Envy and Jealousy Distinction

Envy, Envying

A. Noun.

phthonos, "envy," is the feeling of displeasure produced by witnessing or hearing of the advantage or prosperity of others; this evil sense always attaches to this word, Matt. 27:18; Mark 15:10; Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:21; Phil. 1:15; 1 Tim. 6:4; Titus 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:1; so in Jas. 4:5, where the question is rhetorical and strongly remonstrative, signifying that the Spirit (or spirit) which God made to dwell in us was certainly not so bestowed that we should be guilty of "envy."

Note: Zelos, "zeal or jealousy," translated "envy" in the KJV, in Acts 13:45; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20; Jas. 3:14, 16, is to be distinguished from phthonos, and, apart from the meanings "zeal" and "indignation," is always translated "jealousy" in the RV. The distinction lies in this, that "envy" desires to deprive another of what he has, "jealousy" desires to have the same or the same sort of thing for itself.

W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nelson, 1985), p. 204.

Basically, jealousy says "I want what you have" while envy says "If I can't have what you have, then I don't want you to have it either." Envy seems to be a more intense degree of covetousness. Now that you have this distinction in mind, you will be able to tell how much of what you're seeing reported on TV and elsewhere is grounded in the sin of envy.

If the disputed passages of Isa. 14 and Ezek. 28 have any typological reference to Satan, then it seems that he was initially moved by jealousy (wanted to have God's glory), but then he was overcome by envy (doesn't want God to have glory). His entire existence is now consumed with an envious desire to steal God's glory. Do we even think of envy as exceedingly sinful in our ourselves and in our culture anymore? One will certainly never see most politicians condemning the sin of envy without hypocrisy, for they seem chiefly guided by it, which is one of the reasons why eternal hell will be that much hotter for them. They not only envy themselves, but they encourage others to practice it via tax policies. How many quarrels within the church are due to envy? One is never more like Satan than when guided by envy.

It was envious hearts that delivered up Christ to be crucified.

NKJ Mark 15:10 For he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy.

These words by James are particuarly strong:

NKJ James 3:16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.

Calvin on 1 John 2:2

Steve, at Controversial Calvinism, has posted an analysis of Calvin on 1 John 2:2 that is worth reading. Besides the Heshusius passage, this may be the only other place high Calvinists can go to attempt to prove their continuity with Calvin on "limited atonement". In addition to that, they just say "read Helm!" or "read Nicole!" or "read Trueman!" or "read Muller!" Then they accuse us of being "one-string banjos". That's about all they have in response.

Ralph Wardlaw (1779–1853) on Watering Down the Gospel

There is imminent danger of divesting the gospel of some attribute as essential to it as its grace, in order to lessen the aversion of the carnal mind to its provisions; and, by soft and specious sentimentalism, stripping the Almighty of the awful in his character, to give effect to the more attractive; hiding his justice, to recommend his grace; instead of employing the “terrors of the Lord” to persuade men, keeping them out of sight; dwelling much on the love, and little on the light, of God’s moral nature; and by—I know not what to call it—a kind of ultra tenderness, that would fain be more compassionate than He whose compassions are infinite—urging and almost cajoling poor sinners to the belief that God has already pardoned them, when the Bible testimony is, that “God is angry with them every day.”

Ralph Wardlaw, Two Essays (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co. and Wardlaw & Co., 1830), 204.

Bio:
Wiki

Ralph Wardlaw (1779–1853) on Sufficiency, Equivalentism and Commercialism

I have stated the general principle of atonement, as being a vindicatory manifestation of the righteousness of God, in order to the free and honourable exercise of his mercy.—In this view, I have no hesitation whatever in holding forth the atonement which has actually been made, and which is revealed in the gospel, as of unlimited sufficiency for all, and as bringing salvation near to all, presenting its blessings for their immediate acceptance. All may not be included in the secret purpose of God as to its ultimate efficaciousness. That is another matter. With such secret purposes we have nothing whatever to do, in addressing to sinners the calls and invitations of the gospel. The atonement is for all in its unbounded sufficiency, and in the unrestricted universality of the invitations and offers which, on the ground of this sufficiency, the message of mercy addresses to every sinner on the face of the earth to whose ear it comes. Such is my impression of its sufficiency, that were all the guilt of all the millions of mankind that have ever lived concentrated in my own person, I should see no reason, relying on that blood which "cleanseth from all sin," to indulge despair.—I profess myself decidedly hostile to every limitation of the atonement in this view—that is, either with regard to its sufficiency for all, or with regard to the warrant which all have, on the ground of it, to look for forgiveness and salvation.—I have ever entertained an irreconcilable aversion to the views of those expositors, who speak of the atonement as being for the elect in such a sense, as to have been an exact equivalent for the punishment due to the sins of the chosen number, and no more; so that if more had been to be saved, more must have been suffered by the Substitute, and if fewer, less. My objections to this view of the doctrine are such as these:

