Loving to hate John Calvin

I recently read a blogger's review of a new book, Killing Calvinism here.  Surprisingly, there are apparently (only!) eight ways that a Calvinist can kill Calvinism; I found the most notable to be the last, "Scoffing at the hang-ups others have with Calvinism." Apparently, "scoffing at the hang-ups others have with Calvinism" is an Internet faux pas, because everyone has something they love to hate about Calvinism. In fact, some have mastered the art and reasoning behind hating Calvin, and are quite satisfied because of it.  

So let me take this opportunity to be honest and confess, by all means, that I have played this particular 'scoffing' hand at the Killing Calvinism poker table at one time or another. As difficult as it may be for any of you to believe, I am guilty of scoffing at the hang ups others have with Calvinism. Now, mine is not your typical Internet scoffing (which happens to manifest itself most profoundly on the blogs of atheists).

My scoffing is more of a mild, tongue-in-cheek, "come on, are you really serious?" kind of scoffing. Most recently I manifested this scoffage on a blog discussion with a group of Southern Baptists who for the life of them can't figure out what kind of theological reputation they want to cling to in the SBC  (Southern Baptist Convention). During the discussion, they were arguing about why Calvinists, Non-Calvinists, Anti-Calvinists, Traditionalists, etc., could or could not be considered worthy monikers for the capstone of their doctrinal title deed to being Southern Baptist. I was just lurking on the site until I came across this comment related to the infamous Michal Servetus incident:  

There would be some merit in the Calvinist side not being called Calvinist, since the only real agreement with Calvin is on soteriology and not on paedo-baptism, church-state agreement, heretic-burning, and a myriad of other issues.

This comment got the better of me and soon I found myself privately snickering as I considered how to unleash my mild mannered scoffing. What could I say about the Servetus incident to get them to evaluate their theological convictions on burning heretics? Please don't misunderstand me, scoffing about the Servetus incident can be considered to be in very bad taste as it is actually a sad commentary on historical Christianity in many respects; or ... is it?

Before I share with you my first 'scoff' that got the whole thing rolling among several of the bloggers, I'll give you some background. For those of you who do not know who Servetus was, let me introduce you to him briefly.

Michael Servetus (also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto or Michel de Villeneuve), was a Spanish theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist. He was the first European correctly to describe the function of pulmonary circulation.

"These are some of the adjectives that were conjured up in the minds of the early sixteenth-century evangelicals when they reflected on the word heresy: blasphemous, scandalous, venomous, abomination, infectious. In fact, these were just a few of the words used to describe the opinions of a man who, failing to acknowledge that his beliefs were filled with theological errors, was to be tied to a stake and burned alive for his transgressions."

"Miguel Servetus was led outside the city of Geneva on October 23, 1553, and burned alive for the crime of heresy. As he walked to his death that day, these fateful words fell from his lips, “Jesus, thou son of the eternal God, deliver me!” And but for the transposition of a single adjective in that sentence, his life would have been spared! How careful and exacting were the theologians of old!  

"Yet Servetus would not renounce his theological premise that the church’s view of the Trinity was a three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades in Greek and Roman mythology." 

"He rejected the mystery of the Trinity in his final breath by meaning that Jesus was not Eternal Son; he was merely a human and became divine. His adamant grip on this theological misconception would not allow him to rescind and say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God from all eternity!"

"It was said of Servetus by the judges in his trial: 'You have promulgated false and thoroughly heretical doctrine, despising all remonstrances and corrections...and with malicious and perverse obstinacy sown and divulged...opinions against God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in a word against the fundamentals of the Christian religion, and that you had tried to make a schism and trouble the Church of God by which many souls may have been ruined and lost… ...you have neither shame nor horror of setting yourself against the divine Majesty and the Holy Trinity...For these and other reasons, desiring to purge the church of God of such infection and cut off the rotten member...we now condemn you...to be burned with your books to ashes. And so you shall finish your days and give an example to others who would commit the like.' [Hans Hillebrand, ed., The Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), 290. Quoted from Hunted Heretic, Roland Bainton, p. 207–209].

Clearly, the judges believed that the extent to which his theological opinion had strayed from Christian theology could indeed potentially pollute the thinking of the church. And so to stop the spread of this heresy, there seemed to be no other solution than to burn him alive with his writings.  Note the reasons again for the charges of heresy: “...sown and divulged opinions against the Trinity...against the fundamentals of the Christian religion...tried to make a schism and trouble the church...setting yourself against the divine majesty.”  

