sobering words from derek

Listen Here

i repent of my pursuit of America’s dream
i repent of living like i deserve anything
my house, my fence, my kids, and my wife
in our suburb where we’re safe and white
i am wrong and of these things i repent

i repent of parading my liberty
i repent of paying for what i get for free
for the way i believe that i am living right
by trading sins for others that are easier to hide
i am wrong and of these things i repent

i repent. judging by a law that even i can’t keep
of wearing righteousness like a disguise
to see through the planks in my own eyes

i repent of trading truth for false unity
i repent of confusing peace and idolatry
of caring more of what they think than what i know of what we need
and domesticating You until You look just like me
i am wrong and of these things i repent

Adoption into Freedom

This post was originally an email that I wrote last October. I hope that people who read it have had time to consider it. If so, I would really enjoy hearing your thoughts on it now. (I recommend listening to the 20 minute sermon again).

I recently listened to Mike Erre’s podcast of Ephesians 1 “Adoption into Freedom.”

There were a few things I heard that I felt like sharing with you. I’d love to know your thoughts. I wanted to write this email because I felt like a lot was left out of the sermon and because I feel like people may be misled by some of Mike’s comments. He implied that Ephesians has nothing to do with predestination because people in Ephesus wouldn’t have been debating Calvinism, they would have been crying. I feel that such an off the cuff remark unjustly dismisses the deep implications of Ephesians 1.

Ephesians 1

The Blessings of Redemption

1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

**A side note: the Hellenistic culture Mike rightly condemns is alive and well as he points out. The culture he described, the culture that practices infanticide, is the culture that millions of Americans flocked to cheer on in the recent film “300”. The theaters that Mike said were created to seduce the people into Hellenism are not unlike the cineplexes we visit weekly. Amanda also reminded me that infanticide is not something from history books. It is alive and well in America. When her sister was pregnant, they did a test to see if there would be any deformities or problems with the child… after the test results they asked her if she wanted to have an abortion. This is common practice.

Before I say anything about what Mike taught I want to say that nothing I say should be interpreted against Mike personally. My issue is strictly with what was taught.


One important issue that I want to address is how we are to interpret and understand Ephesians, and for that case, all of Scripture. Mike spends quite some time describing what he believes the culture of Ephesus was like at the time of the writing of the epistle. Mike’s speculations may or may not be correct, but it is important to realize that they are speculations not arrived at from Scripture. They rely on fallible men and women conducting historical studies. This does not mean they are necessarily wrong, it simply means that they are fallible.

I don’t think it is wrong to consider the context of a particular book in Scripture, in fact I think it is very necessary. However, the question is whether or not such context should be the primary means of understanding Scripture. Mike says we are to understand Ephesians 1 in light of Hellenism. Is there another alternative?

The best means of understanding something that has been written is to ask the author (prayer). Then we should consider what else the author has written on the subject. Certainly after this is done we can also study the historical context of the author’s writings, but the best means of understanding what an author is saying is to let him explain. The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit. Yes it was written by various men inspired by the Holy Spirit, and yes they wrote using the context of their particular culture, but the source of the revelation they communicated was the Holy Spirit.

The best way of understanding the adoption Paul talks about in Ephesians 1 is to consider if the Holy Spirit has discussed the issue of adoption at any other point in His writings. After this is done we may consider what insights the historical context may provide. Mike did not do this. He offered no other passages on adoption to help explain Ephesians 1. Instead, he painted a picture of what historians have said Ephesus was like at the time and said this is how we must understand adoption.

An important question to ask is: Is the Bible sufficient?

Do we need anything outside of the Bible to understand what the Bible is teaching us? I agree that historical context may provide us with helpful information. However, is it true that in order to understand what the Bible says in any particular passage, we have to resort to historical studies outside of the Bible? Is it possible to understand what adoption means without knowing the historical context of Ephesus? Must we rely on sources outside of the Bible to understand Paul’s point? Must we rely on sources outside of the Bible to understand what God is communicating to us – or has He provided us with revelation that is sufficient?

2 Timothy 3:15-17

the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

In his second sermon on Ephesians, Mike explains that there is disagreement about the historical background. He decides to believe what is right based on how many people agree with a particular stance. Is this the best we can do? Is the only way to understand the Bible to choose an historian’s research based on what is most probably correct and then form our theology around that? Or do we have something much more certain?

