There seems to be an anti-historical attitude among Christians today. Many people’s view of church history extends back only to the church their parents or grand parents attended. Nevertheless, I would suggest that there are several great reasons why Christians should study the past in general and Church history in particular.

First, the past is a great stimulus to faith. When David faced Goliath, he did so because he had already seen God's faithfulness and power. David carried in his soul the memories of some dramatic moments when the Lord delivered his life from the mouth of a ferocious hungry lion and the jaws of a ravenous bear. When the lion carried away a lamb that was entrusted to David, the Sweet Singer of Israel went after that lion. And when the lion dropped the lamb and turned to devour David, the Shepherd fought back and slew him (1 Sam. 17:32-36). In like manner, Christ protects His own by dealing with the Great Lion who spiritually seeks to destroy the sheep. Time passed and another enemy came forth. The enemy was an uncircumcised Philistine named Goliath (1 Sam. 17:38-51). Standing over nine feet tall, Goliath had been trained in fleshly warfare since childhood. But he was no match for David because this soldier of God had been trained in spiritual warfare since childhood. Goliath might trust the strength of the carnal weapons he possessed, but David would rely on the mighty arm of the living Lord. God had always been faithful. And so David remembered the past in order to face a present ordeal.

Not only is the study of the past a stimulus to faith, but the study of history pleases God. Many times in Scripture God reminds His people of His great exploits on their behalf and bids them to remember. Isaiah 46:9 "Remember the former things of old: For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me." Furthermore, 1 Chronicles 16:11–12 states, "Seek the Lord and His strength, seek His face continually. Remember His marvelous works that He hath done, His wonders, and the judgments of His mouth..."

There are particular truths God wants His people to remember.

Christians are to remember the works of creation for "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." (Psa. 19:1)

Christians are to remember the Sabbath day. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Ex. 20: 8).

Christians are to remember the commandments of God. The Law was given "That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God" (Num. 15:40).

The church is to remember the general mercies of Divine favor in being delivered from the land of bondage. "And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes" (Deut. 16:12).

Christians are to remember the Lord's death until He comes. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor. 11:26).

It is in the study of history that the greatest story ever told is reviewed. The heart remembers the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the world is invited to authenticate or discredit Christianity on a simple historical question, "Who moved the stone?"

If the Disciples of Christ moved the stone to steal the body of Jesus, then Christianity is a lie and the most monstrous of all religions because it sets itself up to be the most moral. However, if an angel rolled the stone away from the tomb, not to let Christ out, but to let the world in, then Christianity is vindicated and we serve a risen Savior. There is a Man in the heavens, and His name is Jesus.

As the study of history stimulates faith, pleases God, and validates the Christian message, it also encourages the church to contend for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. And there is such a faith as per Jude 3. "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

When asked the secret to his successful preaching, Charles H. Spurgeon replied, "I take my text and make a bee line for the Cross." In every book of the Bible, Christ can be found. Look for Him as you read.

"In Genesis He is the Seed of the woman;
In Exodus He is the Passover Lamb;
In Leviticus He is the Atoning Sacrifice;
In Numbers He is the Smitten Rock;
In Deuteronomy He is the Prophet;
In Joshua He is the Captain of the Lord's Hosts;
In Judges He is the Deliverer;
In Ruth He is the Heavenly Kinsman;
In 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles He is the Promised King;
In Nehemiah He is the Restorer of the nation;
In Esther He is the Advocate;
In Job He is my Redeemer;
In Psalms He is my Saviour;
In Proverbs He is my wisdom;
In Ecclesiastes He is my Goal;
In the Song of Solomon He is my Satisfier;
In the Prophets He is the coming Prince of Peace;
In the Gospels He is God in Christ Jesus come to redeem;
In Acts He is Alive in the Church;
In the Epistles He is Christ at the Father's right hand;
In Revelation He is the mighty conqueror."

Excerpt taken from Predestined to Believe (2nd ed.)

Dear Wesley,

Thank you for your most recent letter addressing the topic of predestination and fatalism. I found it to be very thought provoking and it challenged me to think deeply about my own convictions. I must say in all honesty that I truly enjoy when someone brings issues to light that I might have never before considered. So for accomplishing that—and in such an articulate manner—I thank you. But in the final analysis, I do not believe your conclusion is accurate. I can understand how someone can be easily confused and think the two doctrines are similar but there is only a superficial agreement at best.