It was said that even while the now-famous theologian and prosecuting attorney John Calvin pleaded with him at the end to renounce his “rhapsody patched together from the impious ravings of all the ages,” remarkably, there remained the hint of a question as to whether or not he should be executed among those who witnessed the ensuing travesty. How could “[Servetus], a man so far from orthodoxy, be, nevertheless, fundamentally pious and earnest in the quest for truth?

This was my first 'scoff' that got the whole thing rolling: 

"Servetus deserved it. As he walked to his death that day, these fateful words fell from his lips, “Jesus, thou son of the eternal God, deliver me!” And but for the transposition of a single adjective in that sentence, his life would have been spared! How careful and exacting were the theologians of old! Nobody cared if he was an Arminian, Traditionalist, neo-Calvinist or Southern Baptist. He was a heretic. At least the theologians of old knew where they stood on their theology."

I soon discovered that if you want to get a conversation going with a bunch of Southern Baptists, sometimes you have to step out on a limb, like this police officer did.

I think some of the comments that followed were actually comments any person of sound mind would make in light of what I had just written:

"Wow. Do you really believe that at any time in the New Testament era it is acceptable for someone to be executed for their religious beliefs?"

I replied: "I believe Servetus' execution would be considered to be within New Testament times, and its acceptability needs to be looked at in terms of what was considered acceptable then, and not now."

“If you have witnessed a human being or even a farm animal be burned alive unto death and you can still, with sound mind and completely competent faculties, state that Michael Servetus, deserved what he got at the hands of other men, something is lacking in you that is far more sever [sic] than was Sevetus’ heresy.” 

[One guy just kept repeating this statement or versions of it over and over again].

Another blogger defended his position with this comment: "It is not for man to execute that judgment."

I replied, "Well, that's not what 1 Peter 2:13-14 teaches is it? "Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good." 

Further on that same blogger wrote: "There were many things legal in the 1500's that we now find to be reprehensible. That Servetus had violated the laws of his country and was punished within the scope of those laws does not make it right…"

Again, seeking to finally make my point, I said, "As Francois Wendel stated in his translation of Mairet's Calvin, 'It is contrary to a sound conception of history to try to apply our ways of judging and our moral criteria to the past.' The point is that all the Genevan Reformers shared the conviction that it was the duty of a Christian magistrate to put to death blasphemers [who's heresies] kill the soul, just as they punished murderers who kill the body. That does not mean that any modern Calvinist justifies murdering heretics today; it simply means that then it was considered legal and moral. That is a fact, regardless of how hard it is to swallow.  The question should not be, it seems to me, why don't I see it as being reprehensible, but, why didn't they see it as reprehensible?"

 Oddly enough, he even rationalized the following: "Freedom of conscience must include the freedom to believe and think in ways that we find either reprehensible or even just silly. It is tragic that our forebears in the faith of Christianity found it necessary to use physical force to drive spiritual conformity."

On the surface this sounds good, but on a deeper level it appears to suggest that, though "our freedom of conscience must include the freedom to believe and think in ways that we find either reprehensible or even just silly," our freedom is limited to only doing things that some people approve of.

I responded: "In other words, our consciences are never apparently free enough to believe and think that someone should be executed for heresy. I would surmise then, that "it is [NOT] tragic that our forebears in the faith of Christianity found it necessary to use physical force to drive spiritual conformity;" if your previous statement is true, and their consciences so constrained them to do so by laws instituted by the Magistrates."

So at the risk of appearing mentally incompetent, can one be in their right mind and execute a heretic? That seems to be the question of the day -- and apparently, anyone who says yes, may have just proved their mental incompetence; to which I reply, were all those in favor of it in Calvin's day mentally incompetent?

Let's face it: Burning a heretic conjures up hideous, unbearable images. To most of us, there can't be anything more violent and disturbing than the image of a man burning to death. So on what possible grounds can Servetus' execution be defended? On what possible grounds can one suggest that Calvinism shouldn't continue to be a hated historical theology?  Well …… 

Even when Sebastion Castellion published, some months after Servetus's death, a collection of impressive testimonies hostile to Calvin and against the employment of violence in matters of faith, his publication was met with a feeble response by all.  Yep. There was pretty much mutual  agreement that Servetus's death was necessary. Not only necessary, but legal, acceptable and unanimous. So what gives? Didn't any of those folks suffer from a guilty conscience about this God-awful execution?