1. It appears to me utterly irreconcilable with any correct and consistent views of the infinite worth of the Redeemer's sacrifice.—The union of the Divine and human natures imparted to it this infinite worth; infinite, because divine. But every system which proceeds upon the principle of its rising or falling in its amount of value, according as the substitute suffers for more or for fewer—for a larger or a smaller aggregate guilt—is altogether at variance with this.—That cannot be unlimited in value, which is capable of increase or diminution.

2. If this pitiful process of commercial reckoning were admitted,—then the perdition or eternal sufferings of all mankind would have been a greater manifestation of the divine righteousness and abhorrence of sin, than the sufferings of the Son of God. For, it is evident, more would have been endured: and if the display of justice is to be calculated upon this principle,—to be estimated by the amount of actual suffering,—how can the inference be evaded? It will not repel it to remind me that Jesus was a divine person. It is most true. But it is also true, that if this consideration is taken into the account, it makes the value of his sacrifice unlimited, and therefore proves too much for the hypothesis of exact equivalent; a hypothesis, of which the principle is, a limited amount of suffering for a limited amount of sin; so that, in truth, the only intelligible use of the connection of the divine nature with the human, must have been, to enable the human to sustain the allotted quantum of suffering.

3. The hypothesis renders the salvation of any besides the elect a natural impossibility. We are accustomed to say, and we say truly and scripturally, to sinners of mankind, that if they are not saved, the fault is entirely their own, lying solely in their own unwillingness to have the salvation offered them, or to accept it on the terms on which it is presented. But on the supposition of limitation in the atonement, this is not the case. There is, indeed, indisposition on their part; and it is their sin. But if the atonement be limited in its sufficiency, it is, in the nature of the thing, absurd and contradictory so much as to imagine any, beyond the number to the amount of whose sins it is restricted, deriving any benefit from it. To call on any others to believe in Christ for salvation, is to call them, in as far as they are concerned, to believe in a non-entity. There would be nothing in the Saviour for them. They are excluded by the limitation of the remedy. For them to seek salvation would be to seek an impossibility. Were they ever so desirous of it, they could not obtain it; for the impossibility would, in this case, arise, not from their own impotence,—(their moral impotence, which is the same thing as their proud and unholy aversion, and constitutes their guilt,)—but from the very nature and constitution of the plan of redemption. If the atonement made has been equivalent to only a limited amount of sin, and if atonement be necessary to forgiveness,—then beyond the limited amount, no sin can possibly be forgiven. There is no provision for it.

4. This being the case, it will be difficult, on such a hypothesis, to vindicate, in any way, the sincerity of those divine addresses by which sinners universally are called upon to believe and be saved. If there do not exist, in the atonement or propitiation made, what has appropriately been termed an objective sufficiency for all—there really exists no ground on which sinners in general can be invited to trust. Such invitation becomes no better than a tantalizing of perishing creatures, with the offer of what has no existence. There is nothing which it is, in the nature of the thing, possible for them to receive, unless a new atonement were to be made. There is no fund from which their debts can be paid. They are invited to a feast; but there is no provision made for them. They are called to the wells of salvation; but to them they are "wells without water." An all-sufficient Saviour, becomes, in addressing sinners indiscriminately, a designation destitute of truth, a mere "great swelling word of vanity."

5. The hypothesis, in the view which it gives of the substitution and work of Christ, takes nothing into the account but the desert of the sinner. It balances a certain proportion of deserved punishment on the part of the transgressor, by a corresponding proportion of vicarious suffering on the part of the atoning substitute,—a proportion, which increases or diminishes, according to the number of sinners, and consequently according to the number and magnitude of sins, for which the substitute endures it. It appears to be entirely forgotten, that there is another party,—a party, whose claims are infinitely superior in importance to any interests of the sinning creature;—it appears to be forgotten, that the glory of God, violated by transgression, requires to be secured, and vindicated, and displayed, irrespectively of the mere numerical amount of sinners and of sins;—that this was, in truth the great end of substitution and atonement;—and that the question is not one of commutative or commercial justice,—what measure of suffering must be undergone, as an equivalent for the measure of sin to be forgiven,—how many drops of expiatory blood for so many trespasses to be remitted;—that it has no such principle in it of wretched mercantile calculation; that the chief part of it is, what was necessary to give such a manifestation of the united glories of the truth and love, the righteousness and mercy, of Jehovah, as that the honour of his character and government might be fully secured in forgiving and saving sinners?

