Biblical Foundation - for mercy ministry

If we look at the life of our Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew, after the recounting of his birth, baptism and time spend in the wilderness, we see that in chapter 4:23-25 what Jesus’ ministry looks like:

And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. 24 So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. 25 And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.

In this short passage we find three key elements of Jesus’ ministry. First of all, Jesus uses Words to teach in the synagogues; He proclaims the Gospel of His kingdom. Secondly, he is showing signs of Work, healing the sick from various diseases. Thirdly, in the periscope just before this one in Matthew 4:18-22 Jesus calls his first disciples, and we then read here that Jesus is followed by great crowds. We then see these three aspects of Christ’s activities: His teaching ministry, His mercy ministry and His disciple making ministry (chapters 5 through 10).  

In chapter 5 to 7 we have the sermon on the Mount. This is the largest piece of teaching by Jesus found in the New Testament. Chapter 8 and 9 focus primarily in Christ’s mercy ministry, where we read the stories of him healing a leper, this disease completely isolated those contaminated (8:3), the servant of the Roman Centurion, though he was part of the people occupying their land (8:13), a paralytic (9:7), blind men (9:30) and a mute (9:33). We also see Jesus spending time with Matthew a tax collector, his fellow tax collectors, and with a group of people called sinners. They were outcasts. Tax collectors were seen as traitors by the Jews for they worked for the Romans, and often took a lot more from their own people than they should. Sinners were just people that you would not want to be around, because of certain activities they practiced. Jesus shows as a part of his ministry, that no one is beyond God’s love. When he is with the sick he heals them, when someone is possessed with a demon, he delivers him, when some deal with loneliness he spends time with them. The final part we see from the end of chapter 9 (9:36) to chapter 10, is the discipleship process, where Christ select some men that will be in his closer entourage, whom he will train to be able to themselves reproduce disciples.

We see from the study of Jesus’ ministry in the gospel of Matthew that Christ had different components to his ministry. It involves the proclamation of the Gospel of His Kingdom, the care for people’s practical needs, and He met them where they were. We argue that his mercy ministry is what authenticated His message.

Mat 9:5-6  5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”-he then said to the paralytic-“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”

Difference between mercy ministry and humanitarian work.

Speaking about mercy ministry, we want to be careful here. The main problem of the world is not disease or poverty. The main problem in the world is sin. It is sin that separates man from God (Is 59:2), our sin makes us all liable for judgment, as the wage of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23). For God so love that world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life, and we know that faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:17). Often Christians emphasize eternal rather than the earthly matters in preaching and teachings. But our paradigm become this: if someone is starving, he will not be able to hear the gospel. If someone is fully fed, then he might go to hell with a full stomach without hearing the Gospel. There is a need for both. The ministry of the preaching of the word is to come alongside a mercy ministry, which focuses on social justice. This is consistent with the ministry of Jesus Christ, and a great way of validating our message; people will see us live in a way that embodies our message. As we preach a message of restoration of all people, we should also show mercy on restoring the sick and provide education, food and work to the outcasts through our ministry, hopefully also to the rest of society.

The difference between a Christian Mercy ministry and humanitarian work, is that humanitarian work is purely humanistic, it does help those in deed, but God does not delight in it, as it is done in the name of those doing it. The sole objective of humanitarian work is to help people with their current earthly struggles but does not help in anything related to eternal things. Although mercy ministry may only introduce the Good News gradually, perhaps only in the long-term, Jesus remains at the center of any Christian Mercy Ministry. All the good being done, is in Jesus name, and cares more than people’s immediate needs, it wants to see all being reconciled to God, to receive eternal life, to spend eternity in heaven worshiping our Heavenly Father.

A Balanced theology and practice. Often neglect - But can’t go too far the other way.

Two extremes that we want to avoid are neglect either side. On one hand, because we want to get people saved, and we are save through our faith which comes from hearing the Word of God, then all we have to do is preach the word and nothing else. Some ministries to fall in that trap which is a shame, as they give the world a poor witness of what Christ did in his earthly ministry.

