriptures for passages dealing with selfish or carnal motives turns up none relating to salvation, though we do find passages indicating that God may deny wealth, power, or spiritual gifts to believers because their requests are selfishly motivated (James 4:3), or that God will judge the worth of works based on the motivation behind them (1 Corinthians 3:9-15).  Reformed teachers take professors of the emergent social gospel to task for omitting teaching about hell, but the question I have for Reformed teachers is: "Why teach about hell, if the motive of escaping the wrath of God doesn't lead to saving faith?"  In fact, Jesus and His apostles repeatedly warned sinners that they were storing up wrath for themselves.  Why would they do this, if such warnings are to no avail?

Beyond the issue of motivation, though, do the Scriptures teach that man is not only incapable of  doing good, but also incapable even of receiving good?  Consider the following passages:


For He is our God,


           And we are the people of His pasture,

 
And the sheep of His hand.

 
          Today, if you will hear His voice:
 

 “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion,


           As in the day of trial in the wilderness,

(Psalm 95:7-8, New King James Version)

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:

“ Today, if you will hear His voice,

       Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,

 In the day of trial in the wilderness,

       Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me,

And saw My works forty years.

(Hebrews 3:7-9, New King James Version)

Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said:

 


      “ Today, if you will hear His voice,


      Do not harden your hearts.”



For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.

(Hebrews 4:6-8, New King James Version)

Now I ask: if man's depravity extends to total inability to respond to God's call, what need is there to warn us in Scripture not to harden our hearts?  According to Sproul and others, our hearts are already as hard as hard can be, and nothing short of a miraculous reprogramming of our nature can soften them.

Perhaps part of the problem lies in the common Calvinist misconception that faith is something that one “does,” rather than something that one has.  Calvinist apologists almost invariably define saving faith as something more than “knowing and trusting without seeing,” as it is described in Hebrews 11:1 (Calvinists are not alone in this.  Many Arminian and holiness teachers hold to this same position).  Saving faith, contends the Calvinist, is “obeying faith,” or “sin-fighting faith.”  Thus, most Calvinists define faith as commitment, or some combination of belief and commitment.  Understanding this, it is easy to see how the Calvinist would maintain that faith (e.g. commitment) must be preceded by regeneration, but this (Perseverance of the Saints, the "P" in the TULIP) is a weighty subject for another day.  For now, I'll leave you with the words of the Apostle Paul to help you decide whether reasoning with unbelievers and warning them of the coming judgment is of any value:

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

      “ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
      Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(Romans 10:14-17, New King James Version)

Sovereignty, or Tyranny?

(This post is the first in a series dealing with the difficult subject of Reformed theology.)

Any discussion on the subject of Reformed theology hinges on the subject of God’s sovereignty.  Inevitably, those who reject the 5 points of Calvinism, known as the TULIP – especially those dealing with predestination and election, are met with accusations that they “deny the sovereignty of God!”  In my experience, this is simply not the case.  Most of the believers that I have encountered who care enough to examine the teachings of Reformed theology and engage Reformed apologists on the subject of the TULIP readily recognize that the Scriptures declare God’s sovereignty throughout the canon:

The Scriptures tell us that there was no God fashioned after our Lord, nor shall there be any after Him (Isaiah 43:10), therefore there is none who could rightfully challenge God’s position.

The Scriptures tell us further that God’s purposes will stand, that He declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), and that He created and holds the very fabric of the universe together (Colossians 1:16-17), therefore there is none who could successfully challenge God’s power.

The Scriptures tell us that, before the end, every knee shall bow to the Lord (Philippians 2:10), therefore there is none who could successfully challenge His authority.

The idea that God has a master plan for the universe that He will ultimately accomplish is not in question.  The idea that God, being the creator and sustainer of the universe is the only being that merits His appellation is not in question.  The idea that only God is able to discern the very thoughts and intentions of His created beings (Psalm 139:2), and therefore is the only rightful and righteous judge is not in question.