I might, perhaps, have added with truth, that regarding the atonement as proceeding on the principle of commutative or commercial justice, or of the strict and proper payment of debt, can hardly be considered as leaving room for the subsequent exercise of grace, whatever there might be in its original appointment; inasmuch as the payment of a debt by a surety leaves no more claim, on the part of the creditor, than if it had been discharged by the debtor himself. The parallel, indeed, between the relation of a debtor to his creditor and that of a sinner to God, has, in this respect as well as in some others, been pressed too closely.—Forgiveness, according to the uniform statements of the word of God, is connected with atonement. But atonement and grace are not, by any means, incompatible. Many things, indeed, have been said about it, which were they true, would go so far, whether those who say them to be sensible of it or not, to destroy the gracious nature of the pardon bestowed on account of it. I have no objections, for example, to the customary phrase of divine justice being satisfied by the atonement; but still, the phrase requires to be scripturally explained. I fear there are not a few who, when they use this phrase, have in their minds too much of the principle of that particular kind of justice to which I have just alluded;—who regard the justice of God in the light of a rigid and inexorable creditor, demanding to the uttermost farthing the payment of what is due him; and consider the atonement as, literally and strictly, such a payment of debt on our behalf. They are not aware that by such a representation they do, in a great measure, exclude grace. For, on the principles of commercial justice, although there may be grace on the part of the Surety who comes forward to pay the debt, grace proportioned to its amount,—yet on the part of the creditor to whom the payment is made, there is and can be none. The act of payment, by whomsoever made, whether by the debtor himself or by his surety, cancels the obligation, and puts an end to grace.

Ralph Wardlaw, "On the Extent of the Atonement, and Universal Pardon," in Two Essays: I. On the Assurance of Faith: II. On the Extent of the Atonement, and Universal Pardon (Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co. and Wardlaw & Co.; A Fullarton & Co. and John Wardlaw, Edinburgh; W. F. Wakeman, Dublin; and Hamilton & Adams, London, 1830), 191–197.

Bio:
Wiki

Three Resurrection Quotes

"We are more sure to arise out of our graves than out of our beds." Thomas Watson

"Christ, like the sun eclipsed by the moon, got Himself out by His resurrection; and, as the sun by the moon, He was darkened by them to whom He gave light. His death did justify us, His resurrection did justify His death. He buried the law with Himself, and both with honour; He raised up the Gospel with Himself, and both with glory. His resurrection was the first stone of the foundation, "In Christ shall all be made alive," and the last stone of the roof, for God assures us that all come to judgment by this token, that He raised Him up from the dead (Acts 17:31). Satan danced on His grave for joy; when he had Him there once, he thought Him sure enough; but He rose again and trampled on the devil's throne with triumph. This is the faith peculiar to Christians. . . . His resurrection is not only the object of our faith, but the example of our hope." Thomas Adams

"The divinity of Christ finds its surest proof in his resurrection (Rom. 1:4). Christ's sovereignty also depends on his resurrection (Rom. 14:9). Again, our justification hangs on Christ's resurrection (Rom. 4:25). Our very regeneration depends on his resurrection (1 Peter 1:3). And most certainly our ultimate resurrection rests here (Rom. 8:11). The silver thread of resurrection runs through all the blessings, from regeneration onward to our eternal glory, and binds them together." Charles Spurgeon

We MUST Follow Men

Let me openly say that I am a follower of men. Any Christian that is not a follower of men is in sin. Anyone seeking to follow Christ (one who was certainly a man himself, but not MERELY a man) must do so through the testimony and example of the Apostles and Prophets, who were men. The Apostle Paul said this:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 4:16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me.

I can already hear someone saying, "yeah, but he's an Apostle! He's not saying we should follow uninspired men!" To that objector, I offer these texts:

NKJ 2 Thessalonians 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you;

NKJ 2 Thessalonians 3:9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.