Tolerance in the sixteenth century was not and could not be, anything but a sign of religious opposition or utter apathy. Melanchthon even said in a letter to Calvin "… I return thanks to the Son of God who was your arbiter." In response to Castellion's publication, Calvin defended the Augustinian principle of repressing heresy by the secular sword. 

So let me suggest that defending Servetus' execution is founded on the grounds that it was instituted by Magistrates of the law, and therefore, I believe one could argue that on Biblical grounds it was necessary, as God said to “submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13-17); and, it was considered morally right and less evil than allowing a heretic to lead people astray eternally through one’s heretical opinions. 

As a minor point to keep in mind, Servetus knew the law of the land and the religious environment and had ample opportunity to repent of his heresy, yet refused, knowing full well the consequences. 

Now, the fact that this event occurred 459 plus years ago doesn’t make a bad thing better; it does, however, make it virtually irrelevant in terms of how we understand Calvinism today. No Calvinist today, as much as the Southern Baptist folks who rave on about the Servetus incident seem to think Calvinist's do, favors executing heretics on any grounds. But something occurred to me as I was reading another blogger's response that really hit the nail on the head for me. He wrote:

 “I am simply saying that we ought with the strongest language and straightest moral compass decry the evil actions of those who condemned a man to burn to death in the name of God. That you do not see a problem with that is absolutely unbelievable to me as a Baptist–and more so, as a human being. I think your attitude represents the worst that religion offers. That’s just my opinion offered to counter yours."

I believe no lawyer could have had a better defense thrown into his lap. This was almost providential in my mind. I responded, "I would suggest that that is *exactly* what the Reformers were attempting to do ... with the strongest language and straightest moral compass, decry the evil actions of those who condemned a man to burn (in eternity). 

Or do you suppose that there is nothing that can be found extraordinarily evil about heresy? Do you just think that it’s simply an ineffective, less than rational theological position, that when it’s all said and done, heresy really isn’t something anyone should worry about?  [On every conceivable level -- morally, politically, socially, humanly, religiously speaking …], you are suggesting that it is far worse to kill a heretic (however that’s done) than to let his heresy impact the spiritual lives of those he communicates with." 

I would contend that every one of those who favored the execution of Servetus were doing exactly what you said should be done, and justified it in this manner: “We ought with the strongest language and straightest moral compass decry the evil actions of those [heretics] who condemn a man to burn [in hell, yet NEVER  to the death] in the flames of the eternal fire,” because that is what happens to anyone who is seduced by their heresy. And their reasoning was simple enough: there is nothing more damning than the eternal damning of heresy. Nothing. That I believe, was their motivation. And what those who hate Calvin for this incident do, is decry the action, entirely missing the seriousness of heresy from their myopic perspective."

That was apparently the end of the conversation from all the Baptists on that blog.  So, do you too need a reason to re-evaluate why you use the Servetus incident 459 plus years later to continue your hatred of Calvin? I hope not.

Melissa Scott: A ministry conundrum

I got thrown for a loop the first time I heard a pastor's reaction to Melissa Scott’s ministry. 

I had mentioned her name to him because early one morning I happened to turn on the television and watched her teaching without bias. How could I be biased? I knew nothing about her! But I think all of us who are Christians have that same initial tinge of electricity rustle our nerves in shock when we first hear the news about Gene and Melissa Scott's ministry.

Well not all of us … here’s a comment from a good friend and pastor about some of his recollections of Dr. Gene Scott:

I have fond memories of Gene Scott.  I remember watching him chomp his cigar and talk about how the Hebrew slaves hid the truth of Torah in the pyramids and if you add up lengths of corridors divided by heights of this multiplied by widths of that . . . well that led you to Deuteronomy 6 and the great Shema.  AND if you line up the peaks of the pyramids they point true north. . . proof that the Bible is accurate.  WOW.  Pure entertainment. Philippians 1:15 -19. Paul is speaking to motives for teaching and not advocating anything goes as long as Jesus is mentioned, so we’ll have to continue to teach and beg and plead and hope that people with whom we are associated will allow us to introduce them to the Bible and common sense. I hope Mrs. Scott has received Jesus and I hope she blesses many with her teaching.  I’ll be rooting for her. 

What an opportunity for hyper criticism the Church resurrected when she and her husband started doing ministry! Melissa was the third wife to the “shock jock of televangelism” Dr. Gene Scott (Ph. D. Stanford University in Philosophy of Education, 1957).

As one blogger put it “what he preached FOR was a staunch belief in the Resurrection, and the power of believing in Jesus Christ of Nazareth; that, and the therapeutic power of screwing with bureaucrats.” His videos are posted all over the Internet, and folks, he’s still raising a commotion posthumously apparently!