In short, God’s sovereignty is not in question.  What is in question, however, is the definition of God’s sovereignty put forth in Reformed doctrine and theology.  You see, in the Reformed view of His sovereignty, God must have decreed and directly caused every single event that ever happened or ever will happen throughout all of history.  If man is able to act as a free agent in opposition to God's will, they argue, then God really isn't sovereign. This fails both the test of common sense and sound Biblical hermeneutics. 

It fails the test of common sense, simply because the definition of sovereignty posited by TULIP apologists is foreign to any common understanding of the word.  Is a nation somehow less “sovereign” if one of its inhabitants exceeds the posted speed limit on one of its highways by 10 mph or 15 kph?  Absolutely not – and the sovereignty of that nation’s government is demonstrated by the traffic summons received by the offending driver upon his apprehension.  Must a King, to be a King, decide every action taken by every one of his subjects, right down to what they eat at a meal, what time they sleep, and what clothing they wear?  Of course not!  Even in the most despotic of regimes, the mundane day to day details ordering people’s lives are left largely to the people themselves.  And yet, this is exactly what Calvinism proposes under its definition of sovereignty:

He has fore-ordained everything “after the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist—even sin. (Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, Baker, 1972, pp 24-25)

It fails the test of sound Biblical hermeneutics.  The surest signs of this are the linguistic gymnastics employed by Calvinist apologists in trying to harmonize the teachings of Calvin with the revealed Truth of Scripture. Witness respected preacher and author John F. MacArthur’s attempt to explain 1 Timothy 2:4 in the light of Calvinism’s assertions concerning the sovereignty of God:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (English Standard Version): This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Commentary:

The Greek word for “desires” is not that which normally expresses God’s will of decree (his eternal purpose), but God’s will of desire. There is a distinction between God’s desire and his eternal saving purpose, which must transcend his desires. God does not want men to sin. He hates sin with all his being (Ps. 5:4; 45:7); thus, he hates its consequences—eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of himself. Yet, God, for his own glory, and to manifest that glory in wrath, chose to endure “vessels . . . prepared for destruction” for the supreme fulfillment of his will (Rom. 9:22). In his eternal purpose, he chose only the elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Rom. 1:18–32). Ultimately, God’s choices are determined by his sovereign, eternal purpose, not his desires.  (John F. MacArthur, Note on 1 Timothy 2:4, ESV MacArthur Study Bible, Good News Publishers/Crossway Books.)

So, according to MacArthur (and Sproul, and Packer, and many  others), God has not one, but two wills; a will of desire, in which He truthfully expresses His heartfelt wish that all could be saved; and a will of decree or purpose, in which, as the cause of every action in the history of the universe, He regenerates a select few unto belief, while leaving others to reprobation (a polite word for damnation to hell).  So, the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God truly wishes that all men could be saved, but is somehow constrained by His apparently conflicting purpose that some must damned, in order to reveal His glory (to whom – who can challenge Him?).

Christ instructs us in the Gospels that “a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste” and that a “house divided against itself cannot stand” (Matthew 12:25, Mark 3:25, Luke 11:17), and yet we are supposed to believe that God desires for all men to be saved and, at the same time, wills that some must perish in the lake of fire to demonstrate His glory?

The god described by MacArthur in his commentary sounds much less like the God of the Bible than it does like the “dead” believer described in James 2 who expresses his wish that the hungry “be filled” and the naked “be warmed,” while refusing to do what is in his power to feed and to clothe them.

An explanation of why some are saved while many are lost that is much easier to harmonize with Scripture and that does not carry with it the necessity that God works at cross-purposes with Himself is that God, in His sovereignty and love, created man that we should love Him in return, and that, in order to glorify Himself, decreed that man should have the opportunity to receive and obey Him or to reject and disobey Him.  To convict man of his need for a Lord and Savior, He has written eternity on our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11), as well as His Law (Romans 2:14-15). Nevertheless, some men “reject God’s purpose for themselves” (Luke 7:30), and so do not enter into the Kingdom.  This does nothing to thwart God’s ultimate purpose, as in His omniscience and omnipotence, He has foreseen every decision man will ever make and is able to use even the wickedness of men to accomplish His will.

