All You Have to Do is Recognize Your Need. Really?
With regard to saving faith, have you ever heard a preacher say "all you have to do is recognize your need" as if this were the easiest thing in the world? You might as well tell a sinner "all you have to do is perfectly obey the ten commandments." The nature of proud fallen man is such that he can no more submit to the humbling terms of the gospel any more than he can obey the law, without the Lord removing the old heart of stone and granting him a new heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26)
Who is sufficient for these things? Grace is at the root of saving faith. This spirit-wrought faith is the hand by which the soul lays hold of Jesus Christ, is united to Him, and is redeemed. They who have true faith take hold of Christ's strength, courage and his victory over the world. The more faith you have the more useful will you be. Faith is like a seed planted by God and germinated by the Holy Spirit and grows up organically, by degrees, from faith to faith. That our faith would grow should be the daily prayer of all who love the Lord. Do you have faith? Always remember that it is not something that comes natural to men, but is a supernatural gift from on high...As John the Baptist said, "...a person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven." And when Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God, Jesus answered him that "flesh and blood had not revealed this to him but my Father who is in heaven."
The command to repent and believe the gospel is given indiscriminately to all. But, contrary to what many modern preachers would say, this is no easy command to obey. Men are tethered to the yoke of sin and are by nature hostile to God (Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14) making them unable to rise above their own native resources to believe. Jesus does not come to fix our old house but says that the old house must be torn completely down to the ground. There is no coming to him in faith unless the Father grants it (John 6:65) The synergist, who still gives people hope they they are sufficient in themselves to meet God's condition, comes along as says, "All you need to do is humble yourself, recognize your need, believe the gospel..." which then puffs up the sinner, as if we only need to fix a few things in our old rotting house. But the true gospel gives a death blow to the root of our self-righteousness. The fallen man is proud and self-righteous by nature. He would do anything, even outwardly obey the commandments, rather than let go of his self-righteousness. But to give up self-righteousness is absolutely needful to salvation, and this humility, this letting go, is not a fruit that springs from nature. We cling to tightly and fiercely to ourselves. To confess that there is no good thing in us,that we have no merit or goodness of our own and must trust in the righteousness of another is the product of a new heart and so Jesus declares that it is a gift from on high that we owe to God's sovereign, particular grace in Jesus Christ ALONE with no mixture of glory to man.
How is it that so many preachers forget this obvious and pervasive truth in the Bible? It all arises out of ignorance and our desire to credit some portion, however small, of our salvation to ourselves. But once the light of the gospel shines in our hearts, and the Spirit disarms our hostility, the bondage of sin and self-righteousness is broken. Let us never "glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. 1:15; Gal. 6:14.) not only for justification when we come to faith, but also for the quickening of the Spirit that brings us to faith. Both derive their power from the Person and Word of Jesus Christ. He provides everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe.
What Do you Think of the Free Grace Movement?
Visitor? Have you done much research into the Free Grace Movement (FGA, GES)? I have having much conflict with my senior pastor who is a member of the Free Grace Alliance and hold firmly to Free Grace Theology. It would be a great encouragement if you could give me your take on the whole movement.
Response: The free grace movement, if I have my movements correct, are the no-lordship people. We obviously do not share their beliefs. I find it most striking that the "free grace" movement likes to speak of grace when they don't even believe that a work of the Holy Spirit is necessary to believe the gospel. If my memory servers me correctly they are free-willers and erroneously think that faith is what man contributes, as if this were easier than obeying the law. However, it is clear from the Scripture that the nature of proud fallen man is such that he can no more submit to the humbling terms of the gospel any more than he can obey the law, without renewal of heart ... or without the Lord removing the old heart of stone and granting him a new heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26)
Visitor: Yes, you do have your movement correct. From my experience the whole Free Grace Movement exists more for what they are against then what they are for. They are anti-lordship and anti-calvinism. They seem to be strongly dispensational to the point that if you are not dispensational, then you don't know how to interpret the Scriptures. With your understanding do you think this is a theology that will continue to grow, or do you think it is on its last legs? I am a Youth Pastor, and like I said before, my Senior Pastor is really having a hard time with me not being on board with his theology. Thank you, John, for your reply!
Response: I think Dispensationalism itself is on its last legs but it will not die easily. It has influenced American evangelicalism significantly for the last 100 years, but Dallas Seminary, the mother ship of Dispensationalism, has recently changed their tune from Classic Dispensationalism to Progressive Dispensationalism, which is really, in many ways, closer to Covenant Theology than Dispensationalism.
The so-called free-grace movement is indeed anti-calvinism, and what this means practically is that they reject salvation by Christ alone. Why do I say this? Well, of course they believe in the necessity of Jesus Christ, but the reject the sufficiency of Jesus Christ ... Sufficiency meaning that Christ provides EVERYTHING we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe. Their free-will theology essentially makes them sneak in a frightening level of semi-pelagianism (even though they like to talk of grace). They are, in fact, not free grace. They believe grace is CONDITIONAL. That is, God only loves a person if they meet his condition, faith. Otherwise they are cast into hell. While we agree with them that God gives us a condition of faith, but since man is impotent to exercise faith apart from regenerating grace (John 6:63-65) Jesus Christ mercifully provides everything we need for salvation INCLUDING a new heart to believe. Their strange belief system asserts that Jesus died for all sins EXCEPT the sin of unbelief. Our belief somehow makes up for our sin. But I believe the Scripture declares that if faith does not spring from a new heart, which God works in us, then we can boast in our faith because we cannot thank God for it. We could easily pray "thank you Lord for providing all I need for salvation except for faith. That is the one thing I came up with on my own." Thus we would end up attributing our repenting and believing to our own wisdom, humility, prudence, sound judgment and good sense. What makes Christians to differ from non-Christians from would then not be Christ but something else in me. Such a teaching radically misrepresents the Scripture.imho. I have long known of this movement (form the 1980s) and think it is a sub-Christian understanding of the gospel. That is not to say that many are not saved, but rather that their system of belief is largely inconsistent with the Bible.
Why Arminian Conditional Election Makes God a Respecter of Persons
I often hear the charge against those who hold to a Reformed understanding of unconditional election and effectual grace that it cannot be true because it makes God a respecter of persons.
I think it is important to face up to this charge to see if it has any validity. To do this we need to understand how the Bible uses the concept "respecter of persons" and then let it interpret itself as to what it actually means, and then determine whether or not God would be guilty of it if unconditional election were true. Below is a wide sampling of its occurrence in the Scripture:
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." (Leviticus 19: 15 KJV)"Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." (Deuteronomy 16: 19 KJV)
"For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means,
that his banished be not expelled from him." (II Samuel 14: 14 KJV)"Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." (II Chronicles 19: 7 KJV)
"These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment." (Proverbs 24: 23 KJV)
"To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress." (Proverbs 28: 21 KJV)
"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear." (I Peter 1: 17 KJV)
"God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10: 34)
"For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2: 11)
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2: 1-9 KJV)
Here we have multiple instances of this phrase in both the Old and New Testament. So what are these passages talking about? They are clearly warning the believer against showing favoritism or partiality, because they declare that God Himself does not show partiality or favoritism. And. most importantly, in each of these instances it means neither we nor God give special treatment to a person because of his position, merit, wealth, influence, social standing, authority or popularity. Thus 'respecter of persons' means we are not to favor one person over the other because of ANY superior personal trait in the one favored, and likewise we are not to show prejudice toward those who lack these characteristics.
So when God unconditionally elects a person in Christ does he first determine who he will choose based on their position, wealth, good looks, influence etc? No. By definition unconditional election means unconditional. It is not conditioned on ANYTHING in us or potentially in us. God does not stand to gain from currying anyone's favor ... even those who are in high positions ... because God gave them that position, wealth, authority or social standing to begin with. The Bible unambiguously teaches, therefore, that God is no respecter of persons in election. Those who are chosen are chosen "in Christ" not because God is thinking about what he has to gain by helping them over others.. God has no need for such things, so, by definition, his choosing us cannot be tainted with such a motive.
Continue reading "Why Arminian Conditional Election Makes God a Respecter of Persons" »
Election Ensures the Concept of Salvation by Grace
“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.†Romans 11:5, 6
From an article entitled, “What Difference Does it Make? A Discussion of the Evangelical Utility of the Doctrines of Grace,†Mark Webb writes:
The most casual Bible student admits that scripture indeed employs the language of election when speaking of God’s eternal purposes. Yet most seek to dodge the implications of that language by fleeing to the refuge of “conditional†election (i.e. that God’s choice, or election, of certain men to salvation is “conditioned†by his foreseeing faith in those men). I’ll leave the task of showing that this “time tunnel†hypothesis will not fly to the many excellent works on the subject. Better yet, see it yourself by getting out your Bible and thoroughly studying the many references of scripture concerning this subject. I intend to deal not so much with the proof of the doctrine as with its ramifications.
If “conditional†election is true—if God’s choice of me is determined by my choice of Him—the practical effect of this teaching is no different than if there were no election at all! The proof of this assertion is seen in the fact that the groups who hold this view seldom, if ever, mention the subject. And why should they? To what purpose? Since it’s taught that God has done all He can do to save, and now it’s up to man, the will of man becomes the determining and dominant factor in salvation. Whenever you make God’s choice of men to salvation hinge upon what He foresees in man—be it his work, his faith, or his choice—you have effectively undermined the whole concept of salvation by grace alone! Either salvation depends upon God’s free choice and good pleasure, which is the principle of “grace,†or it depends upon something man himself produces, which is the principle of “works.†It really matters not whether this “thing†which God foresees is something tangible, seen outwardly in the man’s life, or something intangible, seen inwardly only by God. It matters not whether it’s a huge thing, or whether it’s a tiny thing. So long as man’s part is the critical, determinative part, you have a system based upon “works†not grace.
Let me illustrate. Suppose you came to me and said, “Mark, I have a $15,000 car here. If you’ll pay me $15,000, I’ll give you the car.†We’d all agree, that’s not “grace,†that’s “works.†But suppose you said, “Mark, I’ve a $15,000 car here, and I’ll simply give you the car.†We’d all agree, that’s “grace,†not “works.†But now let’s try to mix the two concepts. Suppose you said, “Mark, here’s a $15,000 car. I’ll be $14,999 gracious to you if you’ll simply pay me $1.†Have we succeeded in mixing “grace†and “works?†No! For what’s the practical difference between that last offer and you simply saying, “Mark, here’s a $15,000 car—I’ll sell it for $1?â€
Do you see? You’re still coming to me on the basis of “selling,†not “giving.†You’ve not changed your principle, you’ve simply lowered your price! This is precisely Paul’s point in Romans 11:5-6. An “unconditional†election is the only concept of election consistent with salvation by free grace!
Election Excludes Man’s Boasting
Scripture tells us in passages like Rom. 3:27, I Cor. 1:26-31, and Eph. 2:8-10, that God intentionally designed salvation so that no man could boast of it. He didn’t merely arrange it so that boasting would be discouraged or kept to a minimum—He planned it so that boasting would be absolutely excluded! Election does precisely that.
The God who loves
Don Carson explains John 3:16-21. This is part 9 of the 14-part series "The God Who Is There."
The God Who Is There - Part 9. The God Who Loves from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
A Few Thoughts on Hyper-Calvinism
“Remember… while some Arminians are Armenians and some Armenians are Arminians, Armenians and Arminians are two very different groups. Second, while it’s true that some Calvinists can be a bit hyper, that doesn’t make them Hyper-Calvinists.†– Justin Taylor
Amongst the archives at www.aomin.org here I found this, written by my friend Dr. James White; a response to a man named Marc Carpenter.
It is rather lengthy but I think you will find it worthwhile. To allow for easy reading I will make James White's words appear in bold type. - JS
James writes:
The following exchange took place around the year 2000. If I am recalling correctly, an unsolicited e-mail arrived with a large "cc" list of people. As you will see, my initial response was very brief, because I learned long ago that these kinds of impromptu e-mail lists will suck the life right out of you if you let them. False teachers have, seemingly, unlimited time resources. In any case, when the reply came, I did invest a few moments to type out a few thoughts I have had on the subject of the demands of hyper-Calvinists. I hope they are useful to others as well.
Continue reading "A Few Thoughts on Hyper-Calvinism" »
The Essence of Reformed Theology
James White's review of Roger Olson's book "Against Calvinism" (Parts 1 and 2)
Parts 1 and 2
Note: A few days ago, I posted the first half of Dr. James White's review. He has now completed the second half so in this new post I thought it would be good to put the two videos together in one place so they might be easier to find reference wise at one link. - JS
Roger Olson doesn’t like to debate, and he doesn’t like to defend his assertions either, but that did not stop Dr. James White from reviewing his book “Against Calvinism.†A very troubling aspect of Olson’s book is that he admits that even if God revealed Himself to be and to act, as Calvinists say He does, Olson would refuse to worship Him. That’s an amazing thing for a professed Christian to say.
Here is the first half of Dr. White's review:
Here now is the second half (below):
Continue reading "James White's review of Roger Olson's book "Against Calvinism" (Parts 1 and 2)" »
Dr. Roger Olson’s book “Against Calvinism†– A Review by Dr. James White
Dr. Roger Olson doesn't like to debate, and he doesn't like to defend his assertions, either, but that did not stop Dr. James White from reviewing his book "Against Calvinism."
A very troubling aspect of Olson's book is that he admits that even if God revealed Himself to be and to act, as Calvinists say He does, Olson would refuse to worship Him. That's an amazing thing for a professed Christian to say.
Here (below) is Dr. White's review.
The worst thing???
What is the worst false teaching confronting and infiltrating the body of Christ in our day?
Television preacher Andrew Wommack believes it is..
wait for it...
...the doctrine that God is in control of all things (or meticulous providence).
Continue reading "The worst thing???" »
Free Will or Free Grace?
If the natural man has a free will to believe the gospel, then why does he need grace? If his will is naturally free then it would do away with the need for grace altogether.To teach that the natural man has a free will overthrows the gospel ... it is precisely because man is in bondage that he needs Christ to set him free." (John 8:34, 36)
"All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance are they that do away with "free-will", and these are countless ... For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because "free-will" can do nothing."
- Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, pg. 270
My online friend Larry Cochran once said, "I don't believe in the free will idea. I believe that God's sovereignty is always at work and that we are free to choose as we are freed from the bondage of sin, but until then we are not free, only under the delusion that we are free. Sin is slavery and Christ is freedom."
Eavesdropping on a Holy Conversation
Below is a transcript from a C. H. Spurgeon sermon where he describes the covenant of redemption and wonders what it would have been like to be to have heard this covenant being made.
“Now, in this covenant of grace, we must first of all observe the high contracting parties between whom it was made. The covenant of grace was made before the foundation of the world between God the Father, and God the Son; or to put it in a yet more scriptural light, it was made mutually between the three divine Persons of the adorable Trinity.â€
“I cannot tell you it in the glorious celestial tongue in which it was written: I am fain to bring it down to the speech which suiteth to the ear of flesh, and to the heart of the mortal. Thus, I say, run the covenant, in ones like these:
"I, the Most High Jehovah, do hereby give unto My only begotten and well-beloved Son, a people, countless beyond the number of stars, who shall be by Him washed from sin, by Him preserved, and kept, and led, and by Him, at last, presented before My throne, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. I covenant by oath, and swear by Myself, because I can swear by no greater, that these whom I now give to Christ shall be for ever the objects of My eternal love. Them I will forgive through the merit of the blood. To these will I give a perfect righteousness; these will I adopt and make My sons and daughters, and these shall reign with Me through Christ eternally."
Thus run that glorious side of the covenant. The Holy Spirit also, as one of the high contracting parties on this side of the covenant, gave His declaration, "I hereby covenant," saith He, "that all whom the Father giveth to the Son, I will in due time quicken. I will show them their need of redemption; I will cut off from them all groundless hope, and destroy their refuges of lies. I will bring them to the blood of sprinkling; I will give them faith whereby this blood shall be applied to them, I will work in them every grace; I will keep their faith alive; I will cleanse them and drive out all depravity from them, and they shall be presented at last spotless and faultless."
This was the one side of the covenant, which is at this very day being fulfilled and scrupulously kept. As for the other side of the covenant this was the part of it, engaged and covenanted by Christ. He thus declared, and covenanted with his Father:
"My Father, on my part I covenant that in the fullness of time I will become man. I will take upon myself the form and nature of the fallen race. I will live in their wretched world, and for My people I will keep the law perfectly. I will work out a spotless righteousness, which shall be acceptable to the demands of Thy just and holy law. In due time I will bear the sins of all My people. Thou shalt exact their debts on Me; the chastisement of their peace I will endure, and by My stripes they shall be healed. My Father, I covenant and promise that I will be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. I will magnify Thy law, and make it honourable. I will suffer all they ought to have suffered. I will endure the curse of Thy law, and all the vials of Thy wrath shall be emptied and spent upon My head. I will then rise again; I will ascend into heaven; I will intercede for them at Thy right hand; and I will make Myself responsible for every one of them, that not one of those whom thou hast given me shall ever be lost, but I will bring all my sheep of whom, by My blood, thou hast constituted Me the Shepherd — I will bring every one safe to Thee at last."
John 1:1
Question: I am a Christian but have a Jehovah’s Witness friend who does not believe in the Divinity of Christ. He is seeking to convince me that my Bible is incorrectly translated at John 1:1. My Bible renders the final phrase “and the word was God†and his “New World Translation†says “and the word was a god.†He contends that the Greek phrase “kai theos en ho logos†lacks the definite article “ho†in front of the word theos and therefore the indefinite article “a†must be supplied. What do you say about this?
I seek to provide an answer here. - JS
Does the Natural Man Have Free Will or Not?
Some reformed theologians say that man has a "free will" and other theologians say that he does not? Confused?
The ones who say the natural man has a "free will" mean by this that man is free to do what he wants according to his fallen nature. A voluntary choice that is not coerced. We can agree with their concept, but even these Reformed theologians who say man has a free will would openly acknowledge that man's will is free only to do evil, but his WILL is not free to do good -- and I say in response to this that if the will is not free to do good it is not free in the only thing that counts when discussing the subject. Because when you talk about free will it is almost always with regard to sin and salvation... not free will in some general sense. The question is whether the sinner is "free" to choose Christ or not? No, he is not. He is by nature hostile to God (Rom 8:7), loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19, 20). This is the only thing we are discussing when the topic of free will comes up. no? Fallen men and women are not dragged unwillingly into sinning, but because their will is held captive under the yoke of sin they do evil of necessity.
The will is corrupt and therefore, of necessity, chooses evil. And if it is of necessity that they act this way and not another, then the will is not free. Freedom in the Bible is almost always referring to freedom from sin. For example... Jesus says, "everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.(John 8:34-36). The Bible never speaks positively about the will being bound to sin and always speaks positively about the will being bound to God, in fact it calls this kind of slavery "freedom" in a positive sense. Jesus never once refers to being free from God and a slave to the devil as a positive thing. The only freedom Jesus declared as good and something to hope for was freedom from bondage to sin and a slave to God.
While I understand what the some Reformed folks mean when they say man has a "free will" but I think, at worst, we may be using the phrase "free will" on our libertarian opponents terms or, at best, present a confused picture since with regard to Christ, sin and salvation, which is the Bible's core focus, we all believe man's will is not free. Even an Arminian would acknowledge that the very need to grace does away with free will altogether. For no man can come to Christ apart from grace (John 6:65)
Born Dead
Men are born alive carnally (John 3:7), but born dead spiritually (Eph 2:1; 1 Cor 2:14), making it impossible to receive life apart from God’s radical intervention (John 6:65). Life comes through means of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (John 6::63) who joins the sinner to Christ by applying the culmination of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to the elect sinner (Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; Rom. 6:4; Eph. 2:5. Col. 3:1). There are no human efforts of any kind that can provide this life.
If People are Already Elect What Need is there for Evangelism?
Without election no one would be saved. But election is not what saves. By it God determines who will be saved in Christ, in time, through the gospel, by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Evangelism casts the seed of the gospel, which the Holy Spirit uses to germinate the elect unto life.
Why I Love the Doctrines of Grace
Please allow me to introduce Christina Langella to you and her blog Heavenly Springs. Though we speak the same English language, being from Brooklyn, New York, her accent is about as far removed from mine as is humanly possible. Fugheddabout it! Her love for the Lord is both heart warming and contagious. She is also a very gifted communicator, as you will see (below).
So often we present truth with fervent zeal, but those we are seeking to minister to have not yet seen the reason why the truth we share is important, nor have they fathomed anything of the practical benefits of the teaching under discussion. In other words, they have not yet comprehended the reason why they should take the time to try to understand what is being communicated. I think Christina remedies that exceptionally well in the following article, which was part of a larger series on the internet. I believe you will be blessed to read this, just as I was. - John S
WHY I LOVE THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE
In the first post of this series, sister Norma discussed the importance of studying doctrine. Doctrine, she explained, is not just for the seminarian, the professor, the pastor, or the missionary. It is rather, the responsibility of every person who wears the name of Christ.
The title of our series, “Doctrines in the Kitchen†reminds us of the very practical nature of the Word of God. It confirms that our faith encompasses the whole of our being and affects every sphere of our life – both public and private.
A.W. Pink, in his book, Practical Christianity explains it nicely. “Some of us are single, others married; some are children, others parents; some are masters, others servants. Scripture supplies definite precepts and rules, motives and encouragement for each alike. It not only teaches us how we are to behave in the church and in the home, but equally so in the workshop and in the kitchen…â€
As someone who embraces Reformed/Calvinistic Theology, I point to the doctrines of grace, also known as the five points of Calvinism, as the system of theology that has put me on the most solid theological footing ever.
Calvinism, in and of itself, is not the Gospel, however when these doctrines come together they provide the theological framework for what is the gospel. In the gospel God saves totally depraved sinners, He chooses them unconditionally, He draws them irresistibly, and He preserves them until the end. If you remove one of these pillars then you will have succeeded in diminishing the gospel.
Continue reading "Why I Love the Doctrines of Grace" »
The Holiness of God (Russian)
Dr. R. C. Sproul's landmark series "the holiness of God" can now be heard in the russian language here.
The Importance of Predestination
[This editorial is found in Peace and Truth, the magazine of the Sovereign Grace Union, written by John Brentnall - www.sgu.org.uk]
In an age when the fear of man threatens to 'dumb down' our testimony to God's truth, it is well worth while to remind ourselves that the foundation doctrine of predestination is to be publicly preached, whether men hear or forbear. On this point let us heed the Word of God and the witness of some of His choicest servants.
1. God forbids us to tamper with His revealed will in the slightest way. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." (Deut 4.2) "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life." (Rev 22.18-19) As the doctrine of predestination forms part of His revealed will, it is included in this prohibition. Comments Zanchius:
"An ambassador is to deliver the whole message with which he is charged. He is to omit no part of it, but must declare the mind of the sovereign he represents, fully and without reserve. . . Let the minister of Christ weigh this well."
2. The Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles all preached predestination, declaring to their hearers "all the counsel of God." (Luke 4.25-29; Acts 20.27; Rom 9-11; Eph 1; James 4; 1 Pet 1.18-21; Jude 4; 2 John 1-3.) "What shall we then do?" asks William Plumer. "If the doctrine so offends men, shall we give it up? Are we to make peace with human wickedness by observing a profound silence on this topic? Nay, let us rather imitate Christ, who often preached it."
3. Faithful men in the past all refused to suppress this doctrine, however unpalatable it is to the carnal mind. In his day, Augustine rebuked those who passed over the doctrine of predestination in silence; and when he was charged with preaching it too freely, he replied by saying that where Scripture leads, there we must follow, adding: "Both the grace of free election and predestination and also wholesome admonitions and doctrines are to be preached." Writes Luther: "In chapters nine, ten and eleven [of Romans] the apostle teaches about the eternal predestination of God. He tells how it originally comes about that a person will believe or not, will become rid of his sins or not. He does so in order that our becoming pious be taken entirely out of our own hands and placed into the hands of God. And indeed it is supremely necessary that this be done; for . . . if the matter depended on us, surely not a single person would be saved. Since, however. . . His predestination cannot fail and no one can defeat His purpose, our hope against sin remains."
Calvin says the same: those who try to overturn "that prime article of our faith . . . God's eternal predestination . . . demonstrate their malice no less than their ignorance." In view of his approaching death, he wrote: "I John Calvin, servant of the Word of God in the Church of Geneva . . . have no other hope or refuge than His predestination, on which my entire salvation is grounded."
4. All truth is interconnected; to preserve a full-orbed Biblical testimony, the doctrine of predestination is necessary. Comments Zanchius: "The whole circle of arts have a kind of mutual bond and connection, and by a sort of reciprocal relationship are held together and interwoven with each other. Much the same may be said of this important doctrine [predestination]; it is the bond which connects and keeps together the whole Christian system, which, without this, is like a system of sand, ever ready to fall to pieces. It is the cement which holds the fabric together; nay, it is the very soul which animates the whole frame. It is so blended and interwoven with the entire scheme of Gospel doctrine that when the former is excluded, the latter bleeds to death."