There were very few who didn’t get on the band wagon about that ministry.  Many, along with CRI, felt strongly that Scott has no business preaching in a church. The Christian Research Institute (CRI), an international religious center based in Irvine [hosted by Hank Hannegraaf] that monitors controversial religious movements, goes so far as to advise Christians not to attend Scott's services. 

During the last few years, Scott has become more and more outrageous and offensive," a CRI analysis concludes. "His language is crude, abusive and profane, clearly violating God's standards for Christians."  Scott protested to loud applause. "These judgmental asses!"  

But it gets worse (depending on your perspective of course).  Supposedly Melissa had a pretty bad reputation and background (OK, I'm being gracious). It’s rumored that she was a porn star named Barbie ‘something or other’ prior to becoming a wife and subsequent Bible scholar. There is more than a little slander on the Internet about that which may not yet be proven to be all fact. But let’s just suppose that all of that stuff is true. Let’s say she was a porn star.  

She marries Gene Scott [20 years her elder], after they both divorced their spouses. Gene was no doubt leaning strongly toward being a cult leader by this time (OK ...so I'm really trying to be gracious now). He now has this established ‘over the top weird TV ministry’ that pays for great looking porn star women to sit up front on Sundays which might cause some men and even the women themselves to become more curious about his messages than they normally would have ever been. I mean – people are coming in to check out the ‘show’ and wind up hearing a message that some of them really believe and enjoy. Suppose all that's true. 

I read that Glenn Campbell is one of those who winds up being one of those curious guys and eventually becomes a genuine born-again believer through Gene Scott's ministry. [Glenn may not be the best example to use because he, like many of us, has had some pretty strong struggles to overcome in his Christian walk. But who hasn’t?].  

Anyway, Glenn gets invited to speak on The Blasphemy Network (TBN) about his life and Christian experience. He’s on the air explaining his conversion experience to Paul Crouch that after attending some of the infamous messages by Gene Scott he becomes a believer. Paul Crouch gets very obviously uncomfortable on live TV when Glenn mentions the Gene Scott show, and Paul changes the subject before anyone tries to explain the impossible.... someone actually comes to faith in Christ through that really weird set up with the girls and the swearing and the cigar –chewing, and the money and all the cult-like hype. 

Paul Crouch is thinking ... "sorry, that's just too weird!" Imagine Paul saying that about someone else ....

Now I'm not advocating that our church make some changes in the front rows at the early service. But you have to agree that this looks pretty unusual, and yet by God's grace it gets used in a strange way in spite of the way it looks! And the whole story ruffles Christian feathers all over the place.

So I’m asking – do you really know what God is doing in every situation? I mean well enough to make a judgment call on it?

But then I started thinking some more…..

Is Gene Scott’s show really any weirder than the open, blatant obvious heresy (I guess I'm not being gracious anymore) that we hear promulgated by TBN and other "Christian networks?" I mean, let's face it, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and the like are about as far in left field as it gets theologically. In some respects TBN may LOOK better than the Gene Scott show; and TBN undoubtedly has a “Christian platform” that has some surface appeal, but when you put it all together theologically, there’s nothing short of heresy flowing from the TBN studios regularly!  

But then I’m wondering to myself …. Might God choose to use that ministry in spite of itself as well? Are you sure enough about what God is doing in all situations to make a certain judgment call about that ministry? Who knows?  

Maybe Melissa Scott did receive Christ and was rescued from her previous pathetic lifestyle. Isn’t that what the gospel is supposed to do? Aren't we all on 'death row' before we receive Christ? Do any of us have a merit-worthy lifestyle prior to becoming Christians? I certainly didn’t. Is being a porn star any worse than being … any other kind of sinner, or an atheist? Maybe she genuinely was rescued and teaches the truth of the gospel as well as she can. 

For a sampling, there’s a collection of Melissa Scott’s sermons on video; check out this brief message on her web page here. Then tell me it's not orthodox.

Here’s a final delicacy for thought and later discussion: 

How often does our pride manifest itself in thinking that our fellow Christians are inferior to us? That they don’t deserve to be used of God in ministry? How quickly we run to plunge in the dagger to those we find fault with or disagree with. Here’s an interesting testimony from a congregant in Melissa Scott’s church. You decide for yourself.  