As Reformed apologists generally set much store by visible fruit in the lives of professed believers, it might serve us to examine the fruit of Calvin’s faith and teaching in his personal walk.  Perhaps the best illustration of the “fruit” of his misunderstanding of the sovereignty of God comes from Calvin’s own attempts to establish Augustine’s “City of God” in Geneva, Switzerland.  There Calvin attempted to exercise absolute control over the lives and even the thoughts of the city-state’s unfortunate inhabitants.  Home visits were established for the purpose of interrogating inhabitants on matters of theology and doctrine and inspecting their possessions for signs of disobedience or impiety.  Publicly disagreeing with the religious ruler of Geneva was declared to be heresy and met with penalties ranging from fines to banishment to death by burning at the stake.  Church attendance was compulsory; attending a Catholic mass or Anabaptist service was heresy, punishable by law with penalties up to and including even death.  Over a period spanning two decades, 58 people were put to death on charges ranging from witchcraft to heresy; 76 were banished (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization VI: The Reformation, p 473).

The word “Christian” means “little Christ.”  As “little Christs,” we are called to emulate our Lord in our dealings with our Heavenly Father, our neighbors, and our brethren.  How do Calvin’s actions in Geneva square with the admonishment of our Lord in the Scriptures not to “lord it over” our brethren as the Gentiles do, but instead to serve each other in humility (Mark 10:42-43)?

In the Biblical account of Simon the sorcerer, do we see Peter calling for Simon to be burned at the stake? No! Instead, Peter rebukes him and instructs him in righteousness, bringing him to repentance (Acts 8).

And yet, many Reformed apologists will go to great lengths in order protect the reputation of the revered father of their theology, stating that Calvin was just acting in accordance with his time (since when are Christians supposed to act like the rest of the world?), or even applauding Calvin for his restraint in prosecuting so few! To put this into perspective, there  are several mega-churches today with populations similar to or even greater than that of Geneva (approximately 20,000) during the rule of Calvin.  Would we applaud the pastor of one of these churches for his “restraint” in executing “only” 58 backslidden members over two decades? Or would we question why a church claiming the name of Christ had a provision for execution in its bylaws in the first place?

Undoubtedly, Calvin did much good in his lifetime – not the least of which was advocating that people should have access to the Scriptures in their own language.  But then, so did the scribes and the Pharisees, of whom the Scriptures say they “tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4), and whom the Savior named “children of devil who do the work of their father” (John 8:44).

Calvin had zeal for the Scriptures, but so did the Pharisees.  Like the Pharisees, Calvin advocated for moral purity, as did the Puritans who followed him, but moral purity stretches beyond matters of sexual conduct and covetousness.  The first recorded murder occurred within one generation of the Fall and essentially started as a religious dispute!  Hmmm…  Are we to model our conduct after Christ, or after Cain? The Bible records that God destroyed the earth once because it was “filled with violence” (Genesis 6:13); Christ spoke against violence in His Sermon on the Mount in much the same manner as He spoke against lust (Matthew 5:22).

Clearly, Calvin missed the mark in other areas of his life and ministry.  Why then, should we not question the teachings of John Calvin concerning the sovereignty of God? 

Wedding Script

My son-in-law and my daughter wanted the Gospel message to be integral to their wedding ceremony, in the hope that the words and vows spoken there would reach any among the guests that might not know the peace, joy, and fulfillment of life as the Bride of Christ.  My sister has asked that I post the transcript of the ceremony to this blog.  Here it is:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to witness and to celebrate one of the most wonderful occasions in life, commemorating what is, according to their own testimonies,  the second most important decision, the second most important commitment of Patrick’s and Elisabeth’s lives.  Why the second most important?  Well, we’ll get to that in just a few moments, but I would like to share just a couple of brief paragraphs from the inspired Word of God in which He shares His design for and His thoughts concerning this holy union between a man and a woman that we call “marriage.”