5. The truth of predestination should be preached for the comfort of believers. "The doctrine of sovereign Predestination . . . should be publicly taught and preached in order that true believers may know themselves to be special objects of God's love and mercy, and that they may be confirmed and strengthened in the assurance of their salvation . . . For the Christian this should be one of the most comforting doctrines in all the Scriptures." (Loraine Boettner) If we would be a means of comfort to the people of God, we must assure them, by showing them marks of God's grace, that He chose them in love before the foundation of the world, that Christ died for them in particular and that the Holy Spirit who regenerated them shall certainly convey them to heaven.
6. Lastly, this truth should be preached to encourage preachers themselves. Writes William Plumer: "That the doctrine of election is a ground of encouragement to pious preachers of the Gospel is certain. Thousands have told us so. It was so to Paul. 'Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace; for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: FOR I HAVE MUCH PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.' (Acts 18.9-10) The previous context shows that the Jews at Corinth 'opposed themselves and blasphemed.' In fact the work of founding a church there was just begun. Yet God says: 'I have much people in this city.' No man will say that God merely designed to inform Paul that Corinth was populous. He knew this already. The only fair logical meaning is that among the crowds of the ungodly in that city were many of God's elect, whom He purposed by Paul's ministry soon to bring to a saving knowledge of Christ. The doctrine of election, rightly understood, holds out the only ground of encouragement which we have for preaching the blessed Gospel. If God has no elect, we preach in vain."
So then, this doctrine has been expressly revealed to us to be believed and preached. The excuse that people will reject it, or that it is unjust, or that it will cause controversy, is irrelevant. Since God has commanded us to preach it, we disobey Him at our peril. One thing is certain: it makes wholly for His glory, brings comfort and hope to His elect, and leaves unbelievers without excuse. In doing this, it perfectly fulfils the purpose for which He has revealed it.
Does God ever change His mind?
Pastor John, I have a theological question for you. What would you say to someone (who was an Arminian) if you were having a discussion with them about the sovereignty of God in salvation and they stated that God does in fact change His mind (Exodus 32:14 is an example)?
That is a very good question. Nowadays people like to have instant sound bite size answers to their questions, but that is not always possible. On this issue, it is important to lay the groundwork to provide a satisfactory, biblical answer and to do that necessitates serious study and application of the Scriptures. Let's take a look at this question from a few different angles.
Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. One amongst many sound principles of interpretation is that we should base our view of God on the didactic (teaching) portions of scripture rather than the narrative (story) or poetic portions. This is why although the Bible says we can hide under the shadow of the Most High and under His wing find refuge, no Bible scholar expects God the Father to be a winged bird in heaven. This is obvious picture language where God uses images to speak to us highlighting the fact that just as a young bird finds refuge in the warmth and comfort of its mother's wings, we believers can find refuge in the Lord. The Lord is our rock and fortress, but that does not mean God is a literal rock or castle; or that because the Lord is our Shepherd and the Psalmist wrote, "your rod and your staff, they comfort me" God the Father has a literal rod and shepherd's staff that He uses with regularity in heaven. No, it is obvious picture language to describe something very meaningful about His relationship with His people, even though it is not to be viewed in wooden, literal terms.
These expressions are what we call anthropomorphic language (taken from two Greek words, “anthropos†meaning human or man and “morphos†meaning form). God communicates with us in human words or form. When you think about it, that is all God has at his disposal when revealing His truth to us because as humans we can only understand human language. Birds speak a bird language to converse with each other and so too, human beings use a human form of communication.
Likewise, when God communicates with us, He uses terms and images that are easy for us to grasp, even though if He explained them in the way He understood them, the concepts would be so far and vastly above our ability to comprehend that they would appear meaningless to us. God is infinite in knowledge and we as His creatures are finite. God has to remedy this in some way when He communicates with us so that He might provide a bridge of understanding. Just as a father smiles and engages in “baby talk†as he stands over the cot of his new born child, so God stoops to communicate with us in “baby talk†using language we can understand. Everything He communicates is true and meaningful, but expressed in terms finite minds can fathom.
Continue reading "Does God ever change His mind?" »
"God's fulfills His Plan Without Ever Coercing Our Volition"? - Is this True?
Someone recently declared to me that "God's fulfills his plan without ever coercing our volition" - But is it an axiom that in order for there to be true love, God must never violate our so-called "free will?"
My response below:
First and foremost, it must be said that such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But in order to demonstrate that this idea does not even fly in everyday life, I have a simple story for you: Two parents see their disobedient toddlers run out into oncoming traffic. The first parent runs up to the curb to tell their toddler to use their will to get out of the way of traffic, but does NOTHING more because he does not want to interfere with the toddler's will. The SECOND parent sees the cars coming and runs out into the street at the risk of their life to SCOOP up the child to MAKE CERTAIN their child is safe. WHICH parent loved their child ? We would all view this second parent as having GREAT love for their child and GET THIS, he was not concerned AT ALL about the child's will because the parent knew better than the child what was good for him . AND How much more does God love his own? God's love for us is not conditional as you believe. He does not first see how we use OUR WILL to determine whether he loves us, as you seem to believe. He loves us too much to leave us in our own hands. No, God saves us in spite of our rebellious will. The synergist's idea of love then is flawed since they believe God's love for us is CONDITIONAL. Rather, "we love God BECAUSE he first loved us." Jesus does for us what we are unable and unwilling to do for ourselves.
Again, when you used the phrase "fulfilling God's plan without coercing their volition" -- this seems to be a "basic assumption" which is the driving force behind your theology. You guys have talked about this idea for so long that it has become axiomatic for you, even though it is nowhere found in the Bible. Your most precious doctrine, it seems, that drives everything else is, therefore, this false idea which is READ INTO the Scriptures. It is a logical deduction but, I would argue, is wrong.
Martin Luther once said, “I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want ‘free-will’ to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground …; but because even were there no dangers … I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success … But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God†- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957), 313-314.
He either is morally able or he is not commanded?
from an ongoing conversation ...
Me: "...On the contrary, man is completely responsible to believe the gospel. To repent and believe is an imperative (a command) that man is completely responsible to obey. However, that does not mean he is morally able to do so."
Visitor: He either is morally able or he is not commanded. For the record, I am a raging Calvarminan.
Response: As an everyday example ... If you borrowed $100 million from a bank to establish a new venture but then squandered it an a week of wild living in Vegas, does your inability to repay the bank alleviate you of the responsibility to do so? No of course not. So if in an every day example this proves inability does not undo our responsibility, how much more so with God, to whom we have a debt we cannot repay. Therefore his commands to obey do not mean man is morally able. After the fall God does not change his standard simply because we are sinful.... but thanks be to God, in Christ Jesus He pays our debts in FULL.
The imperatives or commands of God were not given to show our ability, but our inability. In Rom 3:20 Paul says this very thing: "...through the law comes knowledge of sin." The law, in other words does not reveal ability but our impotence. ...the commandments are not given pointlessly; but FOR THE PURPOSE that through them the proud, blind man may learn the plague of his impotence, if he tries to do as he is commanded. Does it follow from the command: 'turn"' that therefore you CAN turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart? it does not follow. ... ...
Just for the record, there is no such thing as a Calvarminan, you are EITHER a monergist or a synergist. There is no middle ground. Either you believe the work of regeneration is Christ alone (Monergism) or you believe it is Christ PLUS your UNREGNERATE will (synergism) . But the Bible declares that faith is not the product of our unregenerated human nature.
John 6:37 says >>"ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES TO ME WILL COME TO ME". Let me ask ... according to this verse how many people will come to Jesus who the Father gives to Him? Some? No the Text unambiguously says "ALL" that the Father gives the Son will believe the gospel. ALL ... not some.
The Critical Difference Between Monergism and Synergism
This is the one point that monergism establishes and synergism in all its forms denies: namely, that sinners are impotent to lift a finger toward their own salvation, but that salvation, from first to last, whole and entire is of the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory for ever; amen
Remember, divine election, by itself, has never saved anyone. It marks out certain individuals for salvation; it is God's "blueprint" of what he intends to do in time through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. God the Father elects, the Son redeems them, and the Spirit applies the work of Christ to the same. The Trinity works in harmony to bring about God's purposes of election... and He gathers them through the preaching of the gospel, the seed which the Spirit germinates and brings to life. Again, salvation is of the Lord.
Synergists teach that 'salvation depends on human will', but the Bible teaches that 'it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Rom 9:16) and that we "were born, not of...the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)
Four-Point Calvinism an Impossible Supposition
"Irresistible grace presupposes particular redemption. There is no such grace apart from Christ and His work. (Eph 1:3, 1 Pet. 1:3) Therefore, so-called four-point Calvinism is untenable."
Only the Father knows...
Question: Matthew 24:36 says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.†This seems to be problematic, for if there is something the Son does not know, would this not indicate to us that he is not omniscient (all knowing)? God is all knowing and yet this tells us that there is something Christ did not know. How do we reconcile this verse with the Christian concept of the Deity of Christ?
I seek to provide an answer here. - JS
Divine Election Explained
This is what happens when a gentleman with a sincere question about election approaches Paul Washer (unannounced) and someone else has a video camera standing by ready to record.
In spite of the sound quality issues (thankfully the entire conversation is readable in subtitles on the screen), I am sure the explanation given here can be helpful for many people. - JS
You have an "A"
Steve Brown tells a story about a time his daughter Robin found herself in a very difficult English Literature course that she desperately wanted to get out of.
She sat there on her first day and thought, “If I don’t transfer out of this class, I’m going to fail. The other people in this class are much smarter than me. I can’t do this.†She came home and with tears in her eyes begged her dad to help her get out of the class so she could take a regular English course. Steve said, “Of course.â€
So the next day he took her down to the school and went to the head of the English department, who was a Jewish woman and a great teacher. Steve remembers the event in these words:
She (the head of the English department) looked up and saw me standing there by my daughter and could tell that Robin was about to cry. There were some students standing around and, because the teacher didn’t want Robin to be embarrassed, she dismissed the students saying, “I want to talk to these people alone.†As soon as the students left and the door was closed, Robin began to cry. I said, “I’m here to get my daughter out of that English class. It’s too difficult for her. The problem with my daughter is that she’s too conscientious. So, can you put her into a regular English class?†The teacher said, “Mr. Brown, I understand.†Then she looked at Robin and said, “Can I talk to Robin for a minute?†I said, “Sure.†She said, “Robin, I know how you feel. What if I promised you and A no matter what you did in the class? If I gave you an A before you even started, would you be willing to take the class?†My daughter is not dumb! She started sniffling and said, “Well, I think I could do that.†The teacher said, “I’m going to give you and A in the class. You already have an A, so you can go to class.â€
Later the teacher explained to Steve what she had done. She explained how she took away the threat of a bad grade so that Robin could learn English. Robin ended up making straight A‘s on her own in that class.
That’s how God deals with us. Because we are, right now, under the completely sufficient imputed righteousness of Christ, Christians already have an A. The threat of failure, judgment, and condemnation has been removed. We’re in–forever! Nothing we do will make our grade better and nothing we do will make our grade worse. We’ve been set free.
Knowing that God’s love for you and approval of you will never be determined by your performance for Jesus but Jesus’ performance for you will actually make you perform more and better, not less and worse. In other words, grace mobilizes performance; performance does not mobilize grace.
If you don’t believe me, ask Robin!
HT: Tullian Tchividjian
What is the Nature of Saving Grace?
The fact that fallen man needs grace does away with free will altogether. Even classic Arminians readily acknowledge that apart from some kind of prevenient grace man's will is in bondage and cannot believe (and therefore not free). So the debate is not whether man has a free will or not. This has already been determined. The debate really centers around what the nature of God's grace is... whether sufficient and effectual in Christ alone who provides everything we need (including a new heart to believe) or insufficient and ineffectual apart from man's unregenerate will.
Contemporary Reformation Theology Page
![contemp[1].jpg](http://www.reformationtheology.com/contemp%5B1%5D.jpg)
Welcome to the Contemporary Reformation Theology Page.
Essays in the Historic Christian Faith From a Classic Reformed/Evangelical Perspective
Major Update!!!
Question on Limited Atonement
Question: I am studying the Atonement and am struggling with the concept of a limited atonement, and was wondering if you could assist me thru this:
what do we do with all the scriptures that speak of Christ dying for the sins of all men; for the sins of the world, etc....
Last night I read out of Berkhof's Summary of Christian doctrine, under the heading --Extent of the Atonement. That started to turn on a light...Then I started in on Grudem's sys theo under the same heading.
At issue is the Truth--there must be one.....God's not the author of confusion!! It's us; even His children):
Thanks and most sincerely-
Because Soli Deo Gloria!
Response:
Thank you for your email and your excellent inquiry. You are quite right in saying that God is not the author of confusion and, as such, the Trinity works in harmony in our salvation. The Father elects us in Christ, The Son redeems those the Father elects and the Holy Spirit applies the redemptive work of Christ to the same. To say that the Father elects a particular people and the Son dies for everyone and the the Spirit regenerates a particular people is confusion.
Let me ask you. The work of the Holy Spirit in effectual grace ... do you believe it? If so, is this grace from Jesus Christ or from elsewhere? i.e. some generic grace (apart from Christ)? No, regeneration is only possible because of the work of Christ. Therefore, Christ died for the elect in a way (a redemptive way) that he did not for the non-elect. That is to purchase their regeneration, which is a grace never given to the non-elect. This particular grace given only to the elect, proves beyond any doubt that Jesus had the intent of dying for his bride, the church, and not for everyone without distinction.
As for the verse in 1 John which says that Christ not only died for our sins but for the sins of the whole world ... remember this was a time of transition from exclusively Jewish to now also include Gentiles, so this passage is referring not to Christ dying for all people without exception but all people without distinction.. that is both for Jews and Gentiles. To give more evidence that this is clearly what it means, the same author John, in the bok of Revelation 5:9 says that with his blood Christ purchase men FROM every tribe, nation, tongue..." Jesus' blood purchased men OUT OF every tribe ... it does not say he purchased every person in every tribe. Likewise Caiaphas, who was high priest the year Jesus was Crucified, said to the Pharisees, "You know nothing at all,nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." 51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Here the same author John quotes this Pharisee's prophesy which speaks of Jesus dying not only for Israel but for the children of God scattered abroad.... clearly a reference to all of God's people in the world .. not referring to every single person in the world ... which would be complete nonsense... for if Jesus died for all people without exception then why aren't they all saved.??? Because of unbelief one might say?
So in other words, then, Jesus died for all sins except the sin of unbelief? That is ludicrous. Grace is not a reward for faith but faith is the result of grace. Jesus says no one can have faith in me unless God grants it (John 6:65) So even faith is the gift of God, something Jesus purchased as part of our redemption. Also read the high Priestly prayer in John 17. This was given just before he went to the cross, just as a high priest goes to the temple prior to sacrifice. Jesus said, "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for those you have given me." Later in the the prayer he also describes those who believe in the apostles words as "those you have given me". In John 6:37 he says "All that the Father gives to me WILL come to me." ... so again the order is clear about God's grace in Christ preceding faith -- a grace given because of Christ's perfect life and sacrificial atonement on behalf of his people. Jesus lays does his life for the sheep.
Hope this helps
John Hendryx
Monergism.com
Responding to Apostasy
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.†– 1 John 2:19
Apostasy – how do we handle it? Christians view apostasy according to their understanding of the work of God in salvation. It is just here where we find a great divide of opinion between those embracing the reformed doctrines of grace, and those who do not. More here.
Christ and the Gospel not Old Testament Themes at All? A Hyper-Troubling Conclusion of a Hyper-Dispensationalist
The three paragraphs quoted above are frankly quite troubling on a number of levels. One is their source: Dr. Mark Snoeberger, a professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, which, although long noted for its adherence to revised Dispensationalism of the Ryrian sort, actually commands some sort of respect in certain Baptist circles as being a basically sound and academically qualified institution of higher learning. Now, not all Dispensationalists would say such extreme things as Dr. Snoeberger has been saying; but it is disconcerting to note that this is not coming from the lips of some wild-eyed radical on the fringe, but from one of the more influential of the fundamental Baptist seminaries that still adhere to Dispensationalism in the basic form it took at Ryrie's Dallas Theological Seminary, some decades ago.
Free eBook: What the Bible Says About the DOCTRINES OF GRACE
Free eBook: What the Bible Says About the DOCTRINES OF GRACE by Nathan Pitchford - Available in both Kindle .mobi and ePub formats
God has recently given us the opportunity to discuss some theological issues with other Christians who believe differently than we do on a number of points, most notably the doctrines of grace. In such a circumstance, given the overwhelming supply of scriptural evidence that comes to bear on the topic, it seemed to me that the best approach would be a simple categorized scripture list: the fact that the entire paper would be scriptures, with the exception of a few brief explanatory notes, would underscore the truth that this is God's own word and teaching; and the fact that it would be categorized would facilitate the ready comparison of scripture with scripture so as to lead one to a full-orbed understanding of the biblical teaching. Although I found a few good scripture lists of that nature available online, none of them was laid out in quite the progression that I was looking for, and so I developed my own. I'm posting it here with just the scripture references. Below, for your convenience I have provided a condensed version and a full version of the study. The study is also available in print from Monergism Books.
The Skeleton in the Closet
Many call Charles Finney "America’s greatest revivalist." Few are aware he rejected essential Christian truth. His influence is widespread in today's Church, but even more troubling is the pervasive Pelagianism that he taught.
Why is this such a problem?
Dr. Sproul explains here. - JS
Free Will Synergism Vs. Free Grace Monergism
Synergists teach '... and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.' but the Bible teaches 'And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.' (Acts 13:48)
Synergists teach '...no one knows the Father except those who choose the Son.' But the Bible teaches that 'no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him' (Matt 11:27) They are the ones who 'choose' the Son.
Synergists teach that 'All can come to Christ of their own free will', but Jesus teaches that 'no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.' (John 6:65) and all whom He grants will come (John 6:37)
Synergists teach that 'you are not Christ's sheep because you do not believe', but Jesus teaches that 'you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.' (John 10:26)
Synergists teach that 'the reason you are not of God is because you are unwilling to hear and believe God's words.' Jesus, on the other hand, taught, 'The reason why you do not hear [God's words] is that you are not of God." (John 8:47)
Synergists teach that 'salvation is so easy a cave man can do it" but the Bible teaches that “What is impossible with man is possible with God.†(Luke 18:27)
In the Divine economy men are responsible to believe the gospel, but are morally impotent to do so from their own native resource. This inability (due to our intimate solidarity with Adam's sin) is something we are culpable for, like owing a debt we cannot repay. So God has every right to call us all to account to 'repay our debt', so to speak, even though we do not have the resources to do so. The Church is to call all men to repent and believe the gospel (an imperative) but no one believes. But God, in his great mercy, still has mercy on many, opening their hearts to the gospel that that might believe.
To this sometimes a synergist often quotes "whosoever will may come" to which we reply that this quote does not teach an indicative of what we are able to do, but rather, teaches what we 'ought' to do. As Martin Luther said, "Does it follow from: 'turn ye' that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart? What do arguments of this kind prove, but the 'free-will' does not need the grace of God, but can do all things by its own power...But it does not follow from this that man is converted by his own power, nor do the words say so; they simply say: "if thou wilt turn, telling man what he should do. When he knows it, and sees that he cannot do it, he will ask whence he may find ability to do it..." Luther BW,164
Foreknowledge
Isn’t Divine election (God’s choice to save sinners) based upon the fact that He knows everything, even the end from the beginning, and therefore knows ahead of time what man will choose? Though it is a choice made in eternity past, God simply chooses (elects) those He sees ahead of time will choose Him. Correct?
Thanks for your question. God certainly does know everything, including all the future actions of man, but the quick answer is “no," election is not based on God’s foreknowledge of man’s choice. More here.
Continue reading "Foreknowledge" »
Jesus Died For the Children of God who are Scattered Abroad.
John 11:49-52 (English Standard Version)
49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all. 50Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." 51He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
Revelation 5:9 (English Standard Version)
9And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
FROM EVERY TRIBE & Jesus would die gather into one the children of God WHO are scattered abroad.
In other words, where the Scripture says Jesus died for the whole world, (also written by the apostle John) it interprets itself by showing that he means all people without distinction not all people without exception. Not Jews only, but Jews and Gentiles FROM every nation.
Why Did Jesus Need to Be Baptized?
Question? My Christian brothers and sisters I have a question for you, why was Jesus baptized? I just want to see what you guys think. Thanks
Answer: "To fulfill all righteousness" - which is his own answer. In other words, while Jesus is eternal God in essence, he needed to fulfill the law from our side as a human being so as to fully represent us. Christ’s full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law made available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed or reckoned to those who put their trust in him. This is often called the active obedience of Christ. The passive obedience, on the other hand is His willing obedience in bearing all the sanctions imposed by that law against his people because of their transgression which is the ground of God’s justification of sinners (Rom. 5:9).
The Godhood of God
Part of the inheritance of every true child of God is the knowledge and sweet comfort of God's Sovereignty. See here. - JS
Calvinism vs. Hyper Calvinism
“Remember… while some Arminians are Armenians and some Armenians are Arminians, Armenians and Arminians are two very different groups. Second, while it’s true that some Calvinists can be a bit hyper, that doesn’t make them Hyper-Calvinists.†– Justin Taylor
It is very important to know the vast chasm of difference between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. See this article here. - JS
The Cross - The Wisdom and Power of God
Why do some people reject the message of the cross? Here's why. - JS
Tiptoe through the TULIP with me
Here's an invitation for you to join with me in discovering the doctrines of grace (if you have not already done so before, or even if you have). It should be a fun online journey. - JS
Spiritual Warfare
There are two mistakes we often make when it comes to the devil. One is the make too much of our foe and attribute almost deity status to him. The devil is not omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all wise, all knowing) or omnipresent (everywhere present); so if he is bothering you, he cannot possibly be bothering me at the same time (though he does have many agents under his rule who work on his behalf). The other mistake though is to make too little of him, and not take his schemes against us seriously.
In the famous passage in Ephesians 6 which portrays the saints' spiritual warfare, notice two things. Firstly, the Apostle Paul likens the conflict to wrestling, which is the closest form of fighting. The original words could be translated "our wrestling match is not against persons with bodies..."
Secondly, although Paul could have used the word "against" just once to have easily made his point, he uses it over and over again - five times in all - illustrating the immensity and intensity of the battle each of us are engaged in. Like it or not, we are in a war.
“10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
Below is a short video of quotes by Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones. Very sobering. - JS
Christmas Calvinists
Question: How do you know when someone is a Christmas Calvinist?
Answer: No "L"
(Noel! Noel!)
Yes, it is the missing "L" in the acrostic TULIP.
Joking aside though, all who are particularists (who believe that only some and not all of humanity will ultimately be saved) limit the atonement in some way. The Arminian limits its power (believing Christ's "atonement" was for everybody but only hypothetically as it does not actually atone or save anyone unless man adds his faith to it) and the Calvinist limits its scope (believing that by His death and resurrection He secured a real and effectual atonement and removed the wrath of God for His people - and that the faith that saves is actually God's gift). Here's the first of a series of articles on this important issue. - JS
God's Foreknowledge and Election
Is Divine election (God's choice to save sinners) based upon His knowing ahead of time what man will choose? Article here. - JS
Five Big Myths About Calvinism
Does Calvinism destroy evangelism, appeal to man's pride, stunt personal holiness, make men robots and diminish the love of God? Not at all. But these are all myths that are believed by many in our day. I write a short article on it here. - JS
Calvinism v. Arminianism
I just wrote a short article here concerning the parameters of the debate. - JS
Total Depravity
Historically and biblically speaking, the term "total depravity" does not mean utter depravity (unregenerate man is not as bad as he possibly could be), but that every aspect of man has suffered a radical corruption in the Fall. Article here. - JS
Natural Revelation, Special Revelation and NASA
Natural Revelation is a phrase used by theologians to describe what God has revealed about Himself through the natural world around us. There is enough revelation in nature for God to declare that mankind knows of His existence inherently so that to deny such leaves a person “without excuse.â€
God does not believe in atheists! That is the claim of the Bible in Romans 1:20 where it tells us that God’s invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
As spectacular as natural revelation is, it has its limitations. Nature does not tell us everything about God, or even all we need to know about God for salvation. Therefore, in addition to natural revelation, God has also given us Special Revelation, the God breathed Scriptures (the Bible). I write more about this in a short article here. - JS
Ordo Salutis (The Order of Salvation)
I am sure at some point you have seen crash dummies in a car as it hits a wall, and from several different angles, cameras record the event to note precisely how the collision impacted both the vehicle and the dummies inside. The videos are slowed down dramatically and observations are made which reveal a great deal. As any new car is introduced into the car market, car companies (as well as outside agency safety inspectors) conduct these kind of tests as standard procedure to ascertain the level of safety for passengers.
With this idea in view, I want us to take a fresh look at salvation from several angles. We will note that although many of the things happen in an instant, if we could slow the camera down (so to speak) we will see that one thing occurred before the other, just as the car had to hit the wall before the dent in the car could be observed. In referring to a sequence with regards to time we also speak of logical and causal order, for the simple reason that although (in time) two things seemed to occur instantly, logically speaking, one thing had to happen before the other – one thing was the cause of the other thing.