The ridiculous thing is, even if this … allegation was true [about her being a porn star], where is the scandal? Pastor Scott has never put herself on a pedestal and condemned others from a self-righteous pulpit ala Swaggart, Falwell, Bakker, etc. If Voss [who wrote a nasty on line hit piece about Melissa Scott’s ministry that the congregant is responding to] had listened to even a few hours of Pastor Scott's teaching, she would know that Pastor [Scott] describes herself as being worse than Paul, who was "the chiefest [sic] of sinners," "the lowest of the low," "a sinner saved by grace..." Pastor [Scott] regularly goes on like this with self-deprecatory comments. She preaches Christ, His forgiveness, His righteousness... never her own. Pastor [Scott] is all about teaching the message of grace and that no matter what condition we find ourselves in, or how badly we've screwed things up, it's never too late to turn our lives around.”  

You can check out her teaching here. You be the judge …. Or maybe you shouldn't be. Maybe you should just believe God can do the impossible, and perhaps, take Plato's advice: You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters. 

Melissa Scott photo credit: http://irishfaithcentre.ie/home.html  
Dr. Gene Scott photo credit: http://www.pirate7.com/7.html

Not just another blog on God's love ...

It's not often that you find a balanced, thoughtful and deep thinking blog on the Internet that accurately speaks to the difficult topic of the love of God. Recently I came across one such blog that I have appreciated here. 

Theological Meditations is deep, well researched, and does indeed cause one to meditate on the depth of Scriptural topics. It is a difficult topic though because 

Here is an example from that blog discussing the love of God:

"You cannot faithfully preach the gospel message to a lost soul without at least conveying to the sinner that God stands ready, willing and prepared to receive them through repentance and faith in the gospel call. That, among other things, inevitably conveys God's goodwill to that sinner, and thus God's unconditional love of benevolence to that sinner. It is most certainly not the "wrong message." Sure, to merely say that, or to merely convey that idea, is not sufficient. One must say more than that, but not less than that. The unregenerate sinner does need to be terrified about his condition, but he also needs to know that there is hope for him while he lives in this world, and that there is hope because God, in his unconditional benevolent love to that person, has made a way for him to be saved."

Here is another:

We are hence taught to acknowledge no love to be in God, which is not effectual in doing good to the creature; there is no lip-love, no raw well-wishing to the creature which God doth not make good: we know but three sorts of love, that God has to the creature, all the three are like the fruitful womb; there is no miscarrying, no barrenness in the womb of divine love; 

1. He loves all that he has made; so far as to give them a being, to conserve them in being so long as he pleaseth: he had a desire to have Sun, Moon, Stars, Earth, Heaven, Sea, Cloud, Air; he created them out of the womb of love, and out of goodness, and keeps them in being… 

2. There is a second love and mercy, in God, by which he loves all Men and Angels; yea, even his enemies, makes the Sun to shine on the unjust man, as well as the just, and causes dew and rain to fall on the orchard and fields of the bloody and deceitful man, whom the Lord abhors; as Christ teacheth us, (Matt. 5:43-48). Nor doth God miscarry in this love, he desires the eternal being of damned angels and men; he sends the Gospel to many reprobates, and invites them to repentance and with longanimity and forbearance suffereth pieces of froward dust to fill the measure of their iniquity, yet does not the Lord’s general love fall short of what he willeth to them. 

3. There is a love of special election to glory; far less can God come short in the end of this love…

[Christ Dying and Drawing, op. cit. p. 476f. (some copies, p. 440f., due to faulty numbering) Or see Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself (Glasgow: Printed by Niven, Napier & Krull; for Samuel and Archibald Gardner, 1803), 549–50. Also cited in David Silversides, The Free Offer: Biblical & Reformed (Glasgow, Scotland: Marpet Press, 2005), 46–47.]

Personally, it's difficult to talk in terms of God's 'willingness to save all men.' In that blog post, the author stated, "... carefully observe how historic Calvinists and Puritans have common love, common grace and free gracious offers interconnected with God's willingness to save all men."

Troubling to me is the fact that God's willingness to save all men doesn't come to fruition in saving men until He saves them. There is no willingness to save outside of saving them.

God's saving love for men is demonstrated in His ultimate willingness to bring His love for them to fruition.

According to Moses, "The secret things (the things that God decrees) belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29).

We need to differentiate between the complicated notion of, on the one hand, the will of God that is hidden from us and the will of God that is revealed to us.

The will of God that is hidden from us is his secret will, that will by which he decrees and determines events that do come to pass.

It’s by this secret will that he governs the universe and determines everything that will happen. He does not ordinarily reveal these decrees to us (except in prophecies of the future), so these decrees really are God's "secret" will.