I also take issue with the way Mike characterizes Paul’s writing. He says Paul went “berserk” and we should imagine Paul pacing around, rambling, because its “just a series of clauses thrown together” that his scribes scribbled down. “He’s just searching for language exalted enough to describe what it is Jesus had done” “Paul keeps searching for words big enough.” This is not what Paul is doing. “Blessed” “heavenly” “predestined” “adoption” “unblemished” “glory” “grace” “redemption” “forgiveness” are not “big” “exalted” words that Paul had to settle with. Paul carefully chose these words because they each have a specific meaning and together they communicate exactly what God wants to communicate to us so that we understand exactly how He is working in our lives.

Consider this statement from Mike:

“Don’t let the word  predestined spin you out. First of all, Paul was worshiping, he’s not giving us theological, like, treatises. But secondly, nobody in the 1st century would have had a heated debate whether or not God was a Calvinist. You know what they would have been doing? They would have been weeping.”

Consider the implications of what Mike is saying. He says we should ignore specific words that Paul wrote because Paul was not trying to teach theology, he was worshipping, he was rambling and the words that came out don’t mean anything other than that they are “exalted” “big” words. Can we say the same thing about the word “forgiveness”? Or does the word forgiveness actually mean something? (Also, is he saying that teaching clear doctrine is not worship?) Mike also implies that Paul is only allowed to teach about what is currently under debate. Does God not have the freedom to teach what He wants about Himself to His people?

Other Relevant Passages on Adoption:

Romans 8: 29For those whom He)foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Galatians 3:3 In the same way we also, when we were children, [we] were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

1 John 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now

Romans 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Not everyone is a child of God, not everyone is adopted

Ephesians 5:5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light

John 8:41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

If we seek to understand the adoption that Paul is talking about by comparing it with other passages using the same language, we will have a much better chance of understanding what he is saying.

The last two passages are just a couple of the numerous passages in the Bible that present a contrast between children of the devil and children of God. We were all once children of the devil, under the just wrath of God for our disobedience.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 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— 3 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. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved

We should seek to understand adoption, first and foremost, the way that the bible understands adoption. It is clear through these verses that the bible presents adoption as

1) an act that is possible only because of Christ’s work (he is the first born among His brethren)

2) something not everyone receives

3) bringing us out of darkness into light, out of the wrath of God into His grace

4) a matter concerning sin and righteousness (understood in the context of a fallen human race unable and unwilling to obey the law of God)

How the Ephesians in their Hellenistic culture viewed adoption may provide some interesting insight, but if we allow our understanding of the Bible to be shaped by what we think the Ephesians were thinking, rather than what the Bible explains, then we are truly missing the point.


A theme in Mike’s teaching was that “blameless” in verse 4 can be interpreted as “unblemished” as well. He said we are to understand this in contrast to the deformed, blemished infants who were thrown away. Thus we must understand all of this talk of God’s love and adoption as God overlooking our defects (mostly physical) and bringing us into his family despite our blemishes because in God’s eyes we are acceptable.

I do not believe this is correct. We are not acceptable in God’s eyes. Paul is not referring to the physical deformities of the abandoned children in Ephesus, he is referring to our blemished, stained, sinful condition. The NETbible is a great translation that includes extensive footnotes about different possible translations. It says this about blameless/unblemished:

The Greek word translated unblemished (μμους, amwmous) is often used of an acceptable paschal lamb. Christ, as our paschal lamb, is also said to be unblemished (Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:19). Since believers are in Christ, God views them positionally and will make them ultimately without blemish as well (Jude 24; Eph 5:27; Col 1:22).

Christ is acceptable in God’s eyes and His perfect righteousness is counted on our behalf. In judgment, God looks at us through Christ’s atoning blood. No mention of Jesus in this regard was made in the sermon, leading hearers to believe God simply ignores our sin (or rather, physical deformities in the world’s eyes – as Mike emphasized instead of sin) and loves us for who we are.

The language of v4 is a little confusing “He chose us in Him”. The NET bible makes the translation clearer: “For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished”

Mike also makes the analogy of “a God who goes up to a hill to pick those who, in the world’s eyes aren’t fit, aren’t acceptable, and He rears them and adopts them into His family.” Again, this communicates the idea that in God’s eyes we are acceptable and fit to be His children. This is not true. The verses above, specifically Ephesians 2 describes us as children of wrath. The only way we can be viewed as acceptable is by being made alive together with Christ (v5) so that God looks upon Christ’s righteousness, not ours. We are born sons of the devil. We are unacceptable in God’s eyes. God goes so far as to say our righteous deeds are filthy garments:

Isaiah 64:6

We are all like one who is unclean,

all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight.

We all wither like a leaf;

our sins carry us away like the wind.

Again, Christ alone is righteous and we may only be called sons of God because He perfectly fulfilled the law and became the first born among many brethren.