Someone might ask what is the point of such a study. I would reply that the conclusions we come to on these issues have a profound impact on how one views God, the gospel, and the Bible as a whole.
Continue reading "Ordo Salutis (The Order of Salvation)" »
Questions & Answers on Reformed Theology
Question and Answer sessions can be immensely helpful. I know this was true for me as I considered whether reformed theology is indeed biblical. This is one such session (below), and while only in audio, and from a good few years ago now, it is well worth hearing. Here, Dr James White exegetes a number of biblical texts which are often raised as being in opposition to reformed theology.
One Hour on Sola Gratia
I very much recommend this 1 hour recently recorded podcast where my friend, Dr. James White is interviewed on the vital subject of Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), one of the five main slogans of the Protestant Reformation, explaining what it is both historically and biblically. There is also some interesting discussion concerning some of the modern day counterfeits to the biblical teaching on God’s grace. The interview with Dr. White can be heard here. - JS
Does God create people whom He knows will end up in hell?
There is no doubt that this is a highly charged emotional question, not just one of the intellect. So much so that it is hard for any of us to consider this question with any degree of objectivity, but I attempt to do that in a short article I wrote today here. - JS
How Can Regeneration Precede Faith in Light of Eph 1:13?
Visitor:
If regeneration precedes faith, how can we explain Ephesians 1:13? This verse lists hearing, believing and sealing with the Holy Spirit in that order. If being sealed with the Holy Spirit is the same thing as being indwelled by the Holy Spirit, or if this happens when the heart is changed (ie., with regeneration, as per Ezekiel 36:26-27), doesn't that mean that regeneration follows belief rather than precedes it?
Response:
Paul's main point of the first 12 verses in Ephesians is to show that all spiritual blessings we have are because of the sovereign grace of Jesus Christ ALONE, in Whom we are predestined and adopted as sons, thereby making the Spirit's work of grace, by definition, causally prior to our faith. But, if this were not enough, Jesus himself explicitly teaches that regeneration precedes faith in John 6:63-65 & 37. Take the time to meditate on that passage in context. Are you suggesting that Paul is teaching in Ephesians 1:13 that a person can come to faith in Jesus apart from the Holy Spirit? That he can simply rely on his own native resources apart from grace? That the spiritually blind do not need their eyes opened, that the deaf do not need their ears unplugged, that the hard-hearted can make their own heart of stone into a heart of flesh, without God's help? In other words, specifically related to you question about Eph 1:13, are you suggesting that because the Spirit comes to indwell the believer after he believes and is justified, that the Spirit does not also work in people prior to this? That the Spirit is dormant and is waiting for a graceless person to believe first? The Biblical evidence is so overwhelming that the Spirit also works prior to belief that this should not even be a debate in the church. The believer hears only because the Holy Spirit opens his ears. The sinner believes only because the Spirit has worked faith in Him. They "are born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13). That which is born of flesh is flesh, but that which is born of Spirit is Spirit (John 3:7). "The Spirit gives life the flesh counts for nothing." (6:65). The "flesh"means the person without the Spirit who can neither know nor understand spiritual truth, and faith, therefore is not born of man's will.
Why do you "thank" God for your conversion? It is because the Bible gives witness that God was entirely responsible for it. You thank God because you know your repenting and believing cannot be ascribed to your own wisdom, sound judgment, or good sense. Jesus Christ gets ALL the glory. Even the very humility you have to believe is a gift of grace, for what do you have that you did not receive.. Or would you rather tell God that you thank him for everything else, but that your faith is something you came up with on your own??? Jesus Christ is the author and perfecter of our faith. Why do some believe and not others? What makes us to differ? Jesus or something else?
Free will vs. blasphemy of the Holy Spirit
Visitor:
Free will vs. blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Please help me to understand how it is possible to blasphem against the Holy Spirit if man does not have free-will. ESV by Crossway notes at Luke 12:10?????????????
Response:
Apart from God's grace in Christ, no one believes the gospel. That man needs God's grace to believe (John 6:6:63-65) is itself proof that man has no free will. Left to himself he remains in bondage to sin.... Is He not? Ask yourself a simple question: Does the Bible teach that a person can come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Holy Spirit? No, in his native, fallen, unregenerate state man will always choose to reject Christ. No one is coercing him to reject Christ, he does so voluntarily because his heart is corrupt and loves darkness. (John 3:19, 20)
You may ask, how can he be responsible then? Answer. Consider if a man borrowed $1 billion from the bank to finance a new company. Instead the man squandered the money in a week of wild living in Las Vegas. Is he responsible to repay the debt to the bank? Of course. Is he able to repay? No, he is bankrupt. So his inability to repay the bank does not alleviate him of his responsibility. Likewise God commands men everywhere to perfectly obey His commandments. Do they? no. Are they responsible to obey? Yes. So again inability does not alleviate responsibility. God likewise commands us to repent and believe the gospel? Can we do so apart from His Holy Spirit and grace ? No? Are we responsible to believe nonetheless? Yes. Our inability to believe is because, in Adam, we are sinners by nature and we continue to choose to sin. Unless God renews our heart to understand spiritual things we would never believe the gospel. (1 Cor 2:14).
So regarding your question about blaspheming the Holy Spirit. All those who reject the gospel, in the end, have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. They are completely responsible for their rejection of Christ (Whom the Holy Spirit gives witness). Furthermore, God is not obligated to save anyone ... and the greatest judgment is to leave them to their own so-called "free-will. So anyone who is saved can give God the glory for it was purely a work of His mercy and grace, in spite of ourselves. Praise the Lord.
Hope this helps
John H.
Justification by Christ Alone by Dr. John Gerstner
Witness the passion of the late Dr. John Gerstner as he explains the biblical doctrine of sola fide:
On Justification
STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS: Church History did not begin with the birth of Billy Graham!! Because the Bible has not changed through the centuries, what it teaches has not changed either. I have found that although those who were the titans of the faith in the past were never infallible (nor did they ever claim to be), it is arrogant in the extreme to think that we who live in the 21st century cannot learn anything from the gifted teachers God gave to His church in times past. The ascended Christ dispensed gifts to His church (Eph 4:8-12). These gifts were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers; men of God, who often upon the threat of death, labored intensely to understand and proclaim the God breathed Scriptures in order to instruct, guide and nourish the people of God. Though now having departed the world's stage, these gifts of Christ can still bless us today through their writings! This quote (below) from the 1689 Westminister Confession of Faith is a rich and detailed summary of what the Bible teaches on the subject of justification, with every word crafted with care and precision. - JS
Chapter XI
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
Continue reading "On Justification" »
The Westminster Confession of Faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith (.pdf) EPUB - Kindle
The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith, in the Calvinist theological tradition. Although drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly, largely of the Church of England, it became and remains the 'subordinate standard' of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide. In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.
The Reformed Man Says.. The Arminian Man Says
Have you ever been involved in (or witnessed) a conversation where a reformed person is talking with an Arminian and there are what we might call dueling Bible verses? It goes something like this. The reformed person quotes a verse such as John 6:44 to say that no one has the ability to come to Christ unless God draws them and this is an effectual drawing because all those drawn in this way will be raised up to eternal life. Then the Arminian quotes John 12:32 which talks of Christ being lifted up and drawing all men to Himself. The conversation never gets any deeper than that and any on-looker might just shrug his or her shoulders and come to a conclusion that these things are just mysteries that we cannot fathom now but we will all likely see these things clearly when we get to heaven, but not this side of the grave. These people might well quote 1 Cor. 13:12 which says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." Their theological stance is to have both feet firmly planted in mid air!
I understand. I have been there. I do believe there are many mysteries in this life that await a heavenly explanation. I also think that there are some things that might always be mysterious to us. Though we will be in a glorified state, we will still only ever be a glorified humanity, and there is a limit as to what human beings can comprehend. However, I dont believe the issue concerning the reformed v. arminian controversy is meant to be forever mysterious to us. I believe there is a consistent biblical position that allows us to embrace all that Scripture teaches. Its taken me a long time to come to that conclusion but here's my basis for saying this.
We as Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, and because the Author is Divine, He at least is not confused on these issues, even if we are. We believe there is a consistent message in the Bible - that it does not contradict itself. And so what do we do? Well some throw up their hands in despair and never look into these matters, but if we love the Lord and His truth, that is not really an option for us. We are to study the Scriptures and seek to find the consistent message that is there. So the question is - does research into the Scriptures provide us with a solution on these matters?
Some people are not interested in an answer even if there is one. I find that attitude hard to comprehend but there are actually genuine Christians who just dont want to study these things. They are not interested. They see these things as the source of division and controversy (perhaps that has been their experience), but I believe God has revealed this to us because He had a good reason to. He put words like election and predestination in the Bible not because He wanted us to have controversy but because He wanted to show us the ground and basis of His work of grace in the lives of His people; He wanted us to be sure of His love for us; and for our hearts and minds to be captivated by the amazing grace and glory of God in salvation.
So back to the dueling verses mentioned above. How are we to deal with them?
Continue reading "The Reformed Man Says.. The Arminian Man Says" »
I am sorry Glenn but I cannot join you by Pastor John Samson
I really like Glenn Beck. Though I have never met him in person, I have often watched his television programs and thought it would be so nice to have that kind of a guy as a friend. I imagine that he is far too busy and way too inaccessible for that to become a reality, but I do genuinely like the man. He is insightful, articulate, funny, and seems to want some great things for his family and our nation. I do think that sometimes he has one or two conspiracy theories that may not be fully justified - we shall see - but all in all, Glenn seems to be a really nice guy.
I share many of the same goals as Glenn. I speak as one born in England but now very much a U.S. citizen. All my children were born here in these United States and I live and pray for America to become in all reality, "one nation under God." I love America. I sincerely believe Glenn does too.
But I do have a problem - not a problem with him as a person in any way at all, but when he asks me to join him in praying for the very same things I wish for my country, I just cannot. I can pray for these things privately, and with fellow Christians, of course, and I do. I just cannot stand with Glenn in a public setting and be comfortable while I know he is praying to a false god. How could I ever say "Amen" at the end of his prayer that people would turn back to the god he serves? I just cannot do it. That is because Glenn Beck is a Mormon. The "god" he prays to is not in any way the same God as mine.
Continue reading "I am sorry Glenn but I cannot join you by Pastor John Samson" »
Justification and Sanctification
We can make a distinction between the body and the head of a man and he suffers no loss, but if there is a separation, the man will be dead. The head and the body must stay together for life to continue. Similarly, though we can make a distinction between justification and sanctification, we must never separate the two.
JUSTIFICATION
Justification is a legal court room term defined as the act of God when He declares a person just or righteous in His sight. This takes place the moment a sinner places their trust in the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. For the sinner who has faith in Jesus, God pronounces the sentence “I find you not guilty! I reckon (I count, I declare) you righteous in My sight, and you and I are forever at peace with each other. All of your sins were transferred to your sin bearing Substitute, the Lord Jesus Christ, who took the full brunt of My holy wrath for them, and what has been transferred to your account is the righteousness of My Son, who lived not only a sinless life, but a life fully pleasing to Me. This very real righteousness is yours now and forever.â€
Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.†The Christian is a justified person. God has declared him right in His sight because of Christ.
Continue reading "Justification and Sanctification" »
Christian Beliefs DVD Course by Dr. Wayne Grudem
Wayne Grudem is Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. As well as being an international conference speaker, Dr. Grudem is the author of several books including the widely-used Systematic Theology. He served as General Editor for the ESV Study Bible, and is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He has degrees from Harvard, Westminster Seminary, and the University of Cambridge.
Since writing his Systematic Theology book, he served the church further by distilling the essence of that book into a shorter one called "Christian Beliefs" covering 20 basic doctrines of the faith. Now this material is available in a DVD series as Professor Grudem, in his very engaging style, provides essential teaching for all Christians (at a time when the foundations of the faith are being eroded).
Each session lasts approximately 40 minutes with optional discussion breaks and a questions and answers section. It is suitable for both group or individual use. In the video below you will learn more about this 16 hour (20 session) DVD discipleship series answering these 20 questions:
Continue reading "Christian Beliefs DVD Course by Dr. Wayne Grudem" »
The Christian's Reasonable Service
The Christian's Reasonable Service by Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711)
The Christian's Reasonable Service, vol. 1 (,pdf)
The Christian's Reasonable Service, vol. 2 (.pdf)
The Christian's Reasonable Service, vol. 3 (.pdf)
The Christian's Reasonable Service, vol. 4 (.pdf)
The entire printed four-volume set of The Christian’s Reasonable Service can be purchased for a discount price at Monergism Books
8 Minutes in John Chapter 6 - Dr. James White
8 Minutes in John 6 from Nathan W. Bingham on Vimeo.
Over-Realized Postmillenial Eschatology
In one of his classes on the gospel of John, Jim Dennison made some interesting comments on theological & political liberalism and eschatology. He said that the kind of eschatology in the New Testament is not a fully realized eschatology. A fully realized eschatology [on the other hand] would say that now the fullest realization of eschatological reality is accomplished. That eschatology NOW is completed - the present time is the eschatological era. Any future time has no eschatological significance. This is the eschatology of liberalism. Also the eschatology of all political and social utopianisms, whether they be fascist, socialist or communist. This is the Immanentization of the eschaton. All political utopians or liberals are Immanentizations of heaven on earth (Vogel). The bringing of heaven on earth now. Your liberal theologies, whether they be neo-orthodoxy, liberation theologies are now fully realized eschatological theologies. No future. Which means they de-eschatologize the future.
Establishing One's Own Righteousness
Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Christ alone is sufficient to save us to the uttermost. Righteousness is found in Him, and no where else. Not Christ "plus" the addition of something I contribute to the price of my redemption. Any addition to Christ is essentially an affirmation that Christ is not enough.
As Paul noted in the above quote, there are many people who do not know Christ yet are zealous to daily read their Bible, take the Eucharist and do good works, all good things in themselves, but not if they are not grounded in the gospel. They are trusting in these things to get them to where they want to go rather than in Christ alone. On Friday I encountered a very devout Roman Catholic who came into our office looking for books (not knowing the content of our books). She was extremely zealous and sincerely devoted to "Jesus" and the "Trinity" and to daily prayer. She asked what Monergism meant and became deeply upset about the implications of "Christ alone" and "Scripture alone" saying that her faith was much bigger than that. I asked, "bigger than Christ"? It was frankly gut-wrenching to stand there and explain that our differences were more than just secondary. But in the end I had to be open and tell her that while indeed Rome believes that Jesus is necessary, yet they do not believe He is sufficient, and therefore are opposed to the true gospel. The Roman Catholic Church essentially believes that Jesus takes our account to zero but then we need to complete where Christ is lacking in righteousness by adding our own merit to His. The doctrine of Purgatory attests to the fact that they do not believe Jesus Christ is enough to save them - but that they must contribute something to it. This clearly runs into the same violation that Paul warns of in Galatians: "Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh?' (Gal 3:3).
Note: An interesting turn in the discussion, which I think worth mentioning, is the RCC who came by our office used the common liberal progressive argument that I was being "exclusionary" and not "inclusive" and so my heart was hardened. However, I pointed out the fact that this actually goes both ways. RCC likewise denies what I believe to be true so it is being no less inclusive. As long as I did not believe in Christianity the way she did I was being exclusive. Ironic. People forget very quickly that the Council of Trent anathematizes the gospel of Jesus Christ that we hold true. This inclusion/exclusion argument is really a form of self-deception by those who use it because it does not see itself rightly, that in the very act of speaking against exclusion, it is being exclusive.
Please pray that the many zealous people out there we meet daily (like the person in my encounter) would see they are trusting in their own righteousness and that God would graciously move by His Spirit upon them to turn their heart of stone to a heart of flesh so they would submit to God’s righteousness, found in Jesus Christ alone.
What is the Central Theme of the Bible?
Everyone is in covenant with God and the sanctions are according to which covenant you are in. Covenants are the architectural framework, the superstructure of the Bible. Covenant theology is just biblical theology because we find covenants everywhere in the Bible. Many scholars try to discover what is the center of the Bible ... the center of biblical theology? Some of the proposed centers for biblical theology are God, Israel, Covenant, creation, kingdom, salvation, new creation, and so forth. None of these are the center of the Bible though. They lose their meaning without Christ. If there is no Christ, there is no kingdom to talk about. The diversity of the Bible is unified in Christ. He is the center that holds all of the biblical data together. While the covenants night be the vehicle by which God relates to his people and the kingdom of God is certainly his pervasive rule over all people yet the fullest expression of God and His glory come in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ and this is why covenants are important. They teach us about Him.
- Rev Dan McManigal, from his lecture series on Covenant Theology
A Few Thoughts on Federal Headship
To those who decry the fairness of the federal headship of Adam, (that we are in bondage to sin because of his rebellion), consider that we see every day examples of this principle all around us ... your country of birth was not by choice, but because of your where your parents lived when they gave you birth. In many countries children are born into poverty, have disease and die in infancy, solely because of who their parents were. Did not God decide our parents?
Adam's posterity are under a curse. We live in a world of sin and we all die because of his rebellion. Not Fair? Every time you sin you give your yea and AMEN to what he did. We have such solidarity with Adam as fallen creatures that he federally represented us - such that what he did, counts as what we did. Likewise the last Adam, Jesus Christ, federally represents us so that what he did for us also counts as what we did. You cannot reject this doctrine for Adam but have it for Christ.
Therefore, we should not complain. God does not make mistakes. He does everything He does for a reason. He ordained your country of birth and your parents and the length of your life.
Wesley and Regeneration
Recently I saw someone post the following quote by Paul Washer on Facebook with my response following:
"Calvinism is not the issue. I’ll tell you what the issue is. Regeneration. And that is why I can have fellowship with Wesley and Ravenhill and Tozer and all the rest because regardless of where they stood on the other issues they believed that salvation could not be manipulated by the preacher, that it was a magnificent work of the power of almighty God. And with them, therefore, I stand, that it was a work of God." -Paul WasherRegeneration is actually the crux of where we differ with Wesley. Wesley wholeheartedly believed regeneration was synergistic, not monergistic. I agree with Washer's statement, that Calvinism is not the issue, regeneration is. But regeneration is precisely where Wesley went wrong.
You quote Washer saying "with them [Arminians], therefore, I stand, that it was a work of God."
Yes Arminians believed regeneration was a work of God but they rejected the idea that regeneration was a work of God ALONE. That is the main difference.
However, my willingness to have fellowship with Wesleyan Arminians is not based on this at all. It is based on the fact that perfect theology is not what saves, the Person, Work and applied grace of Jesus Christ is what saves. Any Wesleyan/Arminian would tell you that there is "no hope save in the Person and work of Jesus Christ" ... even though their theology makes them wildly inconsistent on this issue.
Know your enemy
The devil is not some skinny guy in a red suit with horns, a tail and a pitch fork. In Medieval history, people in towns and villages sensing his presence in the community, dressed up that way to try to mock the devil, believing that if they could wound his pride (pride being the cause of his fall from heaven), the devil would leave them well alone. Later generations had no idea of the reason for the caricature and thought that the mock image was the real thing... but though evil in the extreme, he is dazzlingly beautiful, and even comes as an "angel of light" as he seeks to deceive people with his lies. Knowing your enemy and his mode of attack is a key to living a life free from his clutches. - JS
Here's Pastor Mark Driscoll explaining 9 names for the devil in Scripture:
A word of caution
Most Christians do not think enough, or study enough in order to pursue God with their minds as well as their hearts, but as Dr. John Piper reminds us, there is a ditch on the other side of the road - an intellectualism that pursues the study of God without relationship with God. In the short video below, he encourages Christians to value theology as a means for knowing God, without making theology God.
What is your view on limited atonement?
This is my quick response to Randy Alcorn's piece on Limited Atonement. Randy Alcorn is a four-point Calvinist who rejects particular redemption.
Brother Randy,
Jesus in his high priestly prayer in John 17, which is his prayer to the Father just prior to going to the cross, makes plain that his priestly prayer is "not for the world, but those the Father has given him." This passage seems to make plain that Jesus in his Priest-work has a particular people in mind for His atoning work. This is not drawn from some unaided logic. Likewise the idea presented in 1 John 2:2 as referring to all kinds of people is repeated later by the apostle John in Revelation 5:9 where he states that Jesus "purchased with his blood men FROM every tribe, nation, tongue ..." This gives a clear indication that this is what is on John's mind when he says "all"... not each and every person. Purchasing men OUT OF every nation.
Furthermore, If you affirm the truth of irresistible grace then you really already affirm limited atonement (without knowing it perhaps) because they are the same thing looked at from different perspectives. Where do you think irresistible grace came from? Did it come from Christ or is it some generic grace granted to the elect APART from the Person and work of Christ? Either you have a Christless irresistible grace, (which is impossible since all redemptive benefits have their source in Christ (Eph 1:4, 5) or an irresistible grace granted BY Christ. This error is very problematic, because 4-point Calvinists, IMHO, make the doctrines of grace into an impersonal abstraction. It is Particular Redemption in Christ that makes all the other particular graces possible. We are elect IN CHRIST, Irresistible grace is granted by the Spirit IN CHRIST, and it is Christ who preserves us to the end. Apart from Jesus these graces are abstract, Systematic theology --- ... but with Particular Redemption, Jesus dies for the elect in a way (a redemptive way) that he does not for the non-elect. That is, to procure irresistible grace (an all grace for that matter)
Mr. Alcorn, as much as you may embrace your four-point Calvinism, it is done away with Christ as the source of ALL GRACE.
Conversation with Synergist on Free Will continued
Texts in bold are comments made by the visitor.
You said, "I agree with you that the "natural person" cannot come to God on his own, without God's help."
So then, in your above statement we are finally agreed and have established that the natural man has no free will. The will and affections are in bondage to sin unless God does something. Apart from grace... Apart from the Holy Spirit, left to himself, man remains hopeless and cannot and will not come to Jesus Christ. "The sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.†(2 Pet 2:22). So the real question is not whether the natural man has a free will or not, since that has already been established by what you affirmed above. Therefore, the real question which makes us differ is not really about the will at all, but about the nature of God's grace. Where we differ is that while you believe the grace of Jesus Christ is necessary, you do not believe that His grace is sufficient. That is, you do not affirm that Christ is sufficient to grant everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe. Instead you appear to believe that grace puts us in some kind of state in-between regeneracy and unregeneracy. Correct? Can you show me any Scripture which gives witness to this state which is not unregenerate but also not regenerate? I can see only two states of man after the fall in the Bible. Regenerate and unregenerate. I would be interested to see this third state you speak of. Grace is not a reward for faith, it is the result of it.
Next you said, "When I read the Bible, I find numerous scriptures that are best summarized by Paul's recognition in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 that, "God our Savior ... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." I read of people who are urged to repent, to choose life, to accept Christ and to be saved. To the Greeks who worshiped many gods and didn't know the true God, the apostle Paul reasoned about the Creator God and told them how "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Countless scriptures state or imply that God's invitation is to *everyone*.
With you, I affirm all of the above verses and emphasize them at least as much as you do when I proclaim the gospel to unbelievers. Indeed God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. Just as God desires all men to wholeheartedly obey his other commandments, he likewise desires all men to obey the command to repent and believe the gospel. I wholeheartedly affirm this. As a missionary for 10 years I called my friends to repent and believe the gospel. I am not sure where you are going with this or how it supposedly contradicts anything I have said to you. It is wholly 100% our responsibility to obey God's command to believe. You are forgetting however, that even though we are responsible to do so it does not make we are morally able, apart from grace, which even you acknowledged above. Again we come back to where we really do differ - and that is in the nature of God's grace. Since we have established that man has no free will apart from some kind of grace, the real question comes down to what grace really does for us.
You said, Not everyone will be saved, and we wonder why that is so. The gospels present the reason for it (most of the time, admittedly) as people failing to make a right decision. "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3,5) is typical of many verses. Is there any point to warning people that they ought to repent, if they really can't?
Of course people are not saved because fail to make the right decision and turn to Jesus Christ. That is because, by nature, they are hostile to Christ (Rom 8:7). In answer to your above question I must ask you a question: is there a point to God commanding us to obey the Ten Commandments perfectly, if we really can't? Or what about the commandments to love our neighbor and be holy and God is holy? These are all imperatives and tell us what we ought to do. What we can do and do do are always spoken of in the indicative in the Scripture. The purpose is clear why God does this - By the commands of God we become conscious of sin (Rom 3:19, 20). That is what Paul himself says is the purpose of the divine legislation. In other words, the purpose is not to show our ability, but our inability. Why? Obviously it is so we recognize that we are wholly dependent on God. You already acknowledge that a person cannot come to Christ apart from grace so we are half way there. What is the nature of that grace then. In John 3 Jesus says men love darkness and hate the light and will not come into the light. In other words their choice to reject Him is a moral choice. They find Jesus morally repugnant. They find hate for Him in their heart. But Jesus also makes clear that but those who come into the light do so because it has been wrought by God. A man must first be born again if he is to see and enter the kingdom of God, my gospel says..."born not of blood or the will of man or the will of the flesh but born of God" (John 1:13). These concepts are rampant through the scripture on just about every page. You see, we need to embrace the whole counsel of Scripture on this matter. Your view does not take the multitude of texts that show it is God who choose us that we may choose him into account. You only accept one half of the Bible.