We find out what God has decreed in his secret will only when events actually happen. Because this secret will of God has to do with his decreeing of events in the world, this aspect of God's will is sometimes also called God's will of decree.

God’s revealed will is revealed in the Scriptures, and usually contains his commands or "precepts" for our moral conduct.

God's revealed will is sometimes also called God's will of precept or will of command. This revealed will of God is God's declared will in His word concerning what **we should do** or what God commands us to do.

We perceive God’s revealed will because it is known to us in His commands and precepts. But his revealed will is not necessarily his (ultimate) will.

His revealed will is only the commands and precepts he issues as the
rule for **our** conduct.

God’s revealed will we know from Scripture. In his revealed will he
does not say what he will do; it is not the rule for his conduct; it does not prescribe what God must do, but tells us what he desires that we must do.

His revealed will is the rule for our conduct. It is only in a metaphorical sense, therefore, that it is called the will of God.”

God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth in the sense that this is what he has revealed that he desires that we do.

Troubling to me is the fact that God's willingness doesn't come to fruition in saving men until He saves them. 

According to Moses, "The secret things (the things that God decrees) belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29).

We need to differentiate between the complicated notion of, on the one hand, the will of God that is hidden from us and the will of God that is revealed to us. The will of God that is hidden from us is his secret will, that will by which he decrees and determines events that do come to pass.

It’s by this secret will that he governs the universe and determines everything that will happen. He does not ordinarily reveal these decrees to us (except in prophecies of the future), so these decrees really are God's "secret" will.

We find out what God has decreed in his secret will only when events actually happen. Because this secret will of God has to do with his decreeing of events in the world, this aspect of God's will is sometimes also called God's will of decree.

God’s revealed will is revealed in the Scriptures, and usually contains his commands or "precepts" for our moral conduct. God's revealed will is sometimes also called God's will of precept or will of command. This revealed will of God is God's declared will in His word concerning what **we should do** or what God commands us to do.

We perceive God’s revealed will because it is known to us in His commands and precepts. But his revealed will is not necessarily his (ultimate) will. His revealed will is only the commands and precepts he issues as the rule for **our** conduct.

God’s revealed will we know from Scripture. In his revealed will he does not say what He will do; it is not the rule for his conduct; it does not prescribe what God must do, but tells us what he desires that we must do.

His revealed will is the rule for our conduct. It is only in a metaphorical sense, therefore, that it is called the will of God.” God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth in the sense that this is what he has revealed that he desires that we do.

There is no such thing as a literalist

When it comes to Bible interpretation … there is no such thing as a ‘literalist'!

This is a curious notion really, and many fail to give 'biblical literalism' any serious reflection. This is especially true in light of the question I hear frequently from my unbelieving friends: “You don’t interpret the Bible literally do you?” My answer is usually, "It all depends on context." 

So as not to appear to let my theological predisposition taint the discussion, (as if to assume that Amillennialists might have a better grasp on the definition than Dispensationalists), here is a quote defining literal interpretation from J. Dwight Pentecost, a solid Dispensational Premillennialist, from Dallas Theological Seminary, from his book, Things to Come: 'A Study in Biblical Eschatology':

“The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.”

This concern for interpreting the Bible literally is not just an issue that comes up between unbelievers and believers. First, let's think about what it means to say that we want to "give each word the same basic meaning it would normally have" in interpretation, and then I’ll examine more closely other problem areas that occur in our literal interpretation of Scripture. 

The Problem with Interpreting the Word All Literally

It shouldn't be surprising that this issue of literal interpretation finds its way into the heart of the ongoing interpretative debate between Calvinists and Arminians, as depicted in this comment:

"The Calvinistic effort to limit this word [all] to “all the elect” constitutes one of the saddest chapters in exegesis. The Scriptures shine with the “all” of universality, but Calvinists do not see it. Their one effort is to find something that would justify them to reduce “all” to “some.” Calvin himself says that all = all kinds, all classes, rich and poor, high and low, rejecting no class, taking some of each, but not all in the sense of every individual." [R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (Minnesota: Augsbury Publishing House, 1963), 1029].

No wonder there are so many issues with interpretation! Christians can’t even agree what the words all and many mean. If we say we want to interpret these words consistently or normally or ordinarily, and not contextually, in order to get at the literal sense, we run into all kinds of trouble. 