This topic is too important for me to let you persist in your confusion so let me be as clear as I can when I say that predestination is not the same as the pagan philosophical doctrine that emphasizes the subjugation of all events or actions to fate—specifically, fatalism. This perennial charge has been a constant stigma of God’s free will but as you will soon see it is unwarranted. I would tell you that nearly every generation has had to deal with this issue and so long as people are around to debate God’s sovereignty the issue of fatalism and predestination will continue to linger. And it appears that our generation has not been spared of this debate either. My desire is for you to be able to realize the two positions are not compatible and that belief in the latter does not lead to indifferent fatalism.

Let me begin by agreeing with one of your propositions, just to show you that I do not always disagree with everything you write. I’m not ashamed to admit that we can agree on theological matters every now and again. I would here point out that you were correct when you said that both philosophies assume the absolute certainty of all events. But, alas, that is as much as I can concede.

You might then wonder: Is not that one similarity alone enough to reject the idea of predestination? I would answer with an emphatic, no—and for good reason. The primary difference is that fatalism leaves no room for a personal God, whereas predestination holds that a sovereign and infinitely wise God appointed all events to happen for His purpose. Fatalism espouses the notion that all events come to pass through the workings of a blind, random, impersonal force which carries mankind through the odyssey of life. I think fatalism can best be summed up with the words que sera sera, whatever will be, will be.

The biblical doctrine of predestination, however, upholds that God from all eternity had one immutable plan for His creation. His decrees will never falter nor are they irrational or impersonal. All things work together for good for those who love God (Rom 8:28). Only predestination maintains the belief in a final cause, an idea that God has control over the outcome of all events. Nothing, therefore, is left to chance. Everything that comes to pass is part of a greater paradigm, one that cannot be fully understood by finite creatures because of our limitations. Remember this: The biblical perspective is that the world and all of its inhabitants were decreed before time began by an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God.

Another irreconcilable difference as I see it is predestination’s view of free will. This doctrine, when understood correctly, preserves mankind’s freedom and responsibility to God. Despite the fact that God is sovereign over all actions and works everything according to His plan, God has ordained human liberty. The same cannot be said for fatalism since it does not allow for such autonomy. It does not allow for choice or for personal acts of freedom. In the fatalistic worldview, one is inescapably left with the realization that he has no power, no freedom, and no room for moral ideas. Love, mercy, and justice are reduced to subjective and meaningless terms in a world fraught with inevitable impersonal forces that are ultimately meaningless. Such a doctrine can easily lead to misery and despair while the doctrine of predestination gives hope for one knows that a sovereign God reigns supreme and gives assurance to His people that all things work for good.

Calvin was aware of this charge, and he emphatically repudiated the accusation that his beliefs were analogous to fatalism.

"Fate is a term given by the Stoics to their doctrine of necessity, which they had formed out of a labyrinth of contradictory reasonings; a doctrine calculated to call God Himself to order, and to set His laws whereby to work. Predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things, and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible justice." And again, ". . . had you but been willing to look into my books, you would have been convinced at once how offensive to me is the profane term fate: nay, you would have learned that this same abhorrent term was cast in the teeth of Augustine by his opponents."

I believe another difference is worth mentioning. Think for a moment if there can even be such a thing as a consistent fatalist. That is, does the fatalist’s worldview even comport with reality or does he live out his life inconsistent to his views? If the fatalist truly believed his position then he would have to reason something like this: If I am going to die today, then I will not bother to eat; nor do I need to eat if I am to live a hundred years, because I will live a hundred years anyway—therefore, I will not eat. But I think it is say to say that no one lives by this type of reasoning.

Now consider the Christian who believes in predestination. Is he forced to reason the same way to remain internally consistent with his position? Absolutely not. If God has predestined someone to live a hundred years then He has also predestined to keep him from the folly of starving himself—that is to say, God has also ordained the means (eating, exercise, et cetera) to achieve the prolonged life. Fatalism, however, does not allow for such rational reasoning.

So as you can see, there are some tremendous differences between the two. I would submit to you that anyone who carefully considers the differences between fatalism and predestination will not rightly conclude that they are one in the same. But do not just take my word for it. I want to share one of my favorite anecdotes that I believe paints a vivid picture and masterfully illustrates the difference between these opposing doctrines. The former principal of Princeton Seminary, Benjamin Warfield once wrote:

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy’s home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures…suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard…It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasurable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father’s face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

That is the difference between fate and predestination. And all the language of men cannot tell the immensity of the difference.

I hope that this letter clarifies the reality that fatalism ultimately destroys the meaning and purpose in life, while the biblical alternative of predestination holds that a loving and supreme Father is unfolding His eternal plan—all the while maintaining our personal freedom. I trust that whatever confusion you might have had has now been resolved, and I look forward to reading your response and answering any further questions you undoubtedly have about the doctrines of grace.