You said, God loves us all, unconditionally
If this is true then why are some people in hell? Unconditional love means unconditional. He makes certain those he loves will be in heaven. You believe God's condition is faith. If we don't have faith then he casts us into hell. I fail to see how you can actually claim God's loves all unconditionally when you add this condition. Its like saying God's love is unconditional and then telling me that but he will throw us out if we don't run a marathon.
To summarize, where we differ is that while you believe Jesus is necessary for salvation, you do not believe he is sufficient to save us to the uttermost. That is, he does not provide all we need for salivation including a new heart to believe. That part is ours to do, as you said above. Yes we are commanded to do it and it is our responsibility but we all fall short of it. Why one has faith and not the other to you is not Jesus but something else in your flesh. Jesus takes us 99% of the way but we must contribute the last bit to our salvation. So salvation is not all of Christ in your view, if you are consistent.
Next you likened the sinner to a drowning man reaching out his hand to God. Here are a couple of things I like to say in response to this:
If you liken the sinner to a drowning man reaching out his hand to God and claim that this needs no merit from which to boast, consider this: You appear to assume from this analogy that the drowning man (the sinner) believes he is drowning (believes he is a sinner) and is actually humble enough to recognize his own plight. But are there any sinners who are naturally willing to receive the humbling terms of the gospel? Isn't it grace itself that makes us humble? Isn't it grace that makes us recognize we need Christ to save us in the first place? So then, do you believe that some are saved and not others is because some are more humble by nature? They naturally recognize their wretched condition and need for Christ, apart from grace? If you say grace caused it in that person, then, I ask, why are not all saved?
Further, your "drowning man" analogy, it is problematic for the following reason. What kind of parent would merely reach out His hand to save someone who was drowning and not offer further help if the child could not reach out to him? What kind of love it that? Your parent analogy sees his child in trouble and will only save him on condition that he has the capacity to swim through the waves and reach out and take hold of the father. The father will not, however, risk his life to actually MAKE SURE that the son does not drown, if he is unable or unwilling to reach out. His love does not act so it is an ineffectual love. His love depends completely on how the son responds. This means his love is conditional. Frankly, most people understand that the true love of a parent would "violate" their sons will if it meant it would save a child from drowning - because the parent knows better than the child what is good for him. His love is not weak-willed or ineffectual but he loves his children with a resolute will that gets accomplishes what His love dictates by actually saving his child, even by forfeiting his own life in the process. Again, is a father who MERELY reaches out his hand and does nothing more a loving father in any sense of the word?
What about those people God did not save?, Jonathan Edwards once wisely said, "If damnation be justice, then mercy may choose its own object." By using "drowning in a lake" as an analogy, you are making it sound like our condition before God is innocuous. This logical fallacy is called an "appeal to pity" (ad misercordiam). Perhaps if our problem were only of a physical disability or of an innocent man drowning then of course we might be more inclined to make God out to be an ogre if He chose not to save him. But this is not how the Scripture describes the disposition of a sinner's heart. The Scripture says the unregenerate are rebels, hostile to God by nature (Rom 8:7). Realizing that analogies are imperfect, this drowning analogy still depends on pity for it to work at all but is actually imposing an alien presupposition on the Scripture that we were just helplessly, innocently in need and God is, therefore, obligated to reach out to save us, lest we drown. So according to this analogy the one condition we must meet if God is to love us is to reach out and take hold of His hand which He is also obligated to extend. Not only is this kind of love conditional but this love does nothing to help the helpless except call to him from afar. I hope you see the clear problem with this reasoning. God is in no way obligated to to cancel anyone's debt, but because He is loving and merciful He paid the debt for those He came to save and applied it to them according to His sovereign good pleasure (Eph 1:4, 5). To those who are his children, He will do whatever it takes to make sure they are delivered from the jaws of death.
Free Will Revisited
Here are some ways to respond to persons who assert that the natural man has a free will to come to Christ or believe the gospel. Someone recently wrote to me "I believe our free will and power to choose is real and a God-given part of our nature."
Response: One could only conclude from your assertions that you affirm that a natural person can come to faith in Jesus, apart from grace. That 'free-will' does not need the grace of God, but can do all things by its own power For as soon as you acknowledge the necessity of grace and the Holy Spirit, you thereby affirm fallen man has no free will. All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance or grace are they that do away with "free-will", and these are countless...For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because "free-will" can do nothing when left to itself.
Ask yourself, If man's will is free, what is it free from? Sin? If our will is free from sin what need is there at all for grace or the Holy Spirit? The very fact that we need the Holy Spirit proves once for all that man has no free will, if left to himself. In his natural state, apart from grace, he will not come to Christ. Rather his will and affections are in bondage to a corruption of nature. And that which is in bondage, by definition, is not free. We need Christ to set us free, or we have no hope. Are you really going to tell me that you can come to Christ with no help from grace? Our "chooser" is broken without grace. Free will is a concept completely foreign to the Holy Scripture. If you can find it there I will honestly change my position today, but it appears this is something you are bringing to the Text from the outside - your own presuppositions. Be honest with yourself and notice you provided no Scripture to back up your assertion, only declared it to be true because it only makes sense to you if we are created in God's image.
So lets be sure our conclusions are exegetical (biblical), not philosophical. If you can show me (or yourself) from the Scripture that a person can come to faith APART from the Holy Spirit, then I encourage you to continue believing what you do, but if you cannot find it in the Text, don't just agree to disagree with me, consider carefully that your presuppositions may just be wrong - inherited from whatever tradition you may have been involved with. Are there really parts of us that are unaffected by the Fall? After Adam and Eve fell, the Scripture declares that we are in a natural state called "the flesh" which does not have the Holy Spirit. Take the time to carefully read 1 Cor chapter 2 which makes this plain. Only the Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing (John 6:63)
We agree 100% that we are all responsible to obey the command to believe the gospel. But what I believe your mistake is to equate responsibility with moral ability. Consider this. We are responsible to perfectly obey the 10 commandments. God declares that we are to be holy as he is holy ... that if we disobey the law at one point it is as if we disobey the whole law. Now, the law is your responsibility to obey. Does that mean you are morally able???. No ... of course not - that is why we need the gospel. ... We are no no more able to obey than a homeless man can pay off a billion dollar debt. If he squandered the money in Vegas that he borrowed from the bank, his inability to repay does not alleviate his responsibility. He is still responsible to repay. Likewise we owe a debt in Adam we cannot repay. Thus the need for Christ.
Fruits, Flakes, Fakes and Nuts - And How To Deal With Them
Today I had interchange with someone on the internet (actually a good friend who shall remain anonymous) on the subject of how we are to deal with the fake christian people in our lives. I have provided the interchange here in hopes the discussion might be helpful to others:
First of all I wrote: "True faith endures!! The true child of God MUST endure to the end, and WILL endure to the end, because it is God who started and will finish the work in him. Those who abandon faith in Christ were never really His. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for IF THEY HAD BEEN OF US, THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH US. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." - 1 Jn 2:19
Someone responded to this saying: "Amen!! There are a lot of flakes among us, but there are also a lot of FAKES, pretending to be one of us. Sometimes they are workers of the enemy, and their mission is to destroy us and our ministry. Something to think about."
My response: "Very true.. the way to avoid flakiness in our lives is to be grounded always in the practical application of Scripture and not moved about by experience that has no backing in the Word.. and may God deliver us from the fakes. Deceived people deceive people. "
The person responded by saying: "I thought we were supposed to avoid fakes."
Continue reading "Fruits, Flakes, Fakes and Nuts - And How To Deal With Them" »
The Christ Honoring Nature of Particular Redemption
"Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."
The scope of Christ's work of redemption is both universal and particular: universal because it includes people of every ethnicity and nation; particular because Christ redeems a people for Himself from out of these nations, having had an eye for a remnant of mankind from every tribe. Here is the climax of God's redemptive purpose, fulfilling God's covenant to Abraham to bless the children of promise through his seed (Gen 12:2; Rom 9:6-13). This is why God has commanded the church to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matt 28:18, 19) that He might gather those he has set apart for Himself in every city and town (Acts 18:10; John 17:9, 20)
Continue reading "The Christ Honoring Nature of Particular Redemption" »
Grace and Faith
"We deny that grace is a reward for our faith ...rather, it is the cause of faith. Jesus provides everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe." - Monergism.com
Grace is that which has NOTHING to do with the receiver, and EVERYTHING to do with the Giver. - Tom Mor De Lasa
Is Monergism Really a Form of Synergism?
Question: I appreciate the monergistic model of salvation since it appears to give God all the credit for the salvation of man. Many synergists believe that the Holy Spirit, thru a temporary working within a man, illuminates man to the truth of the gospel, leads him to a point of repentance, and that God gives the gift of faith for him to believe; yet something in the lost man has to believe in the gospel in order to be saved. God can’t believe for or have faith for the lost man. The monergists believe that the Holy Spirit, thru a permanent residing within a man via regeneration, illuminates man to the truth of the gospel, leads him to a point of repentance, and that God give the gift of faith for him to believe. I am not sure what part is regenerated, the spirit of man? His will? In any event, regeneration does not save that man because he has yet to believe in Christ. The remaining part of that man, something in the lost part of man still has to believe in the gospel in order to be saved. He may have a new spirit, a new will, a new heart of flesh, but he is still lost with the wrath of God abiding on him and destined to hell until he believes the gospel. It appears to me that monergism is still really synergistic since something in the remaining lost part of man has to agree with or believe in the gospel in order to be saved. Any thoughts?
Response: Thanks for your email. It is important that we first make some distinctions. Justification is not something God does in us. It is God's declaration that we are righteous for Jesus sake. It is in an alien righteousness counted toward us. Justification, therefore, is imputation. Justification is not something that changes us on the inside, it only declares what we are before God because of what we are in Christ. On the other hand, regeneration is impartation, which grants us a new nature. So to partly answer your question, there would be no remaining part of lost (unregenerate) man after regeneration. I would encourage you to further explore the difference between imputation and impartation.
I can see why you may have trouble here but perhaps you are thinking of the order of salvation temporally rather than in a causal manner:
In divine monergism, regeneration precedes faith (not temporally, but causally). So regeneration, faith and justification are not separate events in time yet are distinguished as to what they do. How can this be? Well consider that fire and heat, sight and seeing or having ears and hearing all occur simultaneously. But one must first have sight to see, or ears to hear or fire to have heat. Once your eyes are opened you see; once your ears are unplugged, you hear and once God grants us a new heart we are already believing. To think causally rather than temporally consider this: If a pool ball rolls on the table to strike another, both strike at exactly the same time, but only the ball that moves and strikes the other causes the other one to move. Likewise, the order of events in the Bible is always grace causally preceding action. For example Ezekiel 11:19-20
I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Notice that God placing a new heart within precedes following, obeying and the consummation of the covenant promise. No one believes while they have a heart of stone. That would be absurd. The heart must be softened to flesh prior to a desire for Christ. no?
Jesus likewise teaches this same idea of monergistic regeneration in the gospel of John chapter 6:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (vs. 6:63-65)
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. (vs.37)
Notice several things in these passages.The Bible declares there are only two states of being: flesh and Spirit, and that it is only those who are born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3, 6:63) who will come to Jesus (Jn. 6:65). The native resources of the flesh are, therefore, morally impotent to meet God's humbling requirement to believe the gospel. (1:13) But impartation of the Spirit causally precedes our action and imputation.
Also notice two universals in this passage. A universal negative "no one" and a universal positive "all".
Put these together and what to they say: no one can believe in Jesus unless God grants it through the quickening work of the Spirit, and all to whom God grants it will believe. The granting precedes the believing and it is effectual. In other words all those whom God grants will infallibly come to Jesus and He will indeed raise all of them up at the last day. None will be lost.
So regeneration causally precedes faith/justification. Both are benefits granted to us in Christ. Without the Holy Spirit there would be no new birth, no illumination, no understanding or affection for the gospel, and thus no faith -- in other words, no Christians. So there is no synergism here because the man is granted the new birth so that he might believe and be justified. These all occur simultaneously ... one simply causes the other from the outside. The Spirit works faith in us. No one says 'Jesus is Lord' apart from the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3).
Hope this helps
John
Monergism.com
Can anyone relate?
I read the following comment (online) and just wondered how many of us could relate to the sort of journey this person describes:
I grew up Baptist... and went to a non-denominational Christian university..., and basically considered myself Arminian, but I recognized that there were elements of Calvinism that were undeniably in Scripture.
Over the next five or six years after college I adopted each of the "five points" one at a time, in this order:
Total Depravity - It seemed pretty obvious to me that every part of us is affected by sin, not just superficially. This one really should have triggered all the rest, since they all progress out of it.
Continue reading "Can anyone relate?" »
TULIP: The Fairest flower in the Garden
The beauty of the TULIP is that it gives witness to the work of Jesus Christ alone in our salvation. How glorious it is to fellowship with him knowing that Christ is not only necessary but sufficient to save us to the uttermost. All of the blessings found in the TULIP do not exist apart from Christ's work on the cross. Consider the TULIP as a chiasm with the L at the top. Without the L, all the other benefits would not be possible. True biblical soteriology is Christocentric. So taking the "L" out" of the TULIP is like taking Solus Christus out of the Five Solas. It is an impossible supposition because it removes all benefits of the doctrines of grace from their source found only in the the work of Christ, who lived the life we should have lived and died the death we justly deserve.
Consider this: because of "T" (total depravity), man is unable to save himself. Therefore, in His great mercy, God the Father "U" unconditionally elects a particular people IN CHRIST, who comes to redeem them in history "L" and are then gathered up by the Holy Spirit who regenerates and unites them to CHRIST, who preserves them to the end "P". To put it simply: Unconditional election is done in Christ (Eph 1:3,4). Perseverance is IN CHRIST (1 Cor 1:30) and Irresistible grace is IN CHRIST (John 6:63-65). Anyone who removes the L, therefore, bifurcates the work of Christ from the grace of Christ. Such would have us believe that the graces of election, irresistible grace and preservation can be had apart from Christ. No, our salvation is Christocentric from first to last. The three persons of Trinity work in harmony to bring about every redemptive blessing.
Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross? by Dr. R. C. Sproul
The famous hymn of the church “And Can it Be?†contains a line that asks a very poignant question : “How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?†Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross?
This kind of expression is popular in hymnody and in grassroots conversation. So although I have this scruple about the hymn and it bothers me that the expression is there, I think I understand it, and there’s a way to give an indulgence for it.
We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.
God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being†(Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.
Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.†That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.
We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.
Martin Luther on the Will
"It is false that the will, left to itself, can do good as well as evil, for it is not free, but in bondage."
"For, if by the command 'to love,' the nature of the law only be shewn, and what we ought to do, but not the power of the will or what we can do, but rather, what we cannot do. The same is shewn by all the other scriptures of requirement. For it is well known, that even the schoolmen, except the Scotinians and moderns, assert,that man cannot love God with all his heart. Therefore, neither can he perform any one of the other precepts, for all the rest, according to the testimony of Christ, hang on this one. Hence, by the testimony even of doctors of the schools, THIS remains as a settled conclusion: that the words of the law do not prove the power of Free-will, but shew what we ought to do, and what we cannot do. "
Bondage of the Will was Luther's masterpiece ... the fire that kindled the Reformation. Powerfully effective Reformation Classic!
Monergism = Christ Alone
Recently a visitor seemed deeply troubled that we would equate our belief in Monergism with "Christ alone" -- that by doing so we were being tribal, because this communicates the idea that synergists do not affirm "Christ alone" and to make this claim is to stir up animosity between brothers. But our purpose is not to create bitter feuds, but to be faithful to Scripture on a foundational subject. For those of us who are persuaded of monergism didn't we all come to embrace monergistic regeneration because it best expresses the Biblical data regarding the extent of Christ's work in our salvation?
Doesn't he word "monergism" itself help us understand this concept? The word consists of two main parts: The prefix "mono" means "one", "single", or "alone" while "ergon" means "to work". Taken together it means "the work of one". That is, regeneration is the work of Jesus Christ alone (as applied by the Holy Spirit), not the cooperation of man and God and not the result of unregenerate man meeting a condition (like faith) before regeneration takes place. THE main difference between Monergism & Synergism, then, is that while synergistic theology affirms the necessity of Christ, yet they do not affirm the sufficiency of Christ. That is, synergists do not affirm that Christ provides everything we need for salvation, including a new heart to believe and understand the gospel. (1 Cor 2, John 6:63-65, 37, 44). Christ does most of what we need, but we still need to meet God's condition to be saved. If, as synergists may say, God grants grace to all men, then we must ask, why do some believe and not others? Did some make better use of Christ's grace than others? Does Christ make them to differ or something else (like our decision)? That 'something else' means that Christ may be necessary to them but not sufficient to provide all they need to be saved (including a renewed heart to believe). Thus 'Christ alone', as it was understood in the Reformation, is a monergistic distinctive. His cross is sufficient to provide all we need including the very faith required of us.
Is our faith, therefore, something we can thank God for, or is it the one thing we contribute to the price of our salvation? Is God's love for us conditioned upon whether we believe or not or does His love meet the condition for us in Christ, according to scripture? We affirm that God gives us this condition but Christ does for us what we are unable to do for ourselves. We are not, therefore, partly dependent on Christ for salvation but wholly dependent.
Example: Is God's love like a parent who sees his child run out into traffic and who merely calls out to him to get out of the way or is God's love like the parent who, at the risk of their life, runs out and scoops up the child to MAKE CERTAIN that his child is safe. We all know that true love gets the job done ... it doesn't merely sit on the sidelines when something so critical as ones life is at stake. God's love is unconditional for His people and He sends his Son to make certain His sheep are not lost.
Note: a large percentage of synergists who are Protestants would openly confess that there is no hope save in Christ alone - and for this we embrace them as our beloved brothers in Christ, but the debates come about when their theology blatantly contradicts this good confession, when they believe in Christ PLUS a condition we meet, apart from grace. When we deny the sufficiency of Christ to provide anything (for apart from Christ we can do nothing) then we are not faithfully giving witness to the Scriptural understanding of "Christ alone" .
Michael Haykin rightly said, "It is wrong to suppose that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that storm center of the Reformation, was the crucial question in the minds of such theologians as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. This doctrine was important to the Reformers because it helped to express and to safeguard their answer to another, more vital, question, namely, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith."
-J.W. Hendryx
The Most Helpful Thing I Ever Learned As A Christian by Pastor John Samson
I wonder if you can relate to any of this. One of the first things God the Holy Spirit did for me after I had come to faith in Christ was to give me a deep settled assurance of salvation. Romans 8:16 tells us that "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God..." This inner witness brought me the sure knowledge that despite my many flaws and failures, I was in fact His – His for all eternity. As I read the Scriptures, the wonders of this great salvation become clear – God had saved me, I was His, and Christ did indeed love me and had given me eternal life. Heaven sent joy and peace flooded my soul. I knew I could say, “I am my Beloved’s and He is mine.â€
But then, somewhere along the way this settled peace was disturbed. The wonders of His grace, wrought through Christ and His atoning work became obscured… not because I read some book countering Christianity and was swayed by the arguments, but because I came across Scriptures that at least at first glance, seemed to show that my salvation was a lot more flimsy and shaky than I first imagined. Perhaps you can identify with this.
Here’s what I mean: I read Scriptures such as “nothing can separate us from the love of God†(Rom 8: 39) but then read “the one who endures to the end will be saved.†(Matt 24:13)
I read, “…whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life†(John 3:16) and then read “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.†(1 Cor 15:1,2)
I thought, “which is it God? If someone believes, You say that they have eternal life, but here it says that someone can “believe in vain.†How could both statements be true?â€
Continue reading "The Most Helpful Thing I Ever Learned As A Christian by Pastor John Samson" »
"I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian" <<< Have you ever heard this?
I recently saw this comment online and responded to it
Comment:
I'm not a Calvinist (or an Arminian), but the local church I am a member of, and many of the churches we have fellowship with, stand separate from and opposed to the 'Jesus is your buddy gospel' of modern evangelicalism. I'm grateful that these Christians [Calvinists] are taking the same stand, but am underwhelmed and a bit disappointed that it is the tenets of Calvinism which are being propagated. Nevertheless, may God use this to turn the tide according to His timing, and may this pervasive lack of reverence towards the holy, sovereign triune God be washed away.
Pro 9:10 - "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."
Response:
Brother in Christ, Calvinism and Arminianism are usually just used as shorthand for Monergism & Synergism. Either you believe regeneration precedes faith or you do not? Either you affirm that Christ is sufficient to provide all you need for salvation (including a new heart to believe) or you affirm Christ is necessary but not sufficient i.e. provides only the opportunity but not the effectual grace. You either believe in the necessity of the effectual work of the Holy Spirit in salvation or you do not. If you ask yourself, "is faith also part of the gift of grace Christ purchases for his own" (John 6:63-65) OR "is faith the product of our unregenerated human nature?" The answer to these questions make it clear whether you believe salvation is by grace alone OR grace PLUS something you contribute. This is the essence of what people mean when they compare these two understandings of the Bible. You are either a monergist or synergist: Christ Alone or Christ PLUS. There is no third option.
Click Here for more resources on this topic.
Monergism (Calvinism) v. Synergism (Arminianism) Debate
This is highly recommended - an excellent exchange/debate between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White which took place earlier today here. Over the course of the 90 minutes, three main texts are debated, namely John 6, Romans 8-9, and Ephesians 1.
Can a true Christian fall from grace? Pastor John Samson
Can salvation be lost? New article posted here.
The Love of God and the Glory of God - How do they relate?
If you have time to watch this video (which lasts just over an hour) I believe you will find this to be well worth the investment. Here John Piper wrestles with exceedingly precious and profound doctrines from the Bible - as they relate to God's love for us and the pursuit of His own glory. - JS
"Love is doing whatever you have to do at whatever cost to yourself to help the one loved be enthralled fully and forever with what is most satisfying - namely, God." - John Piper
Be killing sin or sin will be killing you
John Piper on the mortification of sin (approx. 62 minutes)
Ezekiel 18 and the doctrine of Original Sin
An objection to the biblical doctrine of Original Sin is sometimes raised by citing Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Here is an excellent short article on this subject dealing with the verse in its proper context. Once again we see the value of seeing a verse in its proper setting rather than in isolation.
I love the Trinity
Do you have a firm grasp of the doctrine of the Trinity? Can you defend it? Why even bother? Hear why the Trinity should matter to us from my friend Dr. James White as he explains this precious Bible doctrine on the 3/3/10 airdate (2nd hour) program here. The program lasts approximately 37 minutes, 30 seconds (commercials are already taken out). - JS
1 John 5:1 - Regeneration Precedes Faith
Being Born of God Precedes Saving Faith.
Is 1 John 5:1 relevant to the discussion of regeneration and faith? It surely is, even if many in evangelicalism today refuse to go deep enough into the text to discover that fact.
Dr. James White, in this video below, provides a study of 1 John 5:1, 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7, in light of Calvary Chapel's Brian Brodersen's comments.
Spurgeon on Monergistic Regeneration
"You must be born again."
Do not think Christians are made by education; they are made by creation. You may wash a corpse as long as you please, and that corpse could be clean, but you cannot wash life into it!
You may deck it in flowers, and robe it in scarlet and fine linen, but you cannot make it live! The vital spark must come from above! Regeneration is not of the will of man, nor of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but by the power and energy of the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God alone!
See then, the ruin of nature and the freeness of grace! Void and dark, a chaos given up to be covered withnblackness and darkness forever, and, while as yet it is unseeking God, the light arises, and the promise is fulfilled, "I am found of them that sought me not; I said, behold me! behold me! to a people that were not a people."
While we were lying in our blood, filthily polluted, defiled, he passed by, and he said in the sovereignty of his love, "Live!" and we do live. The whole must be traced to sovereign grace! From this sacred well of discriminating distinguishing grace we must draw water this morning, and we must pour it out, saying, "Oh Lord, I will praise your name, for the first origin of my light was your sovereign purpose, and nothing in me."
Excerpt from Spurgeon’s sermon,"Light, Natural and Spiritual" No. 660.