Looking closely at the use of these two words in just two verses of Romans chapter 5, we find that Paul used each of the terms all and many to mean both ‘each and every individual’, and ‘some individuals,’ depending entirely upon the contextual usage and not by interpreting it normally, ordinarily, consistently or literally.

^{NKJ Romans 5:18-19 "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men [every existing individual], resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men [all who believe], resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many [every existing individual] were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many [all who believe] will be made righteous."}

Clearly, Lenski's comment that Calvinists fail to interpret the word all in its ordinary, consistent and normal use is surprising. Would he suggest that Christ's obedience made every individual person righteous before God, even the unbeliever?

What is the Literal Interpretation of Prophesy?

This problem of interpretation also exists between Amillennialists and Dispensationalists.

Almost all of the problems associated with the different views of the book of Revelation are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation. And using words like normal and plain as the basis for our understanding any text of Scripture depends entirely on context, and not just the immediate context of the verse. When we interpret any passage anywhere in the Bible, we need to consider the sense that the entirety of Scripture gives a passage, in order to get the meaning in each case, including:

The particular words being used; the verse the words appear in; the paragraph the verse is in; the chapter the paragraph is in; the book the chapter is in; the Testament the book is in; and the entirety of Scripture.

Even more importantly, however, is that no matter how plain or how literal we think we are in our interpretation, if we do not arrive at what the author intended to say, no degree of plainness or literalness will help us arrive at a correct interpretation.

What the author (being moved by the Spirit) meant the verse to mean in the immediate and full context in which it appears, is what the passage literally means, regardless of whether or not we interpret it in a literal or figurative sense. And we must concede up front, that the author had one specific intended meaning when he wrote, whether or not we think we have the literal or plain meaning or not.

Naturally, there are certain liabilities to using the words literal and plain to describe how we understand certain Scriptures. Claiming to adhere to a literal translation in all cases of prophesy, for example, as most every Dispensationalist is prone to do, would make for some wrong interpretations, would it not? 

Take Daniel 9:26 for example:

“...And the people of the prince who is to come

Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end of it shall be with a flood.”

First, we need to be sure about which period of time this occurs in: is this prophesy referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (as most commentators agree that it was)? If so, did Daniel not rather speak spiritually or figuratively here by using the word 'flood' and mean that the city would be flooded with the soldiers of Titus? Wouldn’t interpreting the passage literally and in the normal and plain use of the word 'flood' make that prophesy untrue?

What about the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants would possess the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18)? Some Dispensationalists suggest that this prophesy has yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled at some time in the future.

^{NKJ Genesis 15:18-21 "On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."}

According to my reading of the Bible, this promise was fulfilled under the leadership of Joshua 600 years after the promise was given to Abraham! Read Joshua 11:23. Every major version of Scripture says "whole land." Deuteronomy 1:8 says that "you are to go in and possess the land which Jehovah swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them." 

    Read Joshua 21:43-45. All versions are similarly interpreted: “Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel.” Those verses seem to me to sum up that the promises of the land have been fulfilled.    

What is the Literal Interpretation of the Everlastingness of God’s Promises?

Understanding the everlastingness of God's promises presents us with another example of the difficulty of interpreting passages literally: What are we to make of the aspect of  'everlastingness' in the promises that God made? In what sense is  there an obligation on God's part to fulfill what were clearly 'everlasting' promises?  Does our fascination with literalness bind us to making God have to deal with Israel in a particular way in the distant future because God still needs to keep His 'everlasting' promises to Israel?

Can an Old Testament promise be said to be eternal, yet cease to be in effect? Apparently so. The Old Testament use of the word "eternal" must be interpreted according to the radius of time being dealt with. For instance, each example listed below was instituted and pronounced by God Himself to be an 'eternal' promise given to Israel. I've given you the verses so you can read for yourself that these are eternal promises:

Sabbath- Exodus 31:13-16; Ezekiel 20:12ff

Circumcision- Genesis 17:11-13

Priesthood- Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:13

Perpetuity of Solomon's house- 2 Chronicles 7:16

There are a couple of preliminary issues to keep in the back of our minds as we proceed here: One is whether the word eternal means something like 'completed in the distant-and-as-yet-unknown-future' only? Another is, does the word eternal mean 'without ceasing from the moment I give the promise until time ceases'? Or can eternal mean 'until the fulfillment of the promise from God's perspectives over',  regardless of whether or not human beings think that that fulfillment has taken place?