The "us" references Paul AND HIS COMPANIONS, such as Luke, Timothy, Mark, Titus, Barnabas, Silas etc.

NKJ Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.

The author of Hebrews is commanding (not merely suggesting or encouraging) the disciples to follow the example of their godly rulers. Since it's a command of the Holy Spirit, to not do so is sin. We follow men when they are godly examples of Christ-likeness. Insofar as Calvin was an example of theological diligence and biblical excellence, I follow him, along with the other great cloud of witnesses throughout church history. Therefore, sin not and follow men.

It is commonly said that "I am not a follower of men". Well, that person is self-deluded. They are not only following men, they are following men when they utter the proposition "I am not a follower of men". They've heard other men say that and so they echo the idea. You are a follower of men whether you realize it or not. The question for the Christian is not whether you ought to be a follower of men, but which men should you follow and how far should you follow them?

History and Theology of Calvinism Syllabus

In part 4 of Phil Johnson's series on why he is a Calvinist, he has provided a word document version of Dr. Curt Daniel's History and Theology of Calvinism. Here it is:

History and Theology of Calvinism Syllabus (2.94mb)

As Phil himself says, "this is one you will want to download." It's 626 pages of material.

Why Phil Johnson is a Calvinist

Phil Johnson, of Team Pyro fame, is starting a series on "Why I am a Calvinist" at Pulpit Magazine. The first three parts are available to read (1, 2, 3). In his first post on the subject, he says the following:

But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.

I have tried to do the same thing and my blog is a testimony to that fact. Like Phil, I believe people should be reading the mainstream Calvinistic authors, hence all of the primary source quotes found here. In part 3 of his series, Phil mentions Erroll Hulse's book The Great Invitation. After he recommended that book on his blog several months ago, I decided to quote from that book on my blog:

Two Hulse Quotes

More from Erroll Hulse

Unfortunately, I think it's too late for the Reformed Baptist churches. The voices in that movement today are considerably higher in the Calvinism than Hulse. I believe David Ponter was correct when he said the following in a comment on my blog:

I am convinced that many in the Reformed Baptist moving are going higher and higher in their 'Calvinism' because of the recent attempts to re-introduce John Gill into Baptist circles, with the attempt to exonerate him of all hyperist charges. More and more are buying into his para-calvinist categories such as the denial of the well-meant offer, and that God desires the salvation of all men.

Sometimes I think folk have forgotten the work of Fuller, Carey and Spurgeon, and how Gillite-hyperism really did debilitate Baptist churches. I think some of these folk are the true revisionists.

I know of two leading and influential Reformed Baptist thinkers (Greg Welty and James White) who deny that God desires the salvation of all mankind (one [Welty] says that he wobbles on the point from day to day), and they erroneously think that such a belief is compatible with the mainline Reformed Confessions. If one denies that God wants, wills, or desires the salvation of all men, then there's no way they can consistently affirm a well-meant gospel offer. It seems to me that some of the leaders are at least on the verge of hyperism, and very few seem to be interested in considering that as even a possibility. Perhaps I've given in to pessimism, but I believe it's too late to recommend Hulse. The conceptual landscape has already been paved and Hulse's moderate interpretations of key passages (John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9 etc.) already seem ridiculous to the average Calvinist today. In fact, classical Calvinism is so thoroughly eclipsed now by Owenism that the former categories seem semi-Arminian to the those in the latter group.

Also, I don't think Phil's Spurgeonism will be a sufficient corrective to today's problem. Hyperism today is more sophisticated than an outright denial of duty-faith and our need to give indiscriminate offers. Rather, the problem today seems to involve a denial that God wills the salvation of all, and therefore he himself sincerely (or well-meaningly) offers Christ to all through the external gospel call. It also seems that mere lip service is paid to the doctrine of common grace as well. The doctrine has been gutted of any notion that God grants good things to men with a view to their ultimate well-being, i.e their eternal salvation. It's as if common grace involves nothing more than good crumbs (the common bounties of providence) falling off of the table of the elect into the hands of the non-elect, but not that God actually wills the ultimate well-being of any of the non-elect through these benevolent/loving acts. Far too many want to quickly jump to Romans 9 to talk about divine hatred and overlook the significance of what Paul says in Romans 2:4 (2) and Romans 10:1, 21. As Spurgeon said of some in his day, there seems to be a "smacking of lips over the ruin and destruction of mankind".