Classic Newly Reformatted Uploaded Essays @Monergism
Cunningham, William - THE SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY
Dickson, David - THE SUM OF SAVING KNOWLEDGE
Hurrion, John - THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
Warfield, B.B. - CALVIN'S DOCTRINE OF GOD
Warfield, B.B. - GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE
Warfield, B.B. - "IT SAYS:" "SCRIPTURE SAYS:" "GOD SAYS"
Warfield, B.B. - THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION
Warfield, B.B. - THE NEW TESTAMENT TERMINOLOGY OF "REDEMPTION
The Fall and its Consequences
Back in November 2005, I posted an article on the theme of the Fall and its effects. In re-reading it again today I was gripped by just how clearly Scripture speaks to the issue, and also how the various church councils brought clarity to the subject. At the end of the article itself an interesting discussion takes place and I encourage you to refresh yourself in what the Bible has to say on this very important topic here. - JS
Augustine on Calling
Augustine distinguishes the common from the effectual call in the following passages: “God calls many predestinated children of his to make them members of his only predestinated Son, not with that calling with which they were called who would not come to the marriage, since with that calling were called also the Jews, to whom Christ crucified is an offense, and the Gentiles, to whom Christ crucified is foolishness; but with that calling he calls the predestinated which the apostle distinguished when he said that he preached Christ, the wisdom of God and the power of God to them that were called, Jews as well as Greeks. And it was this calling he meant when he said, ‘Not of works, but of him that calls, it was said unto Rebecca, that the elder shall serve the younger.’ Did he say, ‘Not of works, but of him that believes’? Rather, he actually took this [namely, faith] away from man that he might give the whole to God. Therefore he said, ‘But of him that calls’; not with any sort of calling whatever, but with that calling wherewith a man is made a believer†(Predestination 32). “The vessels of mercy were not so called as not to be elected, in respect of which it is said, ‘Many are called, but few are elected’; but because they were called according to God’s purpose they are of a certainty also elected by the election of grace, as it is denominated, not of any precedent merits of theirs, because grace is all the merit they have†(Rebuke and Grace 13). “Whoever are elected are without doubt also called; but not whoever are called are also elected. Those are elected who are called according to God’s purpose and who are also predestinated and foreknown†(Rebuke and Grace 14).
The Sentimental Jesus of Tradition v. The Biblical Jesus
In the video below, Dr. James White responds to the recent accusation made by Brian Broderson of Calvary Chapel that Calvinism lacks the heart of Jesus:
Continue reading "The Sentimental Jesus of Tradition v. The Biblical Jesus" »
Believing is the Evidence of the New Birth - Dr. John Piper
Are You New To Reformed Theology?
Dr. R. C. Sproul (Ligonier Ministries) has made the following three teaching series available to watch and listen to free of charge:
1. What is Reformed theology? - "There is something healthy about returning to one’s roots. When it comes to evangelical Christianity, its roots are found in the soil of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation. Just as the Reformers protested the corrupt teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, so today evangelicalism itself is in need of a modern reformation. In "What Is Reformed Theology?", Dr. R.C. Sproul offers a comprehensive introduction to Reformed theology. Simply put, it is the theology of the Protestant Reformers and the heart of historical evangelicalism. As C.H. Spurgeon once said, "Reformed theology is nothing other than biblical Christianity.""
2. The Making of the Protestant Reformation - "The division of the church that occurred during the Protestant Reformation was not something that the Reformers originally intended to happen. However, when it became clear that the church authorities would be unwilling to submit themselves to the teaching of sacred Scripture, Martin Luther knew that it was necessary to stand against them for the sake of the Gospel.
In this series, Dr. R.C. Sproul explores the historical background of the Protestant Reformation. He looks at the life of Martin Luther and the teachings of the medieval church in order to remind us of the truth of the biblical Gospel and the reasons why we must tenaciously cling to it."
3. Chosen by God - "Many people reject Reformed theology or Calvinism because they believe it teaches that God drags people kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God against their will. This, however, is a gross distortion of the biblical doctrine of election, which is grounded in God’s love for His people. In this series, Dr. Sproul carefully explains the meaning of God’s sovereignty in the work of redemption and shows how it relates to the will of man."
I have either watched or heard these series a number of times over the years and recommend them very highly. You will find them online here. - JS
Free Online Books at Monergism.com
Two newly uploaded free e-books on Monergism.com.
The True Scripture Doctrine by Jonathan Dickenson and
The English Puritans by John Brown.
The Relationship Between Irresistible Grace and the Atonement
In a discussion relating to limited atonement I discussed how all redemptive blessings are found in Christ, including the blessing of irresistible grace.
A visitor responded:
John, Please help me understand your logic here. Irresistible grace is wrought through the atonement and not election? I am under the impression that God will have mercy on whom he wills. Whether the atonement is limited or not God has chosen his elect and they are atoned for. I am not seeing how by acknowledging that "irresistible grace is found only in Christ" we "acknowledge limited atonement by default". How are the two connected?
my response
Hello ______.
Election, by itself, has never saved anyone. It is God's blueprint, so to speak, of what he intends to do in time through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. God the Father elects, the Son redeems them, and the Spirit applies the work of Christ to the same. The Trinity, in other words, works in harmony, to bring about the redemption of the elect. God the Father does not do this alone, APART form the work of the other two Persons of the Trinity. All redemptive grace is found in Christ. Ephesians 1:3 explains it thus:
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Eph 1:3-6)
Please note that all spiritual blessings are IN CHRIST, that the Father chose us IN CHRIST, that He predestined us to adoption as sons IN CHRIST. So yes, you are right, God elects according to his good pleasure but he gets the job done through Jesus Christ.
Limited Atonement is connected to irresistible grace in that, irresistible grace (all acknowledge) is given to the elect alone. It is not granted to the non-elect. And all spiritual blessing are in Christ... Therefore, Christ died in a way, a redemptive way to secure irresistible grace for the elect, that he did not for the non-elect. Irresistible grace was not purchased for the non-elect PERIOD. In other words, the redemptive blessing of irresistible grace is what Christ purchased on the cross to render certain the elect would respond positively to the outward gospel call. No redemptive grace is to be had outside of the work of Christ. All spiritual blessings are found in Christ and Christ alone. To claim otherwise is to deny Christ as our Savior and that his work is finished. At the very least, it denies that His work is sufficient to save completely. Those who deny limited atonement may well believe Christ's atonement was necessary, but it was not sufficient. Even Roman Catholics believe the grace of Christ was necessary, but it was not enough ... they must believe and persevere to the end and thus MAINTAIN their own just standing before God. We affirm that Christ work is complete ... it is totally sufficient to save. He is the author AND perfecter of our faith. There is nothing we can do to improve upon that. In 529 AD the Council of Orange worte the following;
if anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life... that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit ...he is led astray by a heretical spirit." The Council of Orange, CANON 7.(529 AD)
John Owen said, "To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."
Consider: that whatever God requires of us also includes faith. We do not have the power to believe the gospel without the the Spirit uniting us to Jesus Christ.
In Ezekiel 36:25 God says, I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Notice that God first gives us a new heart so that we may keep his laws. Without the Holy Spirit, the word does not find a place in our heart. Jesus told his disciples that he must go to the Father so the the Spirit would come to the whole world. So again the Bible forces us to conclude that The Trinity works together to bring about his redemptive purposes.
Hope this helps
John
Monergism
Question Concerning Man's Inability
Question from Visitor
Concerning man's inability to come to God on his own, which statement is true:
1. Man cannot come because he will not come.
OR
2. Man will not come because he cannot come.
I was reading and came across those statements. What is at the heart of man's inability to come to Christ? Is it his depraved will? Is it his spiritual blindness/deadness/bondage?
Kinda confused at what lies at the heart of man's inability.
---
Response
Hi and thanks. That is a great question.
The natural man is unspiritual, that is, he is not regenerated or indwelt by the Holy Spirit, so he acts in accordance with his own nature. Left to himself he both cannot and will not come to Christ. But let's be clear. God does not stop him from coming, nor coerce him in any way. His innate corruption means that he rejects Christ of necessity. Water does not rise above its source and a thorn bush does not produce figs, as it were.
Another way to consider this: If someone borrowed $100 million to fund a company and then immediately went and spent it all in a week of wild living in Las Vegas, his inability to repay the debt does not alleviate him of the responsibility to do so. So there is no contradiction between his responsibility and his inability. He created his own inability so he is responsible. Likewise Adam, our federal head, who represents the entire human race, fell and plunged all of us into a condition of debt which we cannot repay. Take note: this does not alleviate us of the responsibility to do so. We owe a debt we cannot repay. We are spiritually bankrupt and our heart needs to be renewed in the Holy Spirit who unites us the Christ. Only then do we have the mind and heart of Christ. ( See 1 Cor 2 ) Without the Spirit we are dead (even hostile) to spiritual things. But when the Spirit comes with the grace of regeneration, renewing our heart after the image of God, we both can and will come to Christ.
Hope this helps. Peace be with you
John
Monergism
The Five Theological Orations
Anyone interested in patristics or Church history will be pleased to know that Gregory Nazianzen's justly famous Theological Orations (the public domain translation of Charles Gordon Brown and James Edward Swallow) are now available in paperback. The Five Theological Orations, first delivered in AD 379 by Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the three “Cappadocian Fathers†of the early Church, were immediately recognized as a landmark defense of the orthodox doctrine of the holy Trinity. Their historical importance as a decisive blow against the various trinitarian heresies of the fourth century – one from which they would never really recover – is indisputable; but just as obvious is their abiding value for clear-headed thinking, devotional fervor, and reverent humility becoming a genuine man of God. This is edifying reading for all the saints, no less in our day than in Gregory Nazianzen's.
This edition also contains Gregory's "Oration on Pentecost," a fitting appendix to the fifth theological oration, in which the deity of the Holy Spirit is established. The electronic version is available for free download, and the paperback may be purchased for $7.95, here.
Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism by John Girardeau
DURING the temporary occupation of the pulpit of the First Presbyterian Church in this city, a few years ago, some of the young members of that church requested me to instruct a Bible-class, on Sabbath nights, in the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinistic faith. A large number were enrolled, and the understanding was that the members of the class would be entitled to a free interrogation of the instructor. Unexpectedly, from the very first, a large promiscuous congregation attended, and the liberty to ask questions was used by outsiders, the design appearing to be to start difficulties rather than to seek light, and to convert the exercise into a debate. To avoid this result, and to treat objections in a more logical and orderly manner than was possible in extemporized replies to the scattering fire of miscellaneous inquiries, resort ere-long was had to written lectures. Notwithstanding this change, the attendance and the interest suffered no abatement, but rather increased - a fact which seemed to militate against the common opinion that doctrinal discussions would prove dry and unacceptable to a popular audience. The lectures, which were prepared not without painstaking labor, suggested the production of a formal treatise on the subjects which had occupied all the available time-namely, Election and Reprobation, with special reference to the Evangelical Arminian theology. This was done, and a discussion of the doctrine of justification, in relation to that theology, was added. Read in its entirety...
The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification
Jeff asks his good friend Roberta Charles a theological question.
This video was produced by John Samson - Adapted from a question and answer session with Dr. R. C. Sproul at a Ligonier Conference, Pittsburg, 2000
Apart from the Holy Spirit
"He that will maintain that man's free will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases, be they never so small, denies Christ." - Martin Luther, http://bit.ly/4CMuAD
Martin Luther hits the nail on the head. Apart from the Holy Spirit, man, when left to himself, cannot rise above what he is by nature, and will use his so-called 'free will' to suppress the truth of Christ. Anyone who thinks they can believe the gospel apart from the Spirit, therefore, denies his need for Christ, not only for justification, but also for the grace needed to be willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel.
Monergistic Regeneration
Since faith is infinitely beyond all the power of our unregenerated human nature, it is only God who can give the spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see the beauty of Christ in the gospel. God alone disarms the hostility of the sinner turning his heart of stone to a heart of flesh. It is God, the Holy Spirit, alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the death of sin, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense, a spiritual capacity to behold the beauty and unsurpassed excellency of Jesus Christ. The apostle John recorded Jesus saying to Nicodemus that we naturally love darkness, hate the light and WILL NOT come into the light (John 3:19, 20). And since our hardened resistance to God is thus seated in our affections, only God, by His grace, can lovingly change, overcome and pacify our rebellious disposition. The natural man, apart from the quickening work of the Holy Spirit, will not come to Christ on his own since he is at enmity with God and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14). Shining a light into a blind man's eyes will not enable him to see, because eyesight first requires a set of healthy eyes. Likewise, reading or hearing the word of God alone cannot elicit saving faith in the reader (1 Thess 1:4, 5) unless God plows up the fallow ground of our hearts and the Spirit "germinates" the seed of the word, opening our eyes to see Christ's true beauty and excellency and uniting us to Him through a Spirit-wrought faith. So the problem of conversion is not with the Word or God's Law but with man's prideful heart. The humility required to submit to the gospel is, therefore, not prompted by man's will but by God's mercy (Rom 9:16) since no one can believe the gospel unless God grants it (John 6:63, 65). As an example of how the Spirit uses the means of the spoken word to disarm closed hearts, the Book of Acts records the work of the Holy Spirit during the preaching of the apostles and, in one instance, states that "the Lord opened her [Lydia's] heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul," (Acts 16:14). The Spirit must likewise give all His people spiritual life and understanding if their hearts are to be opened and thus respond to Christ in faith.
Divine Repentance by R.C. Sproul
Does God Change His Mind? If God is immutable, if He does not change at all, does that mean He never changes His mind either? This is a very thorny problem. The Bible appears to say at times that God changed His mind. Consider, for example, the following episode that took place in the time of Moses:
Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: "LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever." So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:11-14)
God "relented"? Other translations render the words here, "changed His mind." This narrative seems to make it absolutely clear that God does, in fact, change His mind from time to time. Maybe His being doesn't change, but does His mind cast a shadow every once in awhile? The problem becomes more vexing when we read elsewhere in Scripture:
Continue reading "Divine Repentance by R.C. Sproul" »
Election Vs. Self Sufficiency
For my part I cannot see how true humbleness of mind can be attained without a knowledge of [the doctrine of election]; and though I will not say, that every one who denies election is a bad man, yet I will say, with that sweet singer, Mr. Trail, it is a very bad sign: such a one, whoever he be, I think cannot truly know himself; for, if we deny election, we must, partly at least, glory in ourselves..-- George Whitfield
AMEN! Our election in Christ focuses much on God and the work of the Trinity in salvation, rather than on me, my autonomy, and my own spirituality. Viewed properly, the doctrine of election brings a strong sense of humility before God and man for it looks away from self to Christ for any and all redemptive blessings. Even faith itself must be seen as utterly beyond all the power of our nature and completely a work of God's grace. Prior to being a Christian I was deeply committed to the New Age movement but when faced with Romans 9:15, 16, God forced me to face up to the fact that He was God and I was not. Denying the biblical doctrine of election is a subtle way of maintaining a small enclave of self-sufficiency, for it denies that Christ is completely sufficient to save to the uttermost. Did Christ die for all sins, including our sin of unbelief and inability to persevere or did He die only for some sins, leaving us to make up for what He did not finish??? When viewed in this light, our natural arrogance is exposed and all glory should thus be given to Jesus Christ.
Newly Formatted John Owen Works on Monergism
A special thanks to Lance Marshall for scanning and formatting:
The Nature of Apostasy
by John Owen
Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers
by John Owen
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
by John Owen
A Display of Arminianism
by John Owen
AWAITING OUR BLESSED HOPE
AWAITING OUR BLESSED HOPE
A Biblical Look at the End Times
Reformation Society of Oregon Fall Theology Conference
Dr. Kim Riddlebarger
The audio from Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's recent eschatology conference is now available at Monergism here
Calvinist Distinctives
The Main Difference Between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist Views of Saving Grace
Recently I had am exchange on a message board regarding the particulars of Calvinism. Here is the conversation.
Also, check out the new long-sleeve Five Solas t-shirt from Monergism Books
Hell is not a halloween prank
John Piper posted something at the desiring God site that I thought might be worthwhile for us to think through. So many people are abandoning "hell" as a sustainable doctrine in our day, borne, I believe, not because the Scripture is obscure on the subject - it isn't - but because of human philosophy and the feeling that a "good" God would never allow suffering in hell for eternity even for the worst of His enemies. Yet we hear more about the details of the punishment and suffering of those who will end up in hell from the lips of Jesus than anyone else in Scripture. I think that is by design. God entrusted the message of hell most to His dear Son perhaps because we might never have believed it if it only came through a Daniel, a Paul or a James. We would be very prone to say "oh that's just Paul. I don't accept what he says. Thank God Jesus the loving Savior never talked of such things." But this is something we cannot do because it is the One who taught us most about the Father's love, the Son of God Himself, who tells us most clearly about the realities of hell. Here's John Piper's short article below - JS
How Willingly Do People Go to Hell? Does Anyone Standing by the Lake of Fire Jump In?
C.S. Lewis is one of the top 5 dead people who have shaped the way I see and respond to the world. But he is not a reliable guide on a number of important theological matters. Hell is one of them. His stress is relentlessly that people are not “sent†to hell but become their own hell. His emphasis is that we should think of “a bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is.†(For all the relevant quotes, see Martindale and Root, The Quotable Lewis, 288-295.)
This inclines him to say, “All that are in hell choose it.†And this leads some who follow Lewis in this emphasis to say things like, “All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want.â€
Continue reading "Hell is not a halloween prank" »
The Main Issue of The Reformation - The Necessity v. The Sufficiency of Grace
I posted the following article here on the blog back in December 2005... - JS
There is no doubt that the 16th century witnessed the greatest ever split in Church history. Some view the Reformation as a sad or even an evil episode. Others see it as a time when God restored the one true biblical Gospel back into the hands of the masses. But what exactly were the issues back then? And what are the issues in our own day? Was this a mere tempest in a tea cup?
I suggest that the issues then and now are exactly the same - who or what speaks for God, and what exactly is the Gospel?
In the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church believed (and still does today) that justification is by grace, through faith, because of Christ. What Rome does not believe is that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. According to Rome, justification is by grace plus merit, through faith plus works; because of Christ plus the sinner's contribution of inherent righteousness.
In contrast, Martin Luther and his Reformers had 5 main slogans, all using the word "sola," which is the Latin word for "alone." It was this word "alone" that designated the biblical Gospel and set it apart from all other pretenders. The cry of these Reformers was not simply "FAITH!," "GRACE!," "CHRIST!," "THE SCRIPTURE!," or "THE GLORY OF GOD!" All embracing a false Gospel could do that!
The cry was "FAITH ALONE!," "GRACE ALONE!," "CHRIST ALONE!," "SCRIPTURE ALONE!," "THE GLORY OF GOD ALONE!" With Scripture alone as the sure foundation, the Reformers affirmed that justification is by grace alone, received through faith alone because of Christ alone — to the glory of God alone.
Continue reading "The Main Issue of The Reformation - The Necessity v. The Sufficiency of Grace " »
The Providence of God (2 Messages)
The Church at large has tried to put man at the center of the Universe for so long in its sermons, books and articles that today, when we do hear a preacher talk about the Sovereignty or Providence of God, it actually seems very strange to our ears. We think "what new doctrine is this?" But the truth is that this is not a new concept at all, but in fact the classic, orthodox, Christian view of the God of the Bible.
Regarding the Sovereignty of God, Dr. R. C. Sproul makes the point that if there were one maverick molecule out there somewhere apart from the plan of God, we would have no reason to hope in God. That one maverick molecule could be the one detail that defeats God's eternal purpose. If God is not in Sovereign control, perhaps that one "maverick molecule" could have got into the lungs of Jesus as a young baby and God's eternal plan of salvation could well have been derailed with Jesus dieing in infancy. As the old saying goes, "For lack of the nail, the shoe was lost. For lack of the shoe, the horse was lost. For lack of the horse, the rider was lost. For lack of the rider, the battle was lost. For lack of the battle, the war was lost."
In contrast to this picture, our God is All-Powerful (Omnipotent), and all of history is merely the outworking of His eternal plan. God not merely created the world, but His eternal power sustains it and continues its existence by the sheer exertion of His will - were God to "blink," all would come to an end.
Here (below) Dr. James White teaches two sessions on "the providence of God." The second session refutes the "middle knowledge" doctrine that is becoming more and more prevalent in our day. Both of these messages are highly recommended - very much a worthwhile use of your time. - JS
Continue reading "The Providence of God (2 Messages)" »
What the Bible Says About Baptism
|
Just a note to let you know that my new categorized scripture list, What the Bible Says About Baptism which lays out the biblical case for Reformed paedo-baptism, is now available to purchase in print. The e-book may be downloaded for free, as well.
Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity
Just came across this short article by Alan Kurschner at the www.aomin.org blogsite. I thought his illustrations were very helpful in terms of defending the concept of the Trinity. - JS
Alan Kurschner writes:
The two most frequent objections to the Trinity can be illuminated with two simple, but effective, illustrations. First, "How can there be three and one at the same time"? This question conflates two categories into one. But Christians understand that there are two categories involved. There is one "What" (Being/Deity) and three "Who's" (Persons/Father-Son-Holy Spirit).
Here is the best illustration that I think brings out this fundamental difference in these two categories that unbelievers can immediately relate to: There is only one humanity (Being) but many individuals (persons). Individuals share in the Being of humanity, and that does not mean that I am you, and you are me — we are different persons with the same single Being.
This illustration is not intended to exhaust or explain all the elements of the Trinity; instead, it serves to illustrate this single categorical difference between Being and persons. Someone may object by saying, "Does not this analogy support polytheism, since there are billions of individuals, there can be billions of Gods or divine persons?" Let me be clear: this illustration is intended to show a single distinction between two categories — Being and persons; the point is not intended to show how many persons there are. Only Scripture can provide us this latter truth.
Continue reading "Two Quick Apologetic Tips on the Trinity " »
Recommended Links
I recently came across two very helpful websites. The first, Documenta Catholica Omnia, is a huge compendium of every extant writing of all the church fathers, extending well into the Medieval period. All the originals are included (mostly Latin and Greek, but occasionally in Syriac or some other minor language), and any available translation into English or other modern languages, when not protected by copyright laws, is also provided. A phenomenal way to become more acquainted with the theological growth of the early Church, and to realize just how great our debt is to those fathers who gave their lives for the clarification and explication of the one, holy, and catholic faith (and by "catholic" I don't mean any of the popery that grew up later as a cankerous plague!). The second is an online, searchable version of Liddell and Scott's classic and hugely helpful Greek-English lexicon. Searching by Latin transliteration makes it easy to use with a standard keyboard. For instance, if you want the Greek word for "faith," you would just type in the Latin transliteration "pistis," and the corresponding word would pop up in Greek characters. Enjoy!
Jesus Christ as Denouement in the Theater of God - John Piper
Here is John Piper's message, from the Desiring God Conference, September 27, 2009 where his theme concerns how Jesus Christ relates to the ultimate purpose of God in creating the universe as the theater of God:
Total Depravity & Man's Responsibility
John 6:44 - Jesus said "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
John 3:19-21 "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.â€
The Scripture teaches us clearly that man has an inability to come to Christ outside of God effectually drawing him (John 6:44) yet this does NOT remove man's responsibility to do so. How can this be the case? John Piper explains using a very helpful illustration in the short audio segment below:
What to say when Mormons say that Jesus said "I say you are gods" (follow all that?)
The chief reason for me being a Reformed Christian is not a heartfelt devotion to the Magisterial Reformers like Martin Luther or John Calvin. No, the main reason is that the Reformed message thunders out from the pages of Scripture when the principles of hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) are applied. When the text is left to speak for itself, within its own context, the truth is clearly seen. Texts taken out of their setting can be made to support many erroneous views and heresies. Surely, a text out of context is a pretext for all false doctrine. However, error is exposed when individual texts are subjected to analysis such as identifying the background, use of words, context, syntax, etc.
Some people are very quick to say that "the Lord" showed them the meaning of a verse. Yet it is often the case that the context of the verse totally repudiates the interpretation given. To fail to study the text's context is not a mark of spirituality, but the exact opposite - a failure to honor the Holy Spirit who inspired the original words. We would never wish for our own words to be treated this way. How much more should this be the case when it is God the Holy Spirit who has inspired Scripture?
An old heresy, based upon a misinterpretation of John 10:34, suggests that men can become gods. This is the doctrine espoused by the LDS (Mormons) and other cult groups (many Word of Faith preachers teach this also). I will let an excerpt from Dr. James White's book "Is the Mormon my Brother?" show the context and true meaning of John 10:34.
Dr. White writes:
An Overview of the Reformation by Dr. James White
Assumptions, Traditions and a Biblical Filter
I recently succumbed to the internet phenomenon of Facebook and became a member of the online community. It has been fun to find people I knew from 20 years ago and more, even on the other side of the world. There's a feature of facebook that allows you to become a "fan" of a person or organization and what it means is that when they post something, it appears on your "wall" and you can see it and read it automatically, without having to go to their site to see it. Well, I have signed up with a number of ministries I enjoy and its been great to read their insights as they post them. However, I signed up to become a "fan" of a certain evangelist who shall be nameless (his name is not important for the sake of this article). The reason for signing up was that he is regularly stirring up the Body of Christ to get the Gospel out to people and I appreciate this so much and look forward to his comments in this regard. Today though, he shifted focus and talked about faith. Now I love the subject of faith and was interested in what he had to say. I read his words but realized quickly that we would not be seeing eye to eye when it came to this theme. That is because he assumes man's ability to believe the Gospel outside of regeneration. I think the best way to explain this is to quote his words below in italics and then add my own comments.