I would suggest the following ways to pursue evaluating these difficulties:

(1) Though the Sabbath was an eternal promise given to the people of Israel, they repeatedly profaned it. For those who would suggest that the giving of and the  keeping of the Sabbath are meant to be observed by Israel perpetually, Calvin suggested that Sabbath keeping was never intended by God to be perfected in Israel's practice of keeping one day set aside to observe God's rest. 

"The Sabbath would never be perfected until the Last Day should come.  For we here begin our blessed rest in Him … it will not be consummated until … God shall be 'all in all' [1 Corinthians 15:28]...  It would seem that the Lord [was trying to] make them aspire to this perfection by unceasing meditation upon the Sabbath throughout life ...  There is no doubt that the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished …  [Sabbath keeping] is not confined within a single day but [is intended to] extend through the whole course of our life … Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days" [2.8.30-31].

(2) Circumcision, according to Calvin, was likewise intended to be fulfilled in Christ, and not to be understood as an eternal promise to all nations.

"… [circumcision] was a token and a reminder to confirm [to Israel] the promise given to Abraham of the blessed seed in which all nations of the earth were to be blessed [Genesis 22:18]… Now, that saving seed (as we are taught by Paul) was Christ [Galatians 3:16], in whom alone they trusted … circumcision was the same thing to them as in Paul's teaching it was to Abraham, namely, a sign of the righteousness of faith" [Romans 4:11] [4.14.21].

(3) An eternal priestly promise was in effect only as long as the Levitical priesthood existed for the time God intended it to remain in use. The high priest was

"… a mediator between God and men, to make satisfaction to God by the shedding of blood and by the offering of a sacrifice that would suffice for the forgiveness of sins. This high priest was Christ [Hebrews 4:14; 5;5; 9:11]; he poured out his own blood; he himself was the sacrificial victim; he offered himself, obedient unto death, to the father" [Philippians 2:8]. Institutes [4.14.22].

In addition to this, we have the New Testament declaration that we Christians who have come to Christ are considered to be a 'holy priesthood … through Jesus Christ' [1 Peter 2:5]. The function of High Priest was not intended to be an eternal promise.

(4) 2 Chronicles 7:16 says God promised to live in Solomon's house forever. Yet that house was destroyed and does not exist today. Did the God of eternal promises break His promise? Or did "forever" mean not 'from the time I instituted the promise till the end of time," but "for as long as the house stood"? 

Or should the literal interpretation of these promises be to interpret them according to the radius of time in which they were issued and intended?

Promise with reference to the temple was binding upon God until the very second the temple ceased to exist; an eternal promise under the old covenant was in effect only during the life of that old covenant. To say the least, theological pandemonium has blossomed out of the attempt to make promises made under the law binding upon God long after the initial intent of the promise has served its purpose in God's program.

A legal eternal promise was in effect only as long as the ceremonial and civil law was in effect; an eternal promise to national Israel was in effect only as long as God dealt with Israel as a nation (and here there is quite a discrepancy, as the dispensationalist says God is still waiting to finish dealing with Israel, and the Amillennialist says that there is no distinction between true Israel and the church; but again, it is a matter of one's hermeneutic).

Conclusion

The objective in Biblical interpretation should be to determine what the author intended the passage to mean when he wrote it. That is our only objective. We are  not trying to determine whether a passage should be understood literally or symbolically, and sometimes we don't really know which the author intended. 

One blog I read tried to establish this type of methodology: "Does it possess a degree of absurdity when taken literally? Example: Isaiah 55:12 “the trees of the fields will clap their hands.” Did this author really think that there were people reading that text that thought, "Wow, these must have been very special trees to actually have hands."

Scripture frequently uses language metaphorically. Here is an excellent example of the use of striking metaphor: "For if God  … cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment ..." [2 Peter 2:4]. Clearly, the author didn't mean actual chains of darkness. 

This same blogger wrote, "a symbolic view of 1000 years does not possess a degree of clarity," yet they fail to see the humor in this comment! If the author of the Scripture was concerned that that particular symbolism led to a lack of clarity, and his one focus was to be clear in the passage, wouldn't he have chosen some other form of expression so to avoid the confusion? 

Furthermore, who is confused? The author or the reader? Again, we are to determine not whether or not the author was clear in his language by our subjective considerations, but rather, we are attempting to fathom, using the language that he used, what he meant! This is especially true in light of the fact that he could have used other language if he thought lack of clarity would be a problem. 

Perhaps the writer used '1000 years' with the intention of being purposefully unclear, meaning something like "a heck of a long time." Then again, maybe he meant exactly 1000 years to the day, and not 1000 years and 1 day! Sometimes we don't know exactly what he meant.