Ephesians 5:22-33

Marriage Like Christ and the Church

²² Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. ²⁴ But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, ²⁶ so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. ²⁸ So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; ²⁹ for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of His body. ³¹ FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. ³² This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. ³³ Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

In just a few short sentences, the apostle Paul paints one of the most profound pictures of marriage and its purpose that can found anywhere, in any book, movie or any other media.  Listen to what Paul says as he quotes Genesis 2:24 in describing this holy union: For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  You see, as God indicated almost as far back as the beginning of time, and as Paul understood so very well, the relationship shared between a married man and woman is so close, so intimate, that the two of them can no longer be considered as individuals, but instead become part of a greater whole.  Paul then follows his quote with a startling declaration concerning this very special relationship: This mystery is great, but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.  You see, marriage is a gift to us in many ways and on many levels, but perhaps the single greatest gift this beautiful relationship gives us is a picture of God Himself, and of the closeness He desires with His children.  Paul uses the word mystery here to describe an idea that was only partially revealed to the prophets Old Testament, but that found its fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. 

God referred to His chosen people as His bride multiple times throughout the Old Testament, but it was not until the resurrection and ascension of Christ that the full scope of this mystery became clear.  In John 14, 15, and 16 Christ comforted His disciples with the promise that if He left them, He would send the comforter to be with them – a promise that was realized with the gift of the Holy Spirit that dwells in each and every believer.  

So, the mystery is that marriage and the intimacy within marriage are a physical picture of the spiritual intimacy that God desires with us,  and that is available to each of us, if we would only place our faith in His Son as our lord and savior. 

Let us pray.

Our Heavenly Father, we thank You for creating this day and setting it aside for Patrick and for Elisabeth.  Lord, I thank You for the gift of a beautiful daughter and for the 21 wonderful years in which You entrusted her to her mother and me to care for her and to nurture her and to enjoy her company.  I thank you most of all for calling her to yourself and for the assurance that we have of spending eternity with her in Your Kingdom.

I thank you Lord for Patrick; for bringing him into Elisabeth’s life in the nick of time – in Your perfect time, just as she was beginning to despair of finding a righteous man with whom she might share her life.  I thank you Lord for Patrick’s openness and humility, for his devotion to You and Your Ways, and for his caring, gentle, and nurturing spirit.

Lord I thank you for the gift of marriage and for how much it reveals to us of Your loving nature.  I pray that you would bless Patrick and Elisabeth as they stand before You today, that you would stand in their midst today and for all time, and that you would grow and strengthen their faith and their marriage until it shines like a blazing beacon proclaiming the truth and hope of Your Gospel.

Bless us this day and forgive us our sins.

In Christ’s precious name, Amen.

As Paul describes the mystery that is marriage, it becomes apparent that, just as Christ and the believers that make up His bride - His church - each have their own roles, a husband and a wife each have their own roles within marriage.

Elisabeth: as the wife of Patrick, you are not only Patrick’s companion and helper; you represent the glorious body of believers that Christ Himself died to rescue from the bonds to and the penalty for sin.  And just as all in the church are called to subordinate their own will and desires in obedience to the will and commandments of Christ, you are called to set aside your own pride and desires and to live in submission to your husband.  Now I know that words like “obedience” and “submission” have almost become four-letter words in our individualist society, but they are qualities that God holds in very high esteem, as His word plainly indicates to us.  Listen to the picture God’s Word paints of the gentile woman, Ruth, who is held up in Scripture as the ideal wife of Proverbs 31:

Ruth 3:7-9 

⁷ … when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then [Ruth] came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. ⁸ At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! ⁹ He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer."

In placing her life and fate in the hands of Boaz and pledging to be a servant wife to him, Ruth echoed Boaz’s own words back to him.  You see, just weeks before, Boaz, impressed by the humble and caring spirit, and by the faith of a gentile woman, had offered a prayer over Ruth, that she might be blessed by the one true God, under whose wing she had come for shelter.  God, in His turn, arranged for Boaz himself to become the instrument of that blessing.  And just as Ruth trusted completely in God and in the man who would become her husband, you are called to trust in Patrick as your husband, to place yourself in his hands under God and to rely on his care for you to meet your needs within marriage.