Your affectionate uncle,
Luke

It is once again time to celebrate American independence. Throngs across the nation will inevitably don red, white, and blue and will express their profound patriotism for the good ole U. S. of A. Many will remember how our founding fathers risked their lives when they banded together with their ideas, fortunes, and honor for one purpose—to ensure that every individual was afforded the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It is their sacrifice that we today remember and it is the fruits of their indefatigable labors that we to this day so richly enjoy—and often take for granted.

But while we celebrate God’s goodness to this nation, there is a different type of freedom that no man can ever achieve by himself—the freedom from spiritual bondage and death. The apostle Paul tells us that through one man sin entered the world and death spread to all because all sinned (Rom 5:12). That is to say, Adam’s sin was imputed to humans in some profound yet real way. In Ephesians we read that, "you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2:1–3). This is the unfortunate reality under which mankind lives and operates.

The good news, however, is that Paul does not just leave us with just this worrisome tale of reality but provides the good news of hope and redemption through the second man, the last Adam—Jesus Christ. "For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:17).

Death is inevitable for each and every one of us since we died in Adam, but the "reign in life" is a choice each possesses. The one who receives the grace of God or rejects it does so on the basis of personal choice. Only those who actually respond to the gospel will reign in life, but that does not begin until the gift of righteousness is received. That all sinned in Adam, and by comparison and contrast, life was spread to all through the one man Jesus Christ because of His righteousness imputed to them is the heart and sole of the reformation principle of justification by grace alone through faith alone. We are accepted in the beloved because we are cloaked in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is what the apostle meant when he spoke of the "abundance of grace."

Therefore, we would all do well to remember the grace of God. It could easily be pointed out that Paul makes the demonstration of God’s goodness and mercy in Ephesians 1:6, Romans 8:20–21, and again in chapter 9:22–23. Paul continually stresses that when God acts, He does so in order to demonstrate His holy wrath but also to manifest the depths of His love and mercy. We must also not forget from these passages that Paul displays God’s sovereignty as He triumphed over many sins. Adam committed one transgression and it plunged mankind into a state of sin, misery, and death. Christ took not only that one transgression from Adam but also the sins of many and reversed the spiritual effects of the fall.

So in the final analysis, the good news Paul presents in the gospel cannot be over-stated. The apostle shows us how we have been redeemed and reconciled to God and how God’s love was so great that He gave us His only Son. Perhaps John Calvin summed it up best when he wrote, "however great our wrongs may be, they are swallowed up by the infinite goodness of God." The goodness of God indeed. May we all be compelled to remember that final sola of the Protestant Reformation—soli deo gloria!

Recently, a worldwide audience watched South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford offer his apologies to many people for his deliberate transgressions. As painful as his public confession was to make, and as difficult as it was to watch, perhaps the greatest tragedy is that the apology was insufficient, from a biblical point of view.

First, the apology was insufficient because it cannot undo the damage that has been done. Surely the governor knew his actions and explanations could not be hidden from the public domain, and yet he pushed ahead in an irrational manner. Once such actions are taken, they cannot be recalled. Driving the governor’s behavior was sin and sin is irrational. In the Bible sin is called a mystery because it defies understanding, apart from the pleasure principle it contains and the will to power it encourages.

Second, the governor’s apology was insufficient because it was forced and not voluntary. Had there not been a video camera at the airport to record his return from Argentina, had there not been a reporter to greet the governor at the airline’s gate, Mr. Sanford would have, in all likelihood, continued life in a normal manner after returning to his state office. Forced apologies, as forthcoming as this one was, are insufficient.

Third, the apology was insufficient because it lacked the one essential element of gospel repentance and that is brokenness. Watching the press conference of disclosure was like watching a replay of other political performances of this nature with the exception that the governor’s wife was not by his side, and he was more detailed than other political figures have been. There were the obligatory tears, but there was also something else. There was total control of the situation by a consummate politician. Several reporters were told in essence to hush, or wait, or be called upon in order. There was nothing in the voice, body language, or words to indicate Mr. Sanford is a broken man.

I know, it would not be dignified to show brokenness in a public arena, but it still remains the way to redemption according to the gospel. Jesus told the story of two men who went into the temple to pray. One man went home dignified. The other man went home justified for he "would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13).

If God is gracious to Mr. Sanford, the governor will come to know inner brokenness in public or in private. Preferably, in both places. In anguish of soul David cried out, "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest" (Psalms 51:1-4).

Isaiah looked upward and saw the glory of God. He then looked inward and said, "Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5). Paul remembered his inward corruption and screamed in agony of soul, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:24). Only brokenness before God will remove an insufficient apology.