The elementary fact is that faith is in-built. We are born believers.
hmmm.. Isn't this an assumption rather than something Scripture teaches? Does not Scripture teach that we are born spiritually dead and need resurrection (Romans 5; Eph 2; 1 Cor 15)?
If you think you have no faith – try it! Try not believing in anything or anybody – your wife, husband, doctor, bank, boss, baker, or chef.
Certainly unregenerate man believes many things.. it is impossible NOT to believe something... but faith in Christ is impossible for natural man outside of God's activity. Jesus said, "NO ONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS the Father who sent Me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44).
Continue reading "Assumptions, Traditions and a Biblical Filter" »
Sovereign Grace
"How would you describe your conversion experience? Did God come looking for you, or was it the other way around? In your mind, is the accent on the initiative and intervention of God, or on your response of repentance and faith? First impressions are lasting impressions. There are serious consequences when we misinterpret our conversion experience. But there are wonderful, ongoing, life-transforming benefits when we rightly understand it." (from the Sovereign Grace Ministries website).
I am delighted to see C. J. Mahaney's two part message on "Sovereign Grace" become available in this form (on Vimeo video below) so that it might reach a wider audience. As a pastor, I have seen God use this teaching in the lives of many of the people I serve, who had, up until viewing this, very much struggled reconciling the lofty concepts of Divine Sovereign Election and human free will. Though mystery certainly remains, much can be gleaned and understood as we expose our hearts and minds to the word of God.
Thank you C.J. and thank you Sovereign Grace Ministries for making this message more readily available. It is a precious gift to the entire Body of Christ. It was recorded at the Sovereign Grace Small Group Leaders Conference East in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on November 14, 2002. The teaching is based on Ephesians 1:3-14 and is in two sessions, lasting a total of approximately 97 minutes. I recommend it very highly both for personal spiritual edification and as something to point people to who are new to the doctrines of grace. - Rev. John Samson, Pastor, King's Church, Phoenix
Continue reading "Sovereign Grace" »
Short Response to so-called 4-Point Calvinists
This is a quick response I wrote to someone who claimed to be a four-pointer:
A 4-point calvinist is actuallly an impossible suppostion. Consider, if you affirm the doctrine of irresistible grace (as all 4-pointers claim to do), then you already believe in limited atonement, because irresistible grace comes from Christ and Christ alone, and this effectual grace is granted to the elect only. In other words, Christ died for the elect in a way (a redemptive way to procure irresistible grace) which he did not for the non-elect. Irresistible grace is not some generic grace to be had apart from Christ, for all redemptive blessings flow from Christ, including that one. For Jesus purchased with his blood, men from every tribe, nation, language (Rev 5:9). The doctrines of grace are, therefore, Christocentric, with Christ always at the top of the chiasm, making all other graces effectual and meaningful. In other words, to reject the "L" is to remove Christ from the equation and make the doctrines of grace into a theological abstraction. So ultimately 4-point Calvinism is no Calvinism at all for Christ is the center of all true Calvinism. More specifically 4-point Calvinism is simply being inconsistent with what they already know: Irresistible grace is not Christless.
Solus Christus
John
What the Bible Says About Baptism
Some of you may already be aware of my two categorized scripture lists available from Monergism Books: What the Bible Says About the Doctrines of Grace and What the Bible Says About the People of God. Well, I just completed another such list, laying out the various scripture passages touching upon baptism -- what it means, what it does, to whom it should be performed, etc. You can read the list here:
Full Text
What the Bible Says About Baptism (Google Docs)
What the Bible Says About Baptism (Scribd)
Reference Only
What the Bible Says About Baptism (Google Docs)
What the Bible Says About Baptism (Scribd)
The Omission of "Sanctified" in the Golden Chain
On the blog at desiring God, Dr. John Piper wrote of a reason for the omission of the word "sanctified" in the golden chain of redemption found in Romans 8:28-30. I agree with him completely but would like to add a second reason for the omission. Dr. Piper writes:
Have you ever wondered why “sanctification†is missing from this golden chain in Romans 8:29-30?
Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Foreknown, predestined, called, justified, __________, glorified. Shouldn’t “sanctified" fill in that blank space? Romans 6:22 says that believers receive “sanctification and its end, eternal life.†And 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says that we are “saved, through sanctification by the Spirit.â€
The answer is, no, “sanctification†does not belong in space because it is included in “glorified.â€
In Paul’s mind the process called sanctification in this life—the process of transformation from one degree of holiness to the next—is the first stage of glorification. He says,
We all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)
The progressive change that happens in this life can be described in terms of holiness or glory—sanctification or glorification.
The age to come will be a place of great physical glory. But mainly it will be a place of infinite moral and spiritual glory. The main beauty will be the beauty of holiness.
Therefore be amazed and sobered that this life is not just a waiting period for that day. You are being changed now “from one degree of glory to the another.†You are being glorified. That is, you are being sanctified. That is, you are being made morally glorious for the age to come.
Dr. Piper brings out a very important point. It is something we need to hear. I think a second reason for the omission of "sanctified" in the list is that all the other 5 are things God does exclusively (monergistically). God foreknows, predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies. Though it is true to say that God sanctifies, we have a definite role to play in the process of sanctification. The whole point of the passage in the immediate and greater context is to provide assurance of salvation. If sanctification was included as a synergistic element in the chain, many would focus on this and allow themselves to be robbed of the future tense knowledge that they will be glorified in the presence of the Lord - because we would be the weak link in the chain (so to speak). I know my heart too well. If salvation depended on just how sanctified I am in my present day life, knowing my shortcomings all so well, the wonderful assurance I have (because God started the work and God will finish it) would be lost or at the very least blurred. I think this would be true for many of the saints I see struggle with a deep heart felt knowledge of assurance (as I pastor I see this all the time).
Continue reading "The Omission of "Sanctified" in the Golden Chain" »
Arminianism's Depersonalization of the Gospel
Below, in a youtube video (lasting approximately 20 minutes), here is Dr. James White teaching a class from Romans 8:31ff, asking the question, who is being referred to as the "us" in this passage?... nameless faceless people? Is it everyone who lives or has ever lived? Is it a specific group? Is Paul referring to the same group all the way through the passage? What are the implications? Who is Christ interceding for? Is it a group that has people entering and leaving (gaining salvation and then losing it)? Is it "me" IF I fulfill certain conditions? Does Christ fail to save some of those He is interceding for? An interesting unveiling concerning the impersonal nature of Arminian theology and salvation showing the huge implications of a man centered theology and the great cost of losing the personal promises and the deep and abiding assurance this passage is meant to bring to the people of God:
Continue reading "Arminianism's Depersonalization of the Gospel" »
Dr. James White - "Does Reformed Theology Matter?"
After a short introduction, Mr. Lane Chaplin interviews Dr. White from Dr. White's own office on the importance of Reformed theology. There's even a video clip from one of Dr. White's debates. Enjoy!
Dr. Steven J. Lawson Defines the Doctrines of Grace
A brief excerpt (below) from the Iron Sharpens Iron radio program at www.sharpens.org as Chris Arnzen interviews Dr. Steve J. Lawson.
HT: Nathan W. Bingham
The Intention(s) of Christ in the Atonement
Christ died for the elect in a way that he did not for the non-elect. It could be argued that there are at least two intentions in Christ's work of the atonement. The first one is for the elect, in whom God has decreed that the atonement is certain and eventual, therefore it is necessary that it will be applied on His people at a time of the Spirit's choosing. The second is for the non-elect, who receive non-redemptive benefits. These may include not immediately receiving (a putting off of) God's just wrath, but the redemptive benefits of the atonement will only be heralded in the divine command but never actualized in the non-elect. This is why the Bible proclaims that we freely hold out the gospel to all unbelievers and tell them that Christ died, not for all men, but for all sinners who would believe (John 3:16). The redemptive benefits are only for believers. All who believe will have the benefits of the atonement applied to them and be justified, but since no one naturally fits this description, the only persons who come to Christ are those who are God's elect, regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto faith. This means that we are wholly dependent on the work of Christ for our redemption, which includes our ability to have faith in the Redeemer. Since we do not have the power in ourselves to do anything apart from the work of God's Son on the cross, He also gives, as one of its benefits, the Holy Spirit for our conversion (1 Pet 1:3). God "has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3). Our redemption in Christ is the wellspring out of which flows regeneration, faith, repentance, justification and sanctification. So although the atonement may have more than one intent, its central purpose is for the redemption of elect (Titus 2:14). In other words, Christ died in a way for the elect that he did not for the non-elect.
Those who say they believe the doctrines of grace, but not particular redemption, carve out the Person, heart and source of grace in these doctrines. For without the particularly of the death of Jesus Christ, all of the other doctrines of grace become mere impersonal abstractions. Jesus Christ must be at their center or not at all. What do I mean by this? For example, if one claims the the atonement is not particular, but that irresistible grace is, then where does the grace come from which makes irresistible grace particular? From Christ or from some generic grace apart from Christ? If from Christ, then you already affirm particular redemption and the impersonal abstraction of four-point calvinism is overthrown. If not from Christ, do you then believe there are redemptive benefits to be had apart from Christ? It is impossible, in other words, to believe in irresistible grace without acknowledging that all spiritual/redemptive blessings (including irresistible grace) flow from one source: Christ.
To show that this doctrine has biblical authority have a look at the following: The Jewish high priest in the Old Testament prayed for the Israelites on the Day of Atonement. He approached the Lord wearing the names of the twelve tribes when bringing the sacrifice. Likewise, before His death on the cross, Jesus also prays a "high priestly prayer" for His people in John 17. Notice that in verse 9, Jesus (as high priest) prays an exclusive prayer for certain people and not others: 'I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours." Then soon after in verse 19 when praying for the same persons the Father has "given" Jesus, He prays: "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." So Jesus only sanctifies Himself for those the Father has given him, meaning these are the very ones He dies redemptively for. In short, Jesus prays for the same persons He dies redemptively for. Only those God has elected in Christ from eternity are given the grace of regeneration that they might believe. And this regeneration is among the redemptive benefits of Christ given to the elect alone - for he purchased with his blood people OUT OF every tribe, nation, tongue and people (Rev 5:9).
John Hendryx
You Need to Accept the Gift?
Have you ever encountered this particular scenario? A Christian says to his non-Christian friend, “Christ died for you so you need to accept the gift or it does you no good." In this situation faith is seen as something a person (a natural person) conjures up from his unregenerated human nature. This is unbiblical. The Scriptures argue that faith is a gift (John 6:63-65). Regeneration is produced in you by the preaching of the word as the Holy Spirit works 'germination' through it. You were dead in your sins and transgressions and God came to you first by His Spirit and Word to regenerate you and give you faith (Eph 2:5). J.I. Packer said, The saving power of the cross does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it"
So the gift is not like a piece of candy which we can accept or refuse but the gift can be likened to the gift of eyes or the reception of new life as a baby. We did not receive either of these things by choosing them, but God just granted them to us at our natural birth. Likewise we trust in Christ, not because we came to Jesus apart from the Holy Spirit in our natural state. Rather we trust Jesus because He removed our heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh which loves Christ. A heart without the Spirit is dead to God and needs the Spirit to make it alive so the person may believe. It was not our good will which caused our regeneration but our regeneration which caused our will to desire what is good. We "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13).
So when we present the gospel we need to herald the new about what Jesus has accomplished and the command for all persons everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. Telling people the command of God is not the same as telling them the unbiblical and impossible supposition that they have the power to believe apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. (See Rom 3:19, 20).
Resources: Canons of Dort, Heads 3 & 4, Articles 14 & 15
Scripture Lesson: Ephesians 2:1-10, John 1:13, 6:63-65
Question on The State of Man's Will Before the Fall
Visitor: Hello Sir, I would like to ask you a question that has picked my brain for a while now....
All of the human race was deemed guilty at the Fall, this I understand. Now not one single person can do anything good in the sight of God, because his nature is to do evil, and he can not determine his own nature, this I also understand. But what was mans nature before the Fall? If it was good, then how did he Fall? And if it was not good or bad, then....we arrive at the Arminian's argument for a supposed 'freewill.' If good tree produces good fruit, then how did Adam produce bad fruit if He was good?? I'm sorry if this is a question you cannot answer now, if you can't, then thank you for reading, but if so, I would greatly appreciate hearing your response to this.
Response: Hi, thanks for your inquiry regarding the question of free will. Up front we should clarify so we don't misrepresent anyone here, that both Classic Arminians and Calvinists believe in total depravity. That is, both positions affirm that fallen man is utterly impotent in his own strength to believe on the gospel. So neither of them believe in free will, apart from some kind of grace. Left to himself, man has no hope both would affirm. The difference becomes more apparent when we see that Arminians believe in a concept called "prevenient grace", which temporarily place humanity in a state above their depravity so they can choose to believe OR not. Of course this begs the question because if two people have the same grace then what makes them to differ? Jesus Christ or something else? The Calvinist/Augustinian/Monergist, on the other hand, believes that God grants a new heart to the sinner in regeneration effectually enabling him to believe and persevere to the end. This grace itself makes the will free ... i.e. it is no longer in bondage to sin but loves righteousness and believes the gospel.
So again, we see that for both parties, the natural man's will is in bondage to sin. So apart from grace he has no free will - he is impotent, unless God does something. We believe His Holy Spirit, in uniting us to Christ, must give us eyes to see and ears to hear.
Now that this is clarified, per your question regarding the state of man before the Fall ... we affirm that pre-fall man was not in bondage to sin. With Augustine we affirm that Adam was "able to sin, and able not to sin" (posse peccare, posse non peccare). His nature was inclined to good (thus making his sin all the more greivous), but as you can see, God did not create Adam and Eve sealed in righteousness, that is, like the unchangable state we will be when sealed in glory with Christ. So we could say that Adam and Eve were in a state that was free from the bondage to sin, but not free from its influences. They were being tested. In glory, of course, we will all be be completely free from sin's influences. The Westminster Confession, in Chapter 4 On Creation, says:
II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.
Reading Romans 6 and elsewhere we see that the Bible defines freedom, not as "free to do otherwise" as Arminians do, but freedom from sin. Christ sets us free, and we have a small taste of it now, but will drink it fully at the resurrection. Consider, God is the most free and yet He is unable to sin. His very nature makes it impossible because He is holy. Yet we still consider He and the gloried saints as the most free. They actually have less 'libertarian freedom' (as Arminians define it) than we do, since they can only choose good. They dont have the 'libertarian freedom' to choose evil because they are sealed in righteousness by nature. The point I am making is that Arminains we importing a philosophical idea of freedom rather than letting the text of Scripture speak for itself about what freedom is.
So lets return to your original question. if we ask, did pre-fall man have a free will? We must first ask, "free from what?" If you mean was the will free from the bondage to sin, the answer is uneqivocally yes. But, was it free from God's eternal decree? Obviously not. Consider chapters 2 & 4 of the Book of Acts. Both chapters say that the crucifixion was ordained by God.
"this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." Acts 2:23 "...truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27, 28
Notice that God actually ordained the most evil event in history to certainly take place through lawless men, yet the lawless men are fully accountable for their actions. They will be judged for them. The point is that God ordains all things to come to pass (Eph 1:11) and yet men's sins are imputed to them. One could say, He ordains sin, sinlessly. So while Adam and Eve were free from the bondage to sin (pre-fall), God still ordained all things that came to pass. And the Fall certainly did not take God by surprise. In fact, He knew that the Fall would take place even before He created the world. If His forknowedge is certain then these events could not be otherwise, no?
Hope this helps
John
Monergism
What does the term “perseverance of the saints†mean, and does the bible teach it?
The term “perseverance of the saints†means that every true “saint,†or in other words, all who have actually been “sanctified by the offering up of the body of Jesus Christ once for all†(Hebrews 10:10), will certainly persevere in faith until the end, and so be finally saved. The term does not mean that true Christians will never have seasons of doubt, nor ever fall into sin, but rather that God will always cause their faith to triumph at the last, and will never allow them to remain in gross sin indefinitely, but will continue the work that he first began in them, bringing it to perfection in the Day of Jesus Christ (see Philippians 1:6). Neither does the term mean that no one who makes a profession of faith will finally fall away: on the contrary, there are many false professions, and there are different kinds of false faiths that flourish for awhile but then wither away (e.g. Matthew 7:21-23; 13:1-23); but all who have been granted true faith, which God alone can give (e.g. Joh 3:27; Phi 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Act 16:14; 18:27; Eph 2:8-10; Act 5:31; 11:18; 2Ti 2:25-26; 1Co 4:7), will continue in the faith until they reach their blessed end in heaven.
The scriptures clearly teach certain truths which, when conflated, definitely confirm the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The bible teaches that, what God begins (especially concerning his work of grace in the hearts of the saints), he will certainly finish (Psa 138:8; Ecc 3:14; Isa 46:4; Jer 32:40; Rom 11:29; Phi 1:6; 2Ti 4:18); that of all whom he has called and brought to Christ, none will be lost (Joh 6:39-40; 10:27-29; Rom 8:28-31, 35-39; Heb 7:25; 10:14); and that, while his preservation of the saints is not irrespective of their continuance in faith and holiness (1Co 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Heb 3:14; 6:4-6; 10:26-27; 12:14; Rev 21:7-8; 22:14-15), yet he himself is the one who sanctifies them, and causes them to persevere in true faith and godliness (Joh 15:16; 1Co 1:30-31; 6:11; 12:3; 15:10; Gal 3:1-6; Eph 2:10; Phi 2:12-13; 1Th 5:23-24; Heb 13:20-21; 1Jo 2:29; Jud 1:24-25).
A denial of the final perseverance of all true saints is a very serious error for a couple of reasons; first, it logically demands that we must continue by the works of the flesh what God has begun by his gift of the Spirit – a serious error Paul addresses in Galatians 3:1-6. If God saved us by his grace alone, which was given to us in Christ Jesus, then how can we say it is up to us to continue in the faith, or that his grace alone, which was sufficient to give us faith and the Spirit at the first, is not sufficient to keep us in the faith and preserve us by his Spirit? In other words, any position which denies that Christ will persevere Christians to the end is implicitly denying that Jesus' work on the cross is sufficient to save to the uttermost ... That we must somehow maintain our own just standing before God. No small error. And second, if the Holy Spirit does not preserve all whom the Father has elected and brought to Christ, then the persons of the Trinity are working in contradiction to each other, which is an impossibility given the precious unity of the Godhead.
For further study see Monergism Theology FAQs
Mockery, Eisegesis and the Foreknowledge of God
What does the word "foreknew" mean in the New Testament?
To actually stop and research the matter to find the answer was a difficult process for me. That is because, quite frankly, I had assumed what the answer was for the first 20 years of my Christian life. Yet in taking the time to pray, study and research the matter, I finally came to see what was staring me in the face all along. My traditions had blinded me to it. The fact is, we all have traditions and as one man rightly said, those most blind to their traditions are those who do not think they have any.
Coming to understand the clear biblical message of foreknowledge and God's Sovereign grace in election has blessed my life immensely. I often meet people who share the exact same experience. Once blinded, now they can see the truth, and they find themselves seeing it on almost every page of the Bible.
I am not reformed because of allegiance to a theology, or because I seek to interpret the text through a man made theological system. No, I am reformed because of my allegiance to the biblical text. I believe reformed theology because I believe this is what the Bible teaches.
I was deeply grieved with the sarcasm and mockery expressed by a young opponent of reformed theology on the video below, but feel it is still worthwhile to post this because of the sheer weight of the answers given to the claims made against it. This is what comes through loud and clear. As Dr. James White explains, for the Arminian, the phrase "those whom He foreknew He predestined" (Rom. 8:29 is translated to mean "those whose actions of faith God foresaw - on the basis of those actions of faith, He predestined".... reading that boat-load of theology into that verb (foreknew) is a classic example of eisegesis. It is importing a huge concept that you are not deriving from the context in any way, shape or form. My challenge (to the Arminian) is to demonstrate where God ever foreknows actively, as an active verb, the actions of people in the future in this way." The fact is, it is impossible to do so. The correct meaning of the term is clear and it does not support the Arminian concept. - JS
Continue reading "Mockery, Eisegesis and the Foreknowledge of God" »
No Degrees of Deadness
The company is not doing well this quarter. Sales are down. Potential customers are not buying. The sales team manager needs to get things moving. Someone has to make a sale and quickly. What is the sales team leader to do? Well one thing he could do is to send his team down to the morgue and have his sales team get some sales amongst the dead, selling their nasal sprays, their foot massager machines and their electronic toothbrushes. But sadly, things don't go too well. The dead seem to have no interest in anything the sales team has to say, in spite of the positive smiles and highly developed and well rehearsed sales pitch.. Even at the morgue, no sales are made; for one simple reason, the dead are, how shall we say it? ... errr.. dead!
A silly scenario? Yes, of course! But lets think about this as it relates to man's condition outside of Christ. He is not vibrant and healthy; nor merely under the weather a little, and not just extremely sick about to breathe his last breath. God says that man is actually dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). The Greek word for dead here is necros, meaning dead like a corpse. There are no signs of spiritual life. It is a hopeless case.
Continue reading "No Degrees of Deadness" »
Satisfying the Law’s Demand's and Curses
The second Adam’s perfect holiness of human nature, and obedience of life to the precept of the law as a covenant, are as necessary to the justification of sinners as is His suffering of its penalty. The doctrine of justification by faith establishes the law, the whole law, the honor of the precept as well as that of the penal sanction. But this it could not do if it did not represent the righteousness of Jesus Christ as consisting in His active obedience as well as in His passive. Active obedience, strictly speaking, cannot be said to satisfy vindictive justice for sin. And, on the other hand, suffering for punishment gives right and title unto nothing, it only satisfies for something; nor does it deserve any reward, as John Owen mentions in his work on justification. Christ’s satisfaction for sin could not render His perfect obedience to the precept unnecessary; nor could His perfect obedience make His satisfaction for sin by suffering the penalty unnecessary, because it was not of the same kind. The one is that which answers the law’s demand of perfect obedience as the ground of title to eternal life; the other is that which answers its demand of complete satisfaction to divine justice for sin. The meritorious obedience of Christ to the precept could not satisfy the penal sanction; and the sufferings and death of Christ, could not satisfy the precept of the law. The commandment of the law as a covenant requires doing for life; the curse of that law demands dying as the punishment of sin. These, though they are never to be separated as grounds of justification, yet are carefully to be distinguished. The perfect obedience of Christ is as necessary to entitle believers to eternal life as His suffering of death is to secure them from eternal death. His satisfaction for sin, applied by faith, renders them innocent or guiltless of death; and His obedience makes them righteous or worthy of life (Romans 5:19). As the latter, then, is as necessary to complete their justification, according to the gospel, as the former, so it is as requisite as the former to establish the honor of the law.
Excerpt from A Treatise on the Law and Gospel by John Colquhoun
Arminian Libertarians Who Believe in Eternal Security
As you may know, many Arminians believe that salvation can be lost, so they reject the perseverance of the saints. They affirm that one can be saved (regenerate and justified) and then through sinful choices can become unsaved (unregenerate & unjustified). However, I have found that this is not always the case ... not a hard and fast rule ....I have actually run into several persons who classify themselves as Classic Arminians (and libertarian free-will theists) who will tell you they believe or embrace eternal security (while rejecting the other four points of Calvinism) --- i.e. they affirm that those who are saved will actually persevere to the end. Next time you run into one, here are a couple of questions worth asking them to expose some real inconsistencies in their thinking:
1) Why do you affirm that conversion is a voluntary act (i.e. the result of a libertarian free choice), but perseverance to the end is an involuntary act (i.e. not the result of a libertarian choice)?2) Why does the libertarian freedom to do otherwise apply to conversion, but not to perseverance?
Have a great weekend all.
JWH
The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?
The Westminster Confession of Faith, speaking of the unity of the Covenant of Grace from the time immediately after the Fall and forever thereafter, states, “This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel†(WCF 7:5). In this brief summation, we may observe two things about the Mosaic administration of the Covenant: first, it was fundamentally an expression of the Covenant of Grace, and thus held forth the gospel to the people of God “by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to comeâ€; (WCF 7:5); and second, it was nevertheless in a sense utterly distinct from the New Covenant, even on so central an issue as the gospel itself. It was, in fact, appropriately designated a covenant of “law,†not just as acts of obedience flowing from gratefulness for the gospel, but as contradistinct from the very “Gospel†itself. In other words, it was, in one sense, in full continuity with the gospel first proclaimed to Abraham and consummated in Christ; and in another sense, of an entirely different legal principle.
Continue reading "The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?" »
The Necessity of the Work of the Holy Spirit to Man's Salvation by J.C. Ryle
I invite special attention to this part of the subject. Let it be a settled thing in our minds that the matter we are considering in this paper is no mere speculative question in religion, about which it signifies little what we believe. On the contrary, it lies at the very foundation of all saving Christianity. Wrong about the Holy Spirit and His offices—and we are wrong to all eternity!
The necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit arises from the total corruption of human nature. We are all by nature "dead in sins." (Eph. 2:1.) However shrewd, and clever, and wise in the things of this world, we are all dead towards God. The eyes of our understanding are blinded. We see nothing aright. Our wills, affections, and inclinations are alienated from Him who made us. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." (Rom. 8:7.) We have naturally neither faith, nor fear, nor love, nor holiness. In short, left to ourselves, we would never be saved.