Patrick: in this day and age, it can be very difficult for a woman to subordinate her own will to that of her husband, but you can be the one to take that burden from your wife and turn it instead into joy.  As Elisabeth’s husband, you are not only her provider and the head of her household; you are a living representation of Christ, and of His love for His sheep.  You are called, not to lord it over your wife and household as many in our generation tend to do, but to love your wife unselfishly as Christ loved us; seeking not to humiliate or degrade us, but to care for us, protect us and glorify us in the eyes of all the world.  Christ Himself tells us that his yoke is easy and His burden light.  Today, humility and unselfishness are not considered to be concepts that “sell,” but they are character traits that are so valuable to God that He modeled them for us Himself in the person of His Son:

Philippians 2:4-8 

⁴ do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. ⁵ Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. ⁸ Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Patrick, there is an old saying:  “Happy wife – happy life.”  If you would have a wife who can be truly joyful at the prospect of submission to you as her husband, you are called to love my daughter with the love that Christ has for His church, placing her needs before your own and even before your very life, ruling your household with gentleness and humility.

Both of you:  Here we finally come to the reason that this day is the second most important day in your lives, and the vows you are about to take are the second most important promise you have made or ever will make in this life.  Listen to the words of Solomon as he instructs us on the importance of companionship in this life:

Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 

⁹ Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. ¹⁰ For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. ¹¹ Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? ¹² And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.

Interestingly, Solomon repeatedly uses the number “two” to describe the importance of human relationships:  Two are better than one.  If two lie down… Two can resist… Then he suddenly says a strange thing:  A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.  Three.  In engineering, when we want to make something strong, we make it out of what?  Out of triangles.  Three.  You see, the writer of Ecclesiastes understood that the strongest of all two-person relationships are really three-person relationships.  The center strand of Solomon’s cord is the Lord.  The apex of the triangle is the Lord.  The third person who is really the first person in the strongest of two-person relationships is the Lord.  And the most important decision you have ever made or ever will make is to put your faith in and trust Christ as Lord.  This may sound counter-intuitive, but the more of yourselves that you give to the Lord, the more of you is left over to give to each other.

And so lastly, and most importantly, Patrick and Elisabeth, I call you and God calls you to love Him first, to keep Him in first place, and to make Him the highest priority in your lives.  God first; each other second; yourselves last.

Do you, Patrick, pledge to live by these things that I have spoken to you, to love Elisabeth sacrificially and to care for her as God has instructed you, and to love God first as His Word has commanded you?

And do you, Elisabeth, pledge to live by these things I have spoken to you, to love and obey Patrick as God has instructed you, and to love God first, as His Word has commanded you?

Then each of you repeat after me:

I, Patrick, take thee, Elisabeth, to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee myself to you.

I, Elisabeth, take thee, Patrick, to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee myself to you.

Patrick and Elisabeth, the rings you exchange on this day symbolize the eternal love that each of you enjoy as Children of your Heavenly Father and the life-long commitment that you make to each other this day.

Patrick: place Elisabeth’s ring on her finger and repeat after me:

With this ring I thee wed and with it I bestow the treasures of my mind, heart and hands. May this ring forever be to you the symbol of my growing love, and may it serve as a constant reminder that I choose you, Elisabeth above all others, to be my wife, until death do us part.

Elisabeth: place Patrick’s ring on his finger and repeat after me:

With this ring I thee wed and with it I bestow the treasures of my mind, heart and hands. May this ring forever be to you the symbol of my growing love, and may it serve as a constant reminder that I choose you, Patrick above all others, to be my husband, until death do us part.

Patrick and Elisabeth:  By the power vested in me by the State and under God, I now pronounce you man and wife.  What God has joined, let no man put asunder.  Patrick, you may kiss the bride J

In one of the last intimate moments Christ shared with His disciples before going to the cross, Jesus got up from the supper table, wrapped a towel around His own waist and began washing His disciples’ feet.  When He had done so, Christ instructed His disciples that they should do the same for each other.  In token of their unselfish affection for one another, and of their intent to live in service to Christ and to each other, Patrick and Elisabeth would like to begin their marriage by ceremonially washing each other’s feet.