God’s Pursuit

Mike then seems to change the analogy. First He talks of a sovereign Father choosing His children. Then He implies that the Father is simply pursuing His children, not choosing them. He says God’s not like the traffic cop waiting to catch you, He’s chasing after you. He then says we are chosen in passionate pursuit. This analogy no longer fits with what he said the verse is talking about – God choosing His children like a father chooses his children out of a dump of defects. Mike says “left up on the hill, we can’t save ourselves. It’s about the God who comes after us.” Here he tries to combine the analogies, but it just doesn’t work unless we are to assume that by pursuit, Mike means pursuit and accomplishment of pursuit. A man in pursuit of a dying baby cannot save the baby unless he actually picks him up and calls him his own. It does no good for the man to stand at the bottom of the mountain of babies and call out to it. The dying baby cannot respond, it cannot raise itself up and climb into the waiting arms of the father. Our situation is even worse. We are not dying babies, we are dead in our trespasses and sins. Not only does God have to climb up the mountain and choose us, pick us up, He also has to give us life to bring us back from the dead. There is nothing the baby does in any of this, it simply receives the gift of life and adoption.

In this context, I would urge you to ask yourself which of the following you believe to be true:

1) You exercised saving faith and then you were born again


2) You were born again and then you exercised saving faith

To keep with our analogy: did the baby get up, crawl down the pile and jump into the father’s arms? Or did the father climb up the hill, give the dead baby a new heart, pick up the baby and then see the baby hug him in response to this love that has already saved him?

Salvation is of the Lord. It is not our doing, it is the work of God. This is what Calvinism teaches. This is what Ephesians and the rest of the Bible is talking about. To dismiss Ephesians 1 as having nothing to do with Calvinism is to keep you from understanding the deep reality of God’s sovereign work of salvation in your life. As the verse says, God predestined you to be adopted as His children. It is not something you did. You are not a child of God because you believe in Him, you believe in Him because you are a child of God.

If God is simply pursuing you, waiting for you to respond, then you will never be saved. We were all dead in our trespasses and sins, enslaved to the devil, unable and unwilling to turn to Christ. God must lift you up and give you new life in order for you to “choose” Him. This is Calvinism. Ask yourself what it means to be chosen by God before the foundations of the world. Go back and study this 1st chapter of Ephesians and then study the 2nd chapter and then ask yourself if you think the letter Paul wrote has anything to do with God’s sovereignty or if it’s just about people crying.

I hope I do not sound overly harsh. I hope I did not offend anyone by challenging your pastor’s teaching. I hope that you will consider this alternative view of Ephesians 1 and I really hope that you will write me back and let me know what you think. However, if you want to simply dismiss this email as an irrelevant disagreement, if you think it’s pointless, if you think it has no affect on your relationship with Christ, then I would like to know why you waste time going to church every week to hear someone teach you about the Bible.

If you’re interested in hearing other sermons on Ephesians 1, I recommend:

“Predestined for Adoption to the Praise of His Glory”

“God Has Chosen Us In Him Before the Foundations of the Earth”

“Chosen By the Father” + “Predestined for Adoption”

Mike says these verses are not about Calvinism. I urge you to compare John Calvin’s sermon on Ephesians 1:3-4 and decide who does a better job of explaining what the text says:

God Bless,



Hans Herman Hoppe on Empiricism

The Mises Institute has recorded audio books of several of it’s publications. They have been publishing some of them on their podcast. I listened to some of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty (text version) and found his account of Purtian New England very interesting. The most recent book on the podcast is Hans Herman Hoppe’s Economic Science and the Austrian Method (text version).

Hoppe’s book is an explanation and defense of the Austrian method of economics, as opposed to all other methods. What distinguishes Austrianism is that it is not empirical. It is rational, or as Mises put it, a priori. Hoppe quotes Mises explanation:

Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events.

Hoppe further explains the situation:

It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science, a science whose propositions can be given a rigorous logical justification, which distinguishes Austrians, or more precisely Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises’s view that economic theorems?like the law of marginal utility, or the law of returns, or the time-preference theory of interest and the Austrian business cycle theory?can be given definite proof, such that it can be shown to be plainly contradictory to deny their validity.

Hoppe then begins a critique of empiricism, especially in regards to economics.

Moreover, even if we have observed some definite outcome, let’s say that mixing the two materials leads to an explosion, can we then be sure that such an outcome will invariably occur whenever we mix such materials? Again, the answer is no. Our predictions will still, and permanently, be hypothetical. It is possible that an explosion will only result if certain other conditions?A, B, and C?are fulfilled. We can only find out whether or not this is the case and what these other conditions are by engaging in a never-ending trial and error process. This enables us to improve our knowledge progressively about the range of application for our original hypothetical prediction.