The other extreme, is to focus only on the social justice side, believe that our roles are to transform society, just help people. It is all good for the here and now, but the Bible is so clear that eternity is at stake, as whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:20).

We conclude that after looking at the ministry of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew and looking at two extreme models being used, that Mercy Ministry must be a part of how we do church. The focus must always be eternity, but a mercy ministry reflects Jesus’ love for people and creation, and build trust and authenticates the message of the Gospel that is preached.

Double or Single Predestination?

I. Introduction - Intro the fall – Redemption – Election

The Bible is made up of 66 books, which are all about God’s plan of Redemption for a fallen humanity. In the beginning God creates everything that is, including man whom he creates in his own image. A simple command is given to them, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In breaking this command, death spreads to all men, all born dead in their transgressions. After the fall in Genesis 3, in verse 15 we already have hints of God’s plan for the restoration of mankind. Until the end of the Bible we see how God deals through mankind to restore men and women to himself through the blood of Jesus, in the end making all things new, God dwelling upon his people, in a renewed creation. 
When it comes to redemption we see in Acts 4:12 that there is salvation in no one other than Jesus. One must confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead to be saved. The Bible teaches that those who do so, were foreknown and predestined to do so. The problem then that arises is that if some were predestined to believe and to be reconciled to God, what must we say about the others? Were they then predestined before the foundations of the earth to be condemned to eternal damnation? 
This doctrine if shown to be true, raises deep questions towards our understanding of God. Why would God create beings for the sole purpose of them being damned for eternity? Why does the proclamation of the gospel as seen in the Bible seem to be universal, when God made the choice right from the beginning not to save them? To study this topic closer we will look at the views of two theologians holding different views and conclude on what the Bible teaches on the matter of double-predestination. 

II. Erickson and the Order of Salvation

I used to say it myself, and I have heard this many times. If God elects some to be saved how can you avoid double predestination?
Erickson explain quite well that the source of many differing views of salvation are rooted in the problem of how this doctrine relates to time. When it comes to God’s decree because he is not bounds by time we need to understand the logical connections. Did God decree to save before or after the decree to permit the fall? 
The view where God decrees election before the fall is called Supralapsarianism. In doing so before the decree to creation and fall, those created are either elected (for heaven) or reprobate (for hell). On the other hand, if God decrees the fall before election, there is no need to predestine those heading for eternal damnation because they are already heading in that direction, and election is only done in a single sense, for those who are going to be saved though the blood of Jesus.  We are now going to with the help of some theologians see which view is the most likely based upon the relevant scriptures.  

III. Grudem – Double Predestination

Admitting that it is one of the hardest doctrines of scripture, Grudem takes the view that God does reprobate (elect for hell as well as heaven), in order to demonstrate his justice. He bases himself on verses like Jude 4, where it says that some were designated for condemnation, Romans 9:17-22, Romans 11:7 where it is said that God can harden the heart of whomever he wills. Peter says of those who reject the gospel, “they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do” (1 Peter 2:8). Grudem argues that it is not that those who disobeyed were destined to stumble but rather that it was the group of people who were destined to disobey.
How do we deal with such a doctrine as reprobation? First we can remember that Jesus gave thanks to God for not revealing things to all men (Mat 11:25-26). Secondly though we still do not like it we see that in reprobation and eternal condemnation God shows his justice, which results in his glory (Rom 9:22). In the scriptures reprobation and election are presented very differently. Election calls for rejoicing and the praises of God (Eph 1:3-6, 1 Pet 1:1-3), as God delights and loves saving us, while reprobation is shown as something that bring sorrow to God, not delight (Ez 33:11). As we see in scripture, God chooses us for salvation, but the blame is placed on the sinner for his condemnation. Election demonstrates God’s grace, while reprobation shows God’s justice. Grudem believes the expression: “Double-predestination” is not the best suited, as it fails to show the difference between election and reprobation, how God feels joy for one and sorrow for the other, one is by his grace, the other by his justice. 