The Science Guy, but not the History Guy

Recently science teacher, comedian, and television personality Bill Nye caused an internet uproar when he released a 2-minute video entitled "Creationism is not appropriate for children."  As of this writing - just a week after the video's release the short film has over 3 million views on YouTube, almost 65,000 "likes," 13,000 "dislikes," and many many more comments.  Now, video defenses of evolutionist or creationist viewpoints are nothing new; in fact, they have become rather common fare over the past few years on video-hosting sites.  Neither is it uncommon for a well-known personality to attempt to appeal to an audience to embrace one side or another in this debate; Carl Sagan proselytized on behalf of Darwinism for most of his adult life, while Christian personalities like Kirk Cameron and Charlton Heston have publicly called for a return to a literal belief in the Scriptural account of our origins.

What was unusual in this instance and what seemed to raise the ire of so many in the creationist camp was Mr. Nye's appeal to parents to stop teaching their children creationism, regardless of their own personal beliefs, for the good of the country: 

“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine.  But don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can – we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.”

Now, having participated in a number of online and personal debates over the subject of evolution myself, I knew there was very little chance of convincing anyone in an online forum of the truth of creation as it has been revealed to us in Genesis.  As a member of the science and engineering community who also happens to be a believer, I did, however, take the opportunity to voice my objection to the main theme of Nye's message:  that a belief in a creationist world view and the ability to contribute in a meaningful way to science or to solve engineering problems are somehow mutually exclusive.  As many others - even some within the evolutionist camp, have correctly stated, Mr. Nye's assertions simply don't square up with centuries of history in which virtually the entire world held to some form of a creationist viewpoint, and in which tremendous strides were made in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, medicine, and even biology.  Simply put, Bill Nye may be the science guy, but he evidently isn't the history guy.

I was struck by the outright hostility with which my comments were greeted by those in the evolutionist camp.  Though I did not directly attack the theory of evolution, contenting myself in this instance with a rebuttal of Mr. Nye's flawed assertion that creationists cannot be problem solvers, I was greeted with a volley of critical replies, most of which boiled down to attacks on my intellect.  I was assured that only the ignorant would dismiss evolution today and that if the great scientists of previous generations - Galileo, Newton, et al - were alive now, they would be evolutionists, too.  Even my appeals to freedom of speech and thought and the healthy discourse dissenting viewpoints can bring to the table were summarily rejected.

Simply put, atheistic evolutionists are no longer content with being allowed to express their own views; they have now set their sights on completely eliminating any public expression of "intolerant" Christian viewpoints from our society.  This is grim news indeed for our children and grand-children, but do not despair.  Take heart in the knowledge that the sovereign God who knows all things and who holds all of creation in His hand chose to reveal these things to us from far off, that we might not be dismayed to see them in our generation:

Romans 1:20-23 (New American Standard Bible)

²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ²¹ For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Equally striking to me were the large numbers of posters claiming to have resolved their Christian faith with the theory of evolution.  "Why couldn't God have used evolution to populate His creation?" they argued.  "Doesn't the Bible say a thousand years is like one day to Him?"  If you are tempted to give in to this line of reasoning; to try and have it both ways as these posters have done, consider the following passage from Scripture:

Romans 5:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)

¹² Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— ¹³ for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Now, if you are at all interested in science and have any kind of an aptitude for critical thinking, two things should be just about jumping off the page at you at this moment:

First, the Scriptures indicate that sin entered the world through one man - Adam.  The rest of us inherited a sin nature as a result of being descended from the original sinner.  In the evolutionist view, man is the result of billions of years of progression from protein chains to single-celled organisms to mammals, primates, and finally hominids.  In this view, by the days of Adam, there would not have been one man, but thousands, or even millions all across the earth.  How is it that all those who were not even descended from Adam would have inherited the curse of Adam?

Secondly, the Sriptures teach that death entered the world only after and as a result of sin entering the world.  In the evolutionist view, death is the mechanism by which natural selection operates. The strong survive while the weak perish.  How could there be such a thing as natural selection in a world without death?

As Dr. Henry Morris has said again and again, evolutionists are not wasting any time trying to resolve their views with Christianity; it's time for Christians to stop wasting time trying to harmonize their beliefs with a school of thought that is clearly in opposition to the truth of Scripture.