…the Ricardian law of association…minimum wage… marginal utility…

Considering such propositions, is the validation process involved in establishing them as true or false of the same type as that involved in establishing a proposition in the natural sciences? Are these propositions hypothetical in the same sense as a proposition regarding the effects of mixing two types of natural materials? Do we have to test these economic propositions continuously against observations? And does it require a never-ending trial and error process in order to find out the range of application for these propositions and to gradually improve our knowledge, such as we have seen to be the case in the natural sciences?

To use an analogy, it is as if one wanted to establish the theorem of Pythagoras by actually measuring sides and angles of triangles. Just as anyone would have to comment on such an endeavor, mustn’t we say that to think economic propositions would have to be empirically tested is a sign of outright intellectual confusion?

He continues in part II:

According to empiricism, to explain causally or predict a real phenomenon is to formulate a statement of either the type “if A, then B” …

As a statement referring to reality (with A and B being real phenomena), its validity can never be established with certainty, that is, by examining the proposition alone, or of any other proposition from which the one in question could be logically deduced. The statement will always be and always remain hypothetical, its veracity depending on the outcome of future observational experiences which cannot be known in advance. Should experience confirm a hypothetical causal explanation, this would not prove that the hypothesis was true. Should one observe an instance where B indeed followed A as predicted, it verifies nothing. A and B are general, abstract terms, or in philosophical terminology, universals, which refer to events and processes of which there are (or might be, in principle) an indefinite number of instances. Later experiences could still possibly falsify it.

And if an experience falsified a hypothesis, this would not be decisive either. For if it was observed that A was not followed by B, it would still be possible that the hypothetically related phenomena were causally linked. It could be that some other circumstance or variable, heretofore neglected and uncontrolled, had simply prevented the hypothesized relationship from actually being observed. At the most, falsification only proves that the particular hypothesis under investigation was not completely correct as it stood. It needs some refinement, some specification of additional variables which have to be watched for and controlled so that we might observe the hypothesized relationship between A and B. But, to be sure, a falsification would never prove once and for all that a relationship between some given phenomena did not exist, just as a confirmation would never definitively prove that it did exist.

He also notes:

However appropriate the empiricist ideas may be in dealing with the natural sciences (and I think they are inappropriate even there, but I cannot go into this here), [25] it is impossible to think that the methods of empiricism can be applicable in the social sciences.

**Update: I see that I’m getting some traffic from the Czech Republic. A helpful supplement to this post is an essay by John W. Robbins regarding economic methodology, analyzing Mises and Friedman, among others: The Failure of Secular Economics and an MP3 lecture of the same: The Failure of Secular Economic Theory (MP3)

The Myth of Adolescence

I heard about Newt’s comments on an episode of The Way of the Master (at the end around 40:00), they have some good commentary on it. Phil Hammond comments that today’s youth are not the church of tomorrow, they are the church of today and should be treated as such. He supports children attending the main service and interacting with everyone, rather than compartmentalizing them into their specific age groups.

Monergism Books is selling a new version of Calvin’s Institutes and I was once again struck by the fact that Calvin wrote his masterpiece when he was 26.

It seems to me that there is a natural division between children and adults, and that is puberty. Leviticus 27 and Numbers 1 seem to imply that there is a division at about 20 years old, but the context is manual labor and war.

Newt’s source appears to be a book called The Case Against Adolescence that apparently addresses this issue. You can read an interview with the author here: Trashing Teens. The author says:

The whole culture collaborates in artificially extending childhood, primarily through the school system and restrictions on labor. The two systems evolved together in the late 19th-century; the advocates of compulsory-education laws also pushed for child-labor laws, restricting the ways young people could work, in part to protect them from the abuses of the new factories. The juvenile justice system came into being at the same time. All of these systems isolate teens from adults, often in problematic ways.


Everyone who has looked at the issue has found that teens can experience the love that adults experience. The only difference is that they change partners more, because they are warehoused together, told it’s puppy love and not real, and are unable to marry without permission. The assumption is they are not capable.


The “friends with benefits” phenomenon is a by-product of isolating adolescents, warehousing them together, and delivering messages that they are incapable of long-term relationships. Obviously they have strong sexual urges and act on them in ways that are irresponsible. We can change that by letting them know they are capable of having more than a hookup.

Compare this with Martin Luther’s words from The Estate of Marriage:

In the third place, from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19 [:12], “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end.

Here are a couple other blogs about the book (oddly enough both from libertarian blogs):
The Case Against Adolescence (Laissez Faire Books)
The Case Against Adolescence (Marginal Revolution)

What do you think?