Continue reading "The Necessity of the Work of the Holy Spirit to Man's Salvation by J.C. Ryle " »
He Tried?
Rapper Shai Linne gives us a great lesson in Particular Redemption
Lyrics below
Continue reading "He Tried? " »
Five Arguments Against Future Justification According to Works
This year has witnessed a publishing event of real interest to many Christians: the publication of N.T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Wright is widely considered the most provocative writer on justification today and the arrival of this book has deservedly garnered much attention. My purpose in this article is not to review Wright's book as a whole or even to assess his overall teaching on justification. Rather, I intend to respond to that part of his teaching that proposes a future justification by works for believers in Jesus Christ.
More Thoughts on Christ's Active Obedience and its Relation to The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness
Active obedience: “Christ’s full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law…[making] available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed or reckoned to those who put their trust in him.Passive Obedience: “[Christ's] willing obedience in bearing all the sanctions imposed by that law against his people because of their transgression…[being] the ground of God’s justification of sinners (Rom. 5:9), by which divine act they are pardoned…†Dr. Robert L. Reymond
By taking on the covenant obligations of the law as our representative we are made righteous in Him by His obedience. Romans 5:19 states: "For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous."
Something important to consider related to this:
God desires obedience, not sacrifice. God through history is looking for a man who would obey Him. He is not looking for someone who merely makes a perfect score on the test, but a human who is unfailingly devoted to Him as an image bearer - someone who mirrors his love, holiness, justice and truth. This is a constantly repeated theme throughout Scripture. Psalm 40, which Hebrews 10 quotes is one example:
Psalm 40:6-8 (English Standard Version)
6 In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. 7Then I said, "Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: 8 I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."
The Doctrine of Republication (of the Covenant of Works)
The Law Is Not of Faith by Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (Editors)
[Hodge says] "God entered into a covenant with Adam", "the promise annexed to that covenant was life," "the condition was perfect obedience," and the penalty of this covenant was death." The covenant of works predicated on the command "This do and thou shalt live,"(Lev. 18:5) required perfect obedience by Adam and established a principle of strict justice or merit... The Work of Christ is a real satisfaction, of infinite merit, to the vindicatory justice of God; so that he saves people by doing for them, and in their stead, what they are unable to do for themselves, satisfying the demands of the law on their behalf, and bearing its penalty in their stead." -
...The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works [but that is not its only function]. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of liffe suspended on the condition of perfect obedience.
Continue reading "The Doctrine of Republication (of the Covenant of Works)" »
Is Purgatory a Biblical Doctrine?
Purgatory: the condition, process, or place of purification or temporary punishment in which, according to Roman Catholic belief, the souls of those who die in a state of grace are made ready for heaven. Purgatory (Latin: purgatorium; from purgare, “to purgeâ€)
The claim of the Roman Catholic Church is that the doctrine of purgatory was something all early Christians believed and that it can be substantiated from the Bible, most notably, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. However, what the text actually says and what Rome claims that it says are two different things. As Dr. James White points out: "where do you get the idea that this "fire" is in any way related to something that could be called "satispassio," (Satispassio: Suffering of Atonement) as Rome does? Purgatory (according to Rome) is for those who are headed to heaven: they died in a state of grace. The fire of purgatory (whether taken literally over time, as Rome obviously indicated for centuries on end, or now metaphorically, as the kinder, gentler Rome seems to indicate) is meant to cleanse away the temporal punishments of sins. But this testing in the day of judgment is about the motivations of the works done by Christian leaders. There is nothing here about temporal punishments. Besides, there is only one result of the testing in purgatory: everyone ends up in heaven. But there are two results of this testing: there are those whose works remain, and they receive a reward. And there are those who works are burned up, but they are saved anyway. So could someone tell me how there is anyone in purgatory whose works, upon being tested, are shown to be gold, silver, and precious stones? Aren't those the godly, the righteous, who receive a reward? But purgatory is for those who have in fact been judged, but, they are judged to have more temporal punishment for sin upon their souls than they have positive merit, so they must be cleansed and prepared through purgatory. So how does one get from a fire that tests works of Christian leaders, demonstrating who did what they did in life for the glory of Christ, to the fire of purgatory that should only be applied to those having temporal punishments of sin? You sure don't get there by exegesis."
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (NASB) - 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Here is a very interesting interchange during the cross examination part of a publicly moderated debate between Dr. James White (the Protestant Christian apologist) and Father Stravinskas, a Roman Catholic apologist and priest. In this section, Dr. White is asking questions and Father Stravinskas is responding - JS:
Panic Measures or Strategic Planning?
It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. Luke 12:37 (NIV)
Your phone rings. You pick it up to hear a familar voice, a long established friend, who informs you that he has just arrived at the airport and that he is on the way from there to your home to spend the weekend with you. How would you react? Perhaps there would be excitement as well as a measure of panic as your home would need to be prepared for your unexpected but welcome guest.
Now lets change the scenario - the same friend calls you and says he is coming anytime over the next 10 years, 30 years or even 50 years (I know, it takes a great deal of imagination to make this kind of leap but stay with me for a moment.. think this through). I tend to think it would be a lot harder to keep things prepared and ready for your guest if the friend could come knock on your front door any moment over a very long time period than if you had a few minutes warning.
There is a recurring phrase that Jesus used in the parables to describe the timing of His return - that of it being "after a long time" or "a long while." In Matthew 25:14-30 in the Parable of the Talents, verse 19 says, "Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them." Similarly, in Luke 20:9, the scripture says, "And he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants and went into another country for a long while..."
Continue reading "Panic Measures or Strategic Planning?" »
Are Faith, Repentance and Sanctification Synergistic?
Visitor: I think that conversion and regeneration are mongergistic; but is repentance synergistic, and faith synergistic; is sanctification synergistic?
Response: In a manner of speaking yes. One could say that technically only regeneration is monergistic. This is because it is the only grace God gives us when we are utterly passive, or even hostile to Him. We do not cooperate with God to be regenerated. He regenerates us and, as a consequence of our new heart and the Spirit living in us, we most willingly cooperate. And, like you appear to conclude in your question, it is we, and not God, who actually exercise faith and repentance. Yet, I must admit that I am uncomfortable with the word "synergism" when applying it to faith, repentance and sanctification. This may perhaps be an improper word since these things effectually arise from a renewed heart. We are already redeemed so we are not working toward salvation, but rather, working from out of our salvation. We therefore no longer work in the sense that we are striving to earn anything redemptively. That is already a fait accompli. Our work is, rather, the inevitable outworking of our adoption as sons who are no longer slaves. We work from thankful hearts that spring forth from our new nature which God himself has given us. Having been regenerated, our own work never maintains our just standing before God. Christ has already proved sufficient for this and having joined us to Himself has given us rest from our work (read Heb 4).
Hope this helps
John
Dennis and Greg discuss the Trinity
On the basis of Scripture itself, Christians throughout the centuries have professed belief in the Holy Trinity, affirming the fact that our one God is eternally existent in three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal. This is because the following three things are very clearly taught in Scripture:
(1) There is only one God, who is eternal and immutable (unchanging). (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; Mal. 3:6; Mark 12:29; John 17:3; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jam. 2:19)
(2) There are three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Spirit, and nor is the Holy Spirit the Father. (Matt: 3:13-17; 28:19; Luke 10:22; John 1:1, 2; 3:16, 17; 15:26; 16:7; 17:1-26; 2 Cor. 13:14)
(3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are each identified as being fully God - that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of the Father, the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. (Isa. 9:6; John 17:3; John 1:1, 18; 8:58; 20:28; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; Acts 5:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18)
Here's a video I put together where Dennis (the Christian) is explaining to Greg (an Aussie Jehovah's Witness) why he believes in the Trinity. Enjoy! - JS
A Good Will Comes from God - Augustine
It is not enough simply to have choice of will, which is freely turned in this direction and that, and belongs among those natural gifts which a bad person may use badly. We must also have a good will, which belongs among those gifts which it is impossible to use badly. This impossibility is given to us by God; otherwise I do not know how to defend what Scripture says: ‘What do you have that you did not receive?’ (1 Cor.4:7) For if God gives us a free will, which may still be either good or bad, but a good will comes from ourselves, then what comes from ourselves is better than what comes from God! But it is the height of absurdity to say this. So the Pelagians ought to acknowledge that we obtain from God even a good will.
It would indeed be a strange thing if the will could stand in some no-man’s-land, where it was neither good nor bad. For we either love righteousness, and this is good; and if we love it more, this is better. If we love it less, this is less good; or if we do not love righteousness at all, it is not good. And who can hesitate to affirm that, when the will does not love righteousness in any way at all, it is not only a bad will, but even a totally depraved will? Since therefore the will is either good or bad, and since of course we do not derive the bad will from God, it remains that we derive from God a good will. Otherwise, since our justification proceeds from a good will, I do not know what other gift of God we ought to rejoice in. That, I suppose, is why it is written, ‘The will is prepared by the Lord’ (Prov.8:35, Septuagint). And in the Psalms, ‘The steps of a man will be rightly ordered by the Lord, and His way will be the choice of his will’ (Ps.37:23). And what the apostle says, ‘For it is God Who works in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure’ (Phil.2:13).
Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, 2:30
Five Big Myths About Calvinism
I speak for many when I say that I have not always embraced the doctrines of grace or what is commonly called Calvinism. Its actually unfortunate that a man's name is associated with the doctrines that came out of the Protestant Reformation. Calvin was not the first to articulate these truths, but merely was the chief systematizer of such doctrines. There was actually nothing in Calvin that was not first seen in Luther, and much of Luther was first found in Augustine. Luther was an Augustinian monk, of course. We would also naturally affirm that there was nothing in any of these men that was not first found in Paul and Peter and John in the New Testament.
Even now, I have no desire to be a Calvinist in the Corinthian sense of the word - a follower of John Calvin, per say. Though I believe Calvin was a tremendous expositor of the Scriptures and had many great insights, I am not someone who believes he was in any way infallible. I am with Spurgeon who declared, "There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer - I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it." (C. H. Spurgeon, a Defense of Calvinism)
In coming to understand these doctrines that are now so precious to me, I now realize that there were fortresses built in my mind to defend against the idea of God being Sovereign in the matter of salvation. Such was my total depravity! These fortresses were not made of stone and brick but of man made ideas – concepts that I believed Scripture taught with clarity. These fortresses did not come down easily. In fact, I believe it is a work of Divine grace in the heart not only to regenerate His people, but also to open hearts and minds, even of His own people, to the truth of His Sovereignty in election.
There are many false concepts about Calvinism. Here are five that are very common:
Continue reading "Five Big Myths About Calvinism" »
Old Calvinism or Dispensationalism?
With regard to the recent article in Time magazine which notes that the New Calvinism is one of the top ten ideas changing the world right now Pastor Mark Driscoll made the following observations last week on his blog, where I think he must be confusing Calvinism with something else. He says:
1) Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2) Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3) Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4) Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.
Comment: Pastor Dricoll is perhaps mistakenly viewing the fleeing the city, do not engage culture, mentality as belonging to the "Old Calvinism" although I am not certain who, in particular, he is referring to here. -- I speculate he may be referring to Dispensationalism of the 20th century some of which may have had an element calvinistic soteriology but was not Calvinism or Reformed Theology in the classic sense of the term. Some Reformed churches may have left the cities in the 20th century ... but it may be anachronistic of him to read the post-Reagan gentrification of the cities back into the 60s and 70s. Calvinists hardly existed in the 20th century and I think the Time essay may simply refer to its resurgence after a century of dormancy. The Old Calvinism ( see Kuyper, Calvin, the Puritans) were most-of-the-time culturally engaging, not fundamentalistic or foxhole in their mentality. Next, Driscoll's comment about the old Calvinism's treatment of the Holy Spirit is off in my estimation. Calvin was well-known as the theologian of the Holy Spirit and most of those he influenced put the Holy Spirit front and center in their ministry. There is no Calvinism or Reformed Theology without a robust understanding of regeneration and union with Christ. True that the Old Calvinism was cessationist with regard to spirital gifts, but so is a large number of the new Calvinists. No offense intended to Drisoll. Just thought the post was a bit inaccurate.
Does Man Have a Free WIll? And Does Predestination Eliminate Our Will?
Visitor Comment: Words need to have meaning or all argument becomes nonsense. Either salvation is open to all or it is not. Either it is predestined who goes to heaven or it’s an individual’s choice to choose salvation through Christ. You can not have it both ways and be thinking logically and rationally. The bottom line, the predestination doctrine eliminates the role of an individual’s free will.
Response: Hi and thanks for your comment. However, the Bible does not teach anywhere that natural man has a free will ... but rather that his will is in bondage to sin (2 Timothy 2:26; Rom 6:17, 20; 1 Cor 2:14). and since I agree with you that words do mean something, last time I looked, that which is in bondage is not free. Ask yourself, in light of clear biblical teaching, can a person believe the gospel apart form the work of the Holy Spirit? If not, then you agree that, left to himself, man is morally powerless to come to Christ. (i.e. has no free will.) He can make voluntary choices but he sins by necessity. No one coerces him since he voluntarily chooses to sin and yet he cannot do otherwise until Christ set him free - so until we are joined to Christ by the Spirit we will ALWAYS reject the gospel. And this is exactly what Jesus teaches when he tells us that no one can believe the gospel unless God grants it (John 6:65).
Secondly, it is important to consider that God demands that you obey the ten commandments perfectly? Have you? No, none of us have. That is why we need a Savior ... who Himself was without sin having obeyed all God's commands. He does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. In the same way the command to believe the gospel cannot be obeyed apart from the Holy Spirit. HIs salvation includes delivering us from the bondage of the will. The Holy Spirit gives us a new heart, opens our blind eyes and unplugs our deaf ears ... without which we would never come to saving faith on our own. The scripture says no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' apart form the Holy Spirit. If someone owes a debt they cannot repay (like us) then the inability to repay the debt does not alleviate us of the responsibility to do so. The point is that you appear to have a lot of unbiblical assumptions in your statement. Back up what you say with Scripture, not just your unaided logic and then we have a place to start.
Please consider this question:. If many of us hear the gospel and some people end up believing and others do not, what makes these people to differ? Are some more natually inclined to the gospel? Are some more wise? No, it is Jesus that makes people to differ. Salvation is by the grace of Jesus Christ alone. If we believe the gospel then it is by grace we have believed. Only a new heart can love and trust Jesus. Faith does not come from an unregenerate heart. We did not come up with faith ourselves. Otherwise we could boast and thank ourself for not being like other men who did not make such a good choice. Our choice is real but requires regenerating grace or we would all perish.
Solus Christus
John
Regeneration
The new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which the soul, previously dead in sins, is created anew in Christ unto righteousness. It is expressed in Scripture by being born again and born from above, Joh 3:3-7; becoming a new creature, 2Co 5:17; being quickened to a new life of holiness, Eph 2:1; having Christ formed in the heart, Ga 4:19; and being made partaker of the divine nature, 2Pe 1:4.
The sole author of this change is the Holy Spirit, Joh 1:12,13 3:4 Eph 2:8-10; and he effects it ordinarily by the instrumentality of gospel truth, 1Co 4:15 Jas 1:18 1Pe 1:23. In this change the moral image of God is brought back into the soul, and the principle of supreme love to our neighbor is implanted. Regeneration, producing faith, is accompanied by justification, and by actual holiness of life, or sanctification begun, and completed when the "babe in Christ" reaches in heaven "the fulness of the stature of the perfect man" in Him. In Mt 19:28, regeneration means Christ’s making all things new. In Tit 3:5, "the washing of regeneration" denotes the purifying work of the Spirit in the new birth.
Bible Dictionary - American Tract Society
The Procession and Consumation of Salvation
Salvation proceeds from our election in Christ but is not consumated until regeneration. Election itself does not save but was the blueprint for Christ's historical work regarding those God has given Him from eternity (Eph 1:4, John 6:37, 65; 17:9) which Jesus redeems in time and joins to himself by the Holy Spirit when quickened. The foundation of this gracious election is solely God's good pleasure which implies that salvation is pure grace. The existence of faith in a person is the way to come to certainty that we have been elect of God. Since salvation is in God's hands and not ours we owe the entirely of it to Him alone who deserves all the glory. Our comfort and certainty rests in what Christ has accomplished for us and not anything we have done for Him.
It is through the means of grace that people come to saving faith, which refelects the work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is really the most important work of the Spirit because it does not originate in unregenerate man. It comes from the Holy Spirit. The Bible says that no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' apart from the Holy Spirit. This means that all men are unspiritual and cannot understand the gospel apart from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). So it is through the preaching of the word and the use of the sacraments that the Spirit germinates faith (Rom 10) and the continuing desire to obey Christ. These are the means by which the Holy Spirit joins us in communion with Christ. The word of God particularly is the instrument in which the Spirit illumines the understanding of believers. Some wonder why we would bother to preach the gospel if predestination is true. The reason is that God uses means (his word) to accomplish that end and nothing happens apart from it. Faith necessitates the Holy Spirit using the word to open our eyes, unplug our ears and turn our heart of strone to a heart of flesh. This is why there is a varied responses to the outward call of the gospel. Those who respond do not do so because they are smarter or generated better thoughts than their neighbor, it is because the Spirit worked faith in the heart of those who believed (John 6:63-65; Eph 2:5). Election thefore, becomes a reality through the calling of the Holy Spirit. The Father elects in Christ, the Son redeems and the Holy Spirit applies that redemption to those the Father chose and joins them to Christ, our only hope. The call of the gospel goes out to all people, but no one (not one) responds to the call apart from inward work of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul said, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." May the Lord alone be glorified.
Condemned by Adam's Sin or Our Own?
Those born between Adam and Moses, (and I think it holds true today), how were they condemned to Hell? Adams Sin? Or their own?
we not only choose sin but we inherit it (Rom 5:12, 18, 19). Human beings are either in Adam or in Christ. Our sin and Adams' sin are, in many ways, essentially one and the same. There is a passage which says that the Levitcal priesthood gave tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:9-11). In the same sence, we were in Adam's loins (so to speak) so we were participating (no, cheering him on) in his sin. There is such a close identification for us in Adam that the Romans passage teaches that all of humanity experience death because of him. Likewise when we are united to Christ by grace through faith we are united to Him in his life, death and resurrection. We participatein what He accomplished for us. We are declared righteous in Christ and granted a new heart which loves Him and His law. Is this imputation of grace any more "fair" than the imputation of sin from Adam? Both sin (when we were born in Adam) and grace (when we are united to Christ) are imputed to us apart from what we may individually think we may deserve. Our moral bankruptcy and inability is not like a physical inability that we cannot help, no, it is like a debt we cannot repay. And, like a debt, our inability to repay it does not thereby alleviate our responsibility to do so. As for those born between Adam and Moses it is the same as those born in countries or situations where they will never hear the gospel. God will judge them based on thier sin in Adam and the sin against the light given them, and that will be enough to condemn them.
In individualized cultures such as ours such collective thinking about the human race is hard to grasp but the Bible is a federal (representative) document from start to finish. Consider that all people inherit many things (good and bad) from their parents or the countries they are born in and this occurs in many ways that may seem unfair to the (external) casual observer. But we all certainly get better than we deserve in this life. What really should amaze us is that God is merciful to us at all. We can rejoice greatly in that ... that He has set his affection on a people whom He has set aside for Himself, in spite of our rebellion (see Ezekiel 26:22 to the end of the chapter).
"I remember..." by Pastor John Samson
I have not always been reformed in my thinking as a Christian. I remember my own journey in coming to embrace the doctrines of grace, certain things impressed me. I was very much impressed that most of the great theologians of the church taught these doctrines of God's Sovereignty. While they certainly had their differences on some things, when it came to election, they were all in complete agreement.
None of these men individually, or even all of them collectively, could be in any way classed as infallible, yet because they all saw these issues in the same way, I remember thinking that this fact alone should cause me to pause and reflect a little. I realised that it would be the height of pride on my part to dismiss everything they have to say without giving them a fair hearing. God had used these men greatly as his champions in church history; entire nations were affected by their ministries, both in their day and on into our own, and humility would teach me to at least become somewhat familar with their words and works, and not just read what others might say about them with all the bias that usually goes with that.
However, it was not the greats of church history that carried the most weight with me. It was not their writings and commentaries, as good as they were. What convinced me was seeing the doctrines clearly taught in Scripture. Understanding what Paul taught in Romans 8 and 9 as well as Ephesians 1 and 2 (after dispensing with much of my human traditions in the process) had a huge effect on me. Yet what brought me all of the way over into seeing it, and much more than that, embracing it, and delighting in it, was seeing the doctrines taught through the words of my Master, the Lord Himself.
Continue reading ""I remember..." by Pastor John Samson" »
How Does God Regnerate Us by John Piper
One of the unsettling things about the new birth, which Jesus says we all must experience in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3), is that we don’t control it. We don’t decide to make it happen any more than a baby decides to make his birth happen—or, more accurately, make his conception happen. Or even more accurately: We don’t decide to make it happen any more than dead men decide to give themselves life. The reason we need to be born again is that we are dead in our trespasses and sins. That’s why we need the new birth, and that’s why we can’t make it happen. This is one reason why we speak of the sovereign grace of God. Or better: This is one reason why we love the sovereign grace of God.
Our condition before the new birth is that we treasure sin and self-exaltation so much that that we cannot treasure Christ supremely. In other words, we are so rebellious at the root of our fallen human nature that we can’t find it in ourselves to humbly see and savor Jesus Christ above all things. And we are guilty for this. This is real evil in us. We are blameworthy for this spiritual hardness and deadness. Our consciences do not excuse us when we are so resistant to Christ we can’t see him as supremely attractive.
Fire and Heat Inseparable
Something has to happen to us. Jesus said we must be born again (John 3:3). The Holy Spirit has to work a miracle in our hearts and give us new spiritual life. We were dead, and we need to be made alive. We need ears that can hear truth as supremely desirable, and we need eyes than see Christ and his way of salvation as supremely beautiful. We need hearts that are soft and receptive to the word of God. In short, we need new life. We need to be born again.
The way this happens, as we have seen so far, is that the Spirit of God supernaturally gives us new spiritual life by connecting us with Jesus Christ through faith. The new spiritual life that we receive in the new birth is not separate from union with Jesus, and it is not separate from faith. When God in the riches of his mercy and the greatness of his love and the sovereignty of his grace chooses to regenerate us, he gives us new life by uniting us to Christ. “God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son†(1 John 5:11). Our first experience of this is the faith in Jesus that this life brings. There is no separation of time here. When we are born gain, we believe. And when we believe, we know we have been born again. When there is fire, there is heat. When there is new birth, there ... More....
Excerpt from Chapter 6 of Finally Alive by John Piper
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated
Romans 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call - 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
One of the main reasons why some Christians reject the reformed (biblical) understanding of Divine election is because of traditions associated with the love of God. The strong reaction of some against the doctrine of God's Sovereignty in election is often times due to a desire to defend a concept that they have regarding the love of God. They feel that God's attribute of love is in question or under attack.
Great care is needed to point people to the biblical texts which can clarify the issue. Not everyone seems to be open to examine their assumptions because these traditions are so very strong. The tradition that God loves all people in the exact same way is a strong one. I have to say, for many years, this was exactly the case in my own life. Many see no need to examine the texts at all because in their minds, the concept they have of the love of God = what the Bible teaches. As Dr. James White rightly says, "those most enslaved to their traditions are those who do not believe they have any."
However we understand the phrase "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" in Romans 9, I think we would all have to agree that God's love for Jacob was certainly different or of a different kind than His love for Esau. I think we all have to say this or else the text is meaningless. But if this is indeed the case, then just this one verse would refute the idea that God loves everyone in the exact same way. There must be different dimensions of the love of God.
Continue reading "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" »
Reformed Theology: Utterly Unreconcilable to the Modernist Assertion of Human Autonomy by R. Scott Clark
The following is an excerpt from a helpful article by R. Scott Clark
This essay argues that, because of it's core convictions reflected in its doctrines of revelation, God, man, creation, sin, Christ, imputation (federalism), predestination, and the church, confessional Reformed theology is not only, in some sense, postmodern, but more precisely, it is consistently anti-modernist...The emerging and emergent movements seek to be "postmodern." In fact, to the degree that they begin with human autonomy, with versions of rationalism (e.g., in their denial of the atonement), in subjectivism (e.g., in their hermeneutic and quest for the immediate encounter with God) they are not postmodern as much as they are, as Mike Horton likes to say, "most modern." To be truly postmodern would be to embrace the historic Reformed faith. It would be to become anti-modern, to repudiate the assertion of the sovereignty of human choice or of human experience or of human rationality in favor of the the sovereignty of the mysterious Triune God, of the two-Adams, of unconditional grace, faith, and the church instituted by Christ himself.
Read the whole article On Being Truly Postmodern by R. Scott Clark
Is Mormonism Christian?