IV. Demarest – Only single predestination

Demarest points out that the ten inferences of God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart in the book of Exodus, would support unconditional reprobation, but he argues that Pharaoh first freely opposed God’s purposes, in this way God was only confirming Pharaoh’s decision and in this way punishing him, and God uses this situation for his good purposes. 
A second point that he makes is concerning divine passives. Strong language can be attributed to God, though sometimes when we read the story carefully it appears God only let these things happen. When Sihon, king of the Amorites refuses to let Israel pass through his territory, Moses says: “God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate” (Deut 2:30), though God’s activity seems quite limited.  
Romans 9:20-23 is one of the most used texts by those advocating double predestination. Demarest mentions the difference in the language for those being prepared for glory and destruction suggesting that sinners prepare themselves for destruction for their own refusal to repent. He argues the point of this passage is not reprobation but rather the delay in judgment and wrath against unbelievers. (p136) 
Another popular verse for double predestination is 1 Pet 2:8. The problem here, going against Grudem’s exegetical choice, Demarest believes that what is appointed is the ruin of those who disobey rather than the disobeying. Appealing to Hebrews 3 which shows some had the choice of avoiding their hardening. Demarest believes even Esau had a choice based on Hebrews 12:17. Esau was rejected by God only after he had rejected divine grace freely offered. 
Demarest concludes then that there is an asymmetrical view of soteriology. “There is an unconditional election to life and conditional election to damnation”. God does not predestine people to sin, but he predestines condemnation as the consequence of sin.

V. My Challenge

I am going to be challenging Demarest’s interpretation of some passages. 
Looking at Demarest objections to double-predestination first concerning Pharaoh, arguing that if you study Pharaoh’s hardening of heart, he was first freely opposing God, and he himself first hardened his heart. God was later only confirming Pharaoh’s decision, and used it for the good of his purposes. He argues that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart could be attributed to God only because he allowed it to happen. But how does that solve the issue when we read the Pharaoh was raised up for the very purpose that he would be hardened so that his power would be proclaimed in all the earth (Romans 9:17-18)? If it would be understood that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there would be no room for the question: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Concerning Esau, Demarest writes based on Hebrews 12:17 that “Esau was rejected by God only after he had rejected divine grace freely offered”. He could read that verse that way if taken on its own. The verse is not clear enough to conclude on when exactly Esau was rejected. A text that does make it clear is Romans 9:11 “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”. Cleary we cannot conclude with Demarest that Esau was rejected by God only after he had rejected divine grace freely offered. His rejection was predestined before he was even born. If Demarest was right, why does Paul ask the anticipated question in verse 14? “Is there then injustice in God’s part?” Only a doctrine as troubling as double-predestination would demand for such a question. 
Concerning how he reads 1 Peter 2:8, using greek, Demarest disagrees with Grudem, while Martin Williams argues that: “the desire to emphasize one idea over the other (either ‘stumbling’ or the ‘disobedience’) reflects more one’s theological presuppositions than good Greek grammar. He argues that the neuter relative pronoun (ὃ) not followed by a neutral noun, would refer to the entire preceding thought: the unbelievers stumble over the stone because of their disobedience. So in other words: those who stumble over Christ the stone because of their disobedience to the word were indeed appointed by God to such.  This does not narrow it down any more, but would not exclude that even if the stumbling was appointed for disobedience, the fact that since the fall of man, we were all appointed to disobey. 
Demarest is not alone to point out in Romans 9:22-23 the asymmetry in the grammar of those prepared for wrath and for glory. Those prepared for glory are clearly prepared by God due to the active verb, while as Moo points out, a middle/passive participle is used not tying God so closely to those being prepared for wrath. Moo goes on to say, that there is a strong parallel between God raising up Pharaoh and hardening him (Rom 9:17-18) and the vessels being prepared for destruction, meaning that the vessels on whom God’s wrath rests are prepared by himself for eternal condemnation. 

VI. Conclusion

To conclude on this troubling doctrine of double predestination, I believe that this doctrine is taught in Romans 9. It is not an easy doctrine to accept. But we know that God is more loving and more merciful than any of us. He takes no pleasure in the death of even the wicked (Ez 33:11) and wills that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but we know that in reprobating God demonstrates his justice, and is also able to obtain glory even in those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction Rom 9:21-23.