There should be absolutely no doubt on this issue - Mormonism and Christianity are not in any way compatible. Though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints use the same words as Christians, they use a completely different dictionary, hence the subtlety of the deception. Here's Dr. James White, author of the books "Is the Mormon my brother?" and "Letters to a Mormon Elder" with a 13 minute video on the subject:
Responding to Common Objections to Calvinism
2 Timothy 2:24-26 says, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."
Traditions - everyone has them and those most enslaved by them are those who don't think they have any. On this 20 minute video, Dr. James White responds to a number of questions from a gentleman who goes as far as to say that Calvinists are not even Christians. The false assumptions contained in the questions are abundantly clear to anyone who is in any way familiar with the issues. Some would say that the rhetoric in the questions would not be worthy of a response, but showing patience when seeking to provide answers may help a number of people who watch the video.
Christ loved the Church and gave himelf up for her
(From the sermon - For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death? by John Piper)
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. - Ephesians 5:25-27
"There is a precious and unfathomable covenant love between Christ and His Bride, that moved Him to die for her. The death of Jesus is for the bride of Christ in a different way than it is for those who perish. Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride. If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same way he died for the sins of those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for? Were their sins covered and canceled by the blood of Jesus or not? We Christians say, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3). And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created. His death removed the wrath of God from me. His death lifted the curse of the law from me. His death purchased heaven for me. It really accomplished those things!"
"But what would it mean to say of an unbeliever in hell that Christ died for his sins? Would we mean that the debt for his sins was paid? If so, why is he paying again in hell? Would we mean that the wrath of God was removed? If so, why is the wrath of God being poured out on him in punishment for sins? Would we mean that the curse of the law was lifted? If so, why is he bearing his curse in the lake of fire?"
"One possible answer is this: one might say that the only reason people go to hell is because of the sin of rejecting Jesus, not because of all the other sins of their life. But that is not true. The Bible teaches that the wrath of God is coming on the world, not just because of its rejection of Jesus, but because of its many sins that are not forgiven. For example, in Colossians 3:5-6, Paul refers to "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed," and then says, "On account of these things the wrath of God will come." So people who reject Jesus really will be punished for their specific sins, not just for rejecting Jesus."
"So, we go back to the problem: in what sense did Christ taste death for their sins? If they are still guilty for their sins and still suffer punishment for their sins, what happened on the cross for their sins? Perhaps someone would use an analogy. You might say, Christ purchased their ticket to heaven, and offered it to them freely, but they refused to take it, and that is why they went to hell. And you would be partly right: Christ does offer his forgiveness freely to all, and any who receives it as the treasure it is will be saved by the death of Jesus. But the problem with the analogy is that the purchase of the ticket to heaven is, in reality, the canceling of sins. But what we have seen is that those who refuse the ticket are punished for their sins, not just for refusing the ticket. And so what meaning does it have to say that their sins were canceled? Their sins are going to bring them to destruction and keep them from heaven; so their sins were not really canceled in the cross, and therefore the ticket was not purchased."
"The ticket for heaven which Jesus obtained for me by his blood is the wiping out of all my sins, covering them, bearing them in his own body, so that they can never bring me to ruin can never be brought up against me again - never! That's what happened when he died for me. Hebrews 10:14 says, "By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Perfected before God for all time, by the offering of his life! That's what it means that he died for me. Hebrews 9:28 says, "Christ also, [was] offered once to bear the sins of many." He bore my sins. He really bore them (See Isaiah 53:4-6). He really suffered for them. They cannot and they will not fall on my head in judgment."
"If you say to me then, that at the cross Christ only accomplished for me what he accomplished for those who will suffer hell for their sins, then you strip the death of Jesus of its actual effective accomplishment on my behalf, and leave me with what? An atonement that has lost its precious assuring power that my sins were really covered and the curse was really lifted and the wrath of God was really removed. That's a high price to pay in order to say that Christ tasted death for everyone in the same way."
Why read Calvin's Institutes in 2009?
Dr. Ligon Duncan gives 10 reasons here. An eleventh reason is that the folk at www.reformation21org/blog/ - starting in January, will be blogging their way through what many believe to be the most important book of the last 500 years.
More on 1 Timothy 2:4
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, (2) for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (3) This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (7) For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle ( I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. †- 1Tim 2:1-7
In addition to the youtube video posted immediately below this article, further discussion of this text and the verses that surround it by Alan Kurschner (including interaction with John Piper's comments on the text) can be found here.
Upon what basis does God know the future?
All orthodox Christians affirm the fact that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. However, many Christians have not thought through the issue as to how He knows future events.
Does God, from His vantage point merely passively observe the events of time (and the "free-will" acts of His creatures), taking in the data He sees? Or does God decree all the events of time so that they work to serve His purpose - a purpose ordained before any event in time ever occurred (what we call an "eternal decree")? Is God merely a cosmic spectator as He observes the events of time, or does He ordain whatever comes to pass as One who "works all things according to the counsel of His will"? (Eph. 1:11)
In this youtube video below you will find a very interesting interchange between Dr. James White and a gentleman named John calling in to the Dividing Line program. Starting off with 1 Timothy 2:4 and God's desire for the salvation of "all men" (and exactly what this might mean), the conversation develops into a rigorous (yet friendly) discussion about God's Sovereignty. (approximately 25 minutes)
When healing does not come...
"He forgives all ours sins and heals all our diseases." Psalm 103:3
I will let you in on a secret. I was nurtured in the faith at a church that believed it was always God's best purpose to heal. If healing did not occur, it was believed that the person in need or the one praying for them was not tapping into the power of God that was available - there was a "short-circuit" of God power in some way. Even Jesus could do no major miracles in Nazareth "because of their unbelief" it was claimed. How I inwardly wince even saying this and admitting to this now!
In an earlier part of my ministry, though I had compassion on sick people and often saw precious people healed by the Lord's power, (I have seen the Lord do some amazing things through the years), I still carried this unscriptural baggage with me into my ministry, and I feel sure I was not able to help certain people. Actually, its a lot worse that that because there were some under my pastoral care with terminal illnesses who although were given much encouragement to receive healing from the Lord, they were in no way prepared to meet their Lord if healing did not occur. I did not talk to them about the possibility of death and preparing themselves and their family for it. Why should I? My belief system did not allow for it. I believed that to talk about death would be a lack of faith that God was going to heal. I was walking in the light of what I knew, but what I knew was either not enough, or worse, a denial of God's sovereignty. I have asked God for forgiveness for this, and believe He has graciously done so, and trust that in His mercy He will protect His precious sheep. "Oh God, protect your lambs, even from the falsehoods that came from my lips!"
Of course, now I understand that I was believing an over-realised eschatology. Jesus, at the cross certainly did purchase salvation for every aspect of man, including his body, but ultimately He is Lord over exactly when the healing takes place. Healing can take place here on the earth, and often does, but if not, our resurection bodies will not be subject to sickness and disease. Our bodies will not be subject to the effects of the Fall, the curse will be forever removed. There will be no more pain - the former things will have passed away. Thank God! This is a blessing that was provided by Jesus and His redemptive work for us at the cross and it is a wonderful future certainty that heaven will not be full of sick people. There will be no need for wheelchairs, eye glasses, pace-makers, heart bypass surgery, breathing machines, radiation therapy or health insurance. Hallelujah! What a Savior!
I recently came across a very helpful article on the subject of healing by Dr. Sam Storms. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Storms for the first time in Tucson, Arizona during the summer. He is a wonderful brother and I encourage you to read his very balanced and concise overview concerning why healing sometimes does not occur (below). If you are interested in more teaching along this line, I would point you to an article concerning Mark 11:23 and what it actually teaches, found here. God bless. - John Samson
Why God Doesn't Always Heal (2 Corinthians 12:8-10) by Dr. Sam Storms
God loved the apostle Paul. Yet God sovereignly orchestrated his painful thorn in the flesh and then declined to remove it, notwithstanding Paul's passionate prayer that he be healed.
We are not apostles. Yet, as his children, no less so than Paul, God loves us too. We don't know the nature of Paul's thorn, but each of us has undoubtedly suffered in a similar way, and some considerably worse. We, like Paul, have prayed incessantly to be healed. Or perhaps knowing of a loved one's "thorn" we have prayed for them. And again, like Paul, God declined to remove it. Why?
Continue reading "When healing does not come..." »
Ten Differences Between the Reformation and Rome
This article by Guy Davies appeared in the September/October issue of Protestant Truth. Guy is Joint-Pastor of Penknap Providence Church and Ebenezer Baptist Church in Wiltshire, England.
1. The Roman Catholic Church believes that its traditions and teaching are as authoritative as Scripture. The Reformed value tradition, but accept the Bible alone as their authority, and sole rule of faith and practice.
2. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope, as successor of Peter and Bishop of Rome, is head of the visible Church. The Reformed believe that Christ alone is head of the Church and that no man may claim universal primacy over the people of God.
3. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible cannot be properly understood apart from the official interpretation of Rome (the Magisterium). The Reformed believe that Christians have a responsibility to judge the truth of all teaching by the extent of its conformity to the teaching of the Bible as it has been commonly accepted with the help of responsible exegesis and the witness of the Spirit.
4. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by baptism and that justification must be supplemented and improved by works. The Reformed hold that the Bible teaches that justification is God's declaration that a sinner is righteous in his sight, on the basis of faith in the finished work of Christ, apart from works. We are justified by faith alone. Baptism does not effect justification; it is the sign of it, as well as of the believer’s cleansing from sin and reception of new life in Christ.
5. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Lord's Supper is a re-offering of the sacrifice of Christ and that the bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of the Saviour. The Reformed hold that that in Scripture the Lord's Supper is a fellowship meal that is to be kept by believers in remembrance of the finished work of Christ. The bread and wine are significant symbols to believers of Christ's body and blood. At the Lord's Supper, they enjoy communion with the risen Christ, who is present at the Table by his Spirit.
Continue reading "Ten Differences Between the Reformation and Rome" »
Former Synergist Embraces Calvinism
This weekend I received the following encouraging email from a visitor which he has graciously allowed me to share with you
------------------
John,
I have always thought Calvinism was wrong, I could not see how it could make sense!
I have just read:
What Do Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism Share in Common?
by John W. Hendryx
and
Is it God's Desire for All Men to Be Saved? by John Hendryx
I must repent in dust and ashes!!!
This FINALLY makes sense to me.
Thank You John.
Now I might have to find a reformed church, do you know any in southern Connecticut.
Peace
Rick
John 3:16 - "all the believing ones..."
The original text of the New Testament in John 3:16, the Greek phrase πᾶς ὠπιστεÏων (transliterated into English as Pas Ho Pisteuwn), means "all the believing ones" or "everyone believing," NOT "Every Single Person Can Believe."
Dr. Jerry Vines recently preached on John 3:16 at his own conference on the same topic. At one point in his message it seems he attempted to respond to the common objection to his views by asserting that pas ho pisteuwn means more than "everyone believing." Here is an examination and response from Dr. James White.
God has preserved His word
1 Peter 3:15 "but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.."
Does the figure of approximately 400,000 textual variants in the New Testament bother you? (that works out to be around 3 variants per word!) In the light of this seemingly staggering number, how do you defend your faith in the inspiration and accurate transmission of the word of God? Can you do it? Can you defend your faith or will you be unprepared and embarassed when the mockers and sceptics quote this figure? And if you are a shepherd of God's people, are you preparing the sheep under your care so that they are not open prey to the savage wolves seeking to devour them?
Actually the figure of 400,000 is VERY misleading, but unless a person knows some of the background issues involved in this field, they can be caught completely off guard by this in a conversation.
Just below you will find a very informative hour long youtube presentation by Dr. James White on the subject of the reliability of the New Testament (in the light of textual variants). This may at one time have been something only scholars needed to be familiar with, but this is no longer the case. Now that the critics have such a voice in our day, each of us as Bible believing Christians need to know something about this matter so that we can defend our faith in Holy Scripture. - John Samson
TEXTUAL VARIANTS AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT with Dr. James White www.aomin.org
Justification by Faith Alone (John Piper Interview)
Found on the internet here - John Piper interviewed by Mike Reeves in a 25 minute interview from the United Kingdom regarding the clarity and urgency of the doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone).
John's Letter to Timothy
... No, not that "John" or that "Timothy" - just an e-mail interchange between myself (John Samson) and a gentleman by the name of Timothy. I thought that perhaps this could be helpful to others who are seeking to understand the doctrines of grace and why we believe them to be biblical. My comments are in bold so that you can follow along and see which one of us is writing.
Timothy writes: John, Thank you for your response. It is rare these days to find a forum where people are actually willing to discuss these issues in a meaningful way.
My pleasure Timothy.
Could I raise a couple of further points? 1.) How would a calvinist approach praying for someone's salvation? Surely the big question to be resolved before doing so is: "is this person predestined to be saved". Of not, prayer, etc is a waste of time, surely? Isn't one always left wondering whether their witnessing / prayer is not in vain? Can one expect the Lord to reveal to us whom He has chosen so we don't waste our time (I think not)?
Continue reading "John's Letter to Timothy" »
The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?
A Repetition of the Law of the Covenant of Works: “…in the ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works.†The Mosaic Covenant, then, seems to be a sort of republication of the covenant of works. Of course it is not identical to the prelapsarian covenant, but there is that condition “by which formula, the righteousness, which is of the law, is described, Rom. x. 5. And the terror of the covenant of works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, ‘cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,’ Deut. xxvii. 26… as the requirement of obedience was rigid under the ministry of Moses, the promises of spiritual and saving grace were more rare and obscure, the measure of the Spirit granted to the Israelites, scanty and short, Deut. xxix. 4. and on the contrary, the denunciation of the curse frequent and express; hence the ministry of Moses is called, ‘the ministration of death and condemnation,’ 2 Cor. iii. 7,9. doubtless because it mentioned the condemnation of the sinner, and obliged the Israelites to subscribe to it.â€
Continue reading "The Mosaic Covenant: Works or Grace?" »
Are Arminians Saved?
Question: If we are saved by grace alone (and we are) how can anyone be saved if they believe that you can lose your salvation? If one believes they can lose their salvation does not that faith then become a work, rather than a gift of God? If someone believes they can lose their salvation, do they really believe that it is the finished work of Christ, and not the "work" of faith, that saves them? If someone believes that they can lose their salvation, would it be true that their faith is no longer a free gift from God, but something the sinner needs to muster up daily to keep their salvation? So here is the hard question. In this matter, can we be saved in spite bad theology? If someone truly held to the five points of Arminianism, could they have "real" saving faith? Can you have real saving faith without understanding Grace Alone?
Regeneration v. The Idolatry of Decisional "Evangelism" by Paul Washer
HT: Lanes' Blog
Those Arminian texts?
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." - John 12:32
I have not always been reformed in my thinking as a Christian. I remember well the long arduous transitional time when I came to understand the biblical teaching on the doctrines of grace. Slowly but surely and in all honesty, often with great reluctance, I began to reassess certain texts that seemed to teach Arminian doctrine. I had believed certain traditions for decades. It was a painful process at times to admit that many things I held dear to my heart could not be confirmed by serious study. Some of these things were just assumed - some things were obvious (I thought) and do not need study, simply because it was obvious these things were true. This is the very hallmark of tradition of course.
What happened? Well, after taking the time to look at well known verses in their biblical context, my traditions were revealed, unmasked before me. To say this was surprising would be a huge understatement. I had no idea that as a direct result of this study process, I would need to forsake certain traditions to remain intellectually honest regarding what scripture actually taught. Traditions are such very powerful things.
I remember the whole process well. I was convinced that there were verses in the Bible that taught reformed theology, but there seemed to be those "Arminian texts" that, for the life of me, I could not dismiss lightly. At least that was what I thought. As I looked at the scriptures, I would sometimes throw up my hands in frustration, believing it was impossible to reconcile all that the Bible taught in this area. I still believed the Bible was the inspired word of God and was convinced that one day we would all see things the right way (perhaps only in heaven), but I continued to wrestle with the scriptures, seeking to come to an understanding of their true meaning. On some issues, this remains the case. All of us see through a glass darkly on some issues (1 Cor. 13), but I have to say that now, years on, some things have become unmistakably clear.
I now believe that there are absolutely no "Arminian texts" in the Bible. To some people this may seem like a very obvious statement. To others, these will be shocking words and very hard to believe. I think many people feel that there are verses on both sides of the issue that are in conflict with each other and impossible to reconcile.
Of course, God is not confused on these things, even if we are. Though some things remain very mysterious, I also believe God has made His truth clear. The secret things belong to the Lord our God and the things revealed belong to us (Deut. 29:29). But is the doctrine of election and predestination one of these secret things? I suggest not, simply because God Himself has revealed so much about the issue in scripture.
In light of this, I would like to present the following short article regarding two scriptures I struggled with for some time and relate to the issue of whether God draws all men to Christ. I hope it is helpful to some who may be struggling with the issues of election and predestination. My advice is to "struggle on" for far too many Christians do not struggle enough. - John Samson
Question: I understand the following to be a brief summary of Jesus' words regarding God's Sovereign purpose in election from John 6:35-45: Unless it is granted, no one will come to Christ. All to whom it is granted will come to Christ, and all of these will be raised up to eternal life on the last day. So, this being the case, can you please explain to me the meaning of John 12:32, where Jesus said: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."?
Continue reading "Those Arminian texts?" »
Free Will in Philemon 1:14
Visitor Question:Hey John - my name is Paul - and I am a regular visitor of your websites - Monergism and Reformationtheology. I love your articles on regeneration - and I appreciate your ministry very much. Thank you for your faithfulness to truth. I do have a question though - about the ESV.
In Philemon 1:14 the translators wrote: "I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will."
For one who holds to Reformation Theology - how does one respond to this passage? If I encourage people to use the ESV, and yet affirm Reformation Theology - what do I say to those who read this passage, and come back to me with their questions? Do you think that this passage was traslated faithfully? If so - how do I explain myself?
Thank you for your time, Paul
-------------------
Hi Paul -- Thank you for your inquiry of the usage of "free will" in Philemon 1:14. First of all, it is important to remember that believers have been set free from the bondage to sin. Total Depravity is the condition of the unregenerate person. When Christ sets us free from the the bondage to sin in regeneration we freely (i.e. voluntarily") choose to folllow Christ because we have a new heart which desires to do so. It is because God has done a work of grace in us, turing our heart of stone to a heart of flesh that we gladly exercise our will to believe the gospel.
When non-Reformed people use the terms "free will' it is always good to define terms by asking, "Free from what?" Free from sin? Free from God's eternal decree? No. Of course not. Rather, what many of these persons mean by the phrase "free will" is that mankind is free from external coersion. On this we can all agree with other Christians. But just because we are free from coercion does not mean that we are free from other things such as sin. Consider the statement: we are free from coercion but not free of necessity. What do I mean by this? I mean we are free from anyone forcing (coercing) to make choices from the outside but not free of the corruption of our natures. By necessity does an unregenerate person feel hostile toward Christ. Apart form the work of the Holy Spirit people will always reject Christ and they cannot do otherwise. The Scripture says in no uncertain terms that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' apart from the Holy Spirit." But with the Holy Spirit giving me a new heart, my will is free from such bondage.
For this passage in particular, consider who the passage was written to in context?
"I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will. For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." - Philemon 1:13-16The passage is obviously spoken to a believer about making good choices. This just means 'voluntarily' and since it is directed toward believers who are already free from sins' bondage, of course they can 'freely' or voluntarily chose to do right. All people who already have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are free from the corruption of nature - so in Biblical terms (see Rom 6) they have already been set free. Freedom in the Bible is not defined as the freedom to do otherwise, but freedom from bondage to sin. God is the most free since He cannot sin. So in conclusion, this passage in Philemon is not referring to the innate spiritual ability of unregenerate persons, but of regenerate ones. Hope this helps John H.
Note: The newest version of the ESV has updated its translation of verse 14 as follows: "but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord."
If Divine Election is True then What Need is There to Preach the Gospel?
Visitor:
If your position is [on divine election] correct, then why the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19 and "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" Romans 10:9. These are just a few of the numerous verses that point to our responsibility. Does God call us to evangelism and discipleship as a practical joke? If already predestined, then what's the point? Free will exists because God allows it. God is in control and knows our every move, but the responsibility for belief and sin falls squarely on our shoulders. Without choice, it is impossible for love to exist.Since a Calvinist believes salvation is wholly God's work without any partnership with man, he or she approaches evangelism nonaggressively. Calvinism teaches there is nothing whatsoever a person can do to become saved—we can't "decide for Christ" or "receive Christ" enabling a person to "become a Christian." To do this would give man a part in salvation. Calvinists believe salvation is from God and God alone. To make salvation hinge on an individual's "accepting Christ" or "receiving Christ" makes salvation partially a human endeavor. A true Calvinist believes that nothing whatsoever a person does or is contributes anything at all to salvation. Salvation is God's work alone and we play no part in it—not even receiving salvation counts.
Response: Well, first of all, the doctrine of predestination does not save anyone, Christ does. Furthermore, according to Calvinism, and more importantly, according to the Bible, a person must put their faith in Jesus Christ if they are to be saved.
I believe you may be confusing the concepts of justification with regeneration. All Calvinists have historically believed that it is vital that the gospel must be preached and received in order for a person to be saved. The Reformers called this the ministry of Word and Spirit. No one will ever be justified (or made right with God) without receiving Christ ... that is why I have personally been a committed missionary for 10 years.
The issue comes down to this: is anyone naturally willing to accept the humbling terms of the gospel (1 Cor 2:14; Rom 3:11, 12, 8;7). Any true gospel preaching is done "with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven" (1 Peter 1:12). Otherwise it comes to men only in word, with no saving effect at all. The Apostle Paul, when speaking to the elect at the church of the Thessalonians said, "for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Where the Holy Spirit is active, convicting men of sin, righteousness and judgment, the gospel is spoken with power. Illumination and regeneration alone can open the eyes of our spiritual understanding and raise us from spiritual death so that we might have a new desire and thus take heed to the gospel when preached. In other words, the word of God does not work "ex opere operato," (automatically) rather, it is the work of the Holy Spirit sovereignly dispensing grace (John 3:8), quickening the heart THROUGH THE WORD to bring forth life. So the written word is not the material of the spiritual new birth, but rather its means or medium. "The word is not the begetting principle itself, but only that by which it works: the vehicle of the mysterious germinating power". It is because the Spirit of God accompanies it that the word carries in it the germ of life. The life is in God, yet it is communicated to us through the word.
In light of this, consider: If man had a free will, as you claim, he would have no need of the Holy Spirit. He could simply come to Christ in his own natural powers. But all Christians acknowledge that no one can say Jesus is Lord apart from the Spirit. And as soon as any Christian admits that he cannot come to Christ apart from the Holy Spirit, he implicitly acknowledges that man has no free will, but that all are in bonage to the corruption of nature.
Continue reading "If Divine Election is True then What Need is There to Preach the Gospel?" »
Regeneration: The Key to Believing the Truth
When Adam fell, the human race became, not stupid so that the truth was hard to understand, but inimical, to the acceptance of the truth. Men did not like to retain God in their knowledge and changed the truth of God into a lie, for the carnal mind is enmity against God. Hence the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, for the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned. In order to accept the Gospel, therefore, it is necessary to be born again. The abnormal, depraved intellect must be remade by the Holy Spirit; the enemy must be made a friend. This is the work of regeneration, and the heart of stone can be taken away and a heart of flesh can be given only by God himself. Resurrecting the man who is dead in sin and giving him a new life, far from being a human achievement, requires nothing less then almighty power.
It is therefore impossible by argument or preaching alone to cause anyone to believe the Bible. Only God can cause such belief. At the same time, this does not mean that argument is useless. Peter tells us, “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.†This was the constant practice of the apostles. Stephen disputed with the Libertines; the Jerusalem council disputed; in Ephesus Paul disputed three months in the synagogue and then continued disputing in the school of Tyrannus. (Acts 6:9; 15:7; 19:8,9: compare Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19; 24:25). Anyone who is unwilling to argue, dispute, and reason is disloyal to his Christian duty.
Continue reading "Regeneration: The Key to Believing the Truth" »
Very Dogmatic?
Here's an e-mail I received today concerning the dogmatic beliefs of reformed people. I provided a brief response and hopefully it will be edifying for others to read.. lets all renounce pride in any form, for it is both very ugly and very subtle, yet at the same time, let us humble ourselves before God's holy word and the truth He has made clear. (My response is in bold) - John Samson
My son and I go back and forth about reformed doctrine all the time. I try to gleen from both thoughts. The Reformed doctrine is very dogmatic and leaves no room for,"we could be wrong".
Well both sides cannot be right as they teach mutually exclusive things.. I was once on the other side, so to speak - and while pride and arrogance lurks all around and sadly can often pervade our hearts, where God has made His truth clear, it is not humility to deny this. I believe scripture is clear that human will is not the ultimate cause of our election but God's mercy (Romans 9:16).
The truth is we are all living in error. There is none righteous, no not one.
Of course.. but that does not mean we cannot be sure of some things when God has clearly revealed it. I recently wrote an article in which I stated, "It is considered the height of arrogance and pride to say “I know the truth†about something. It is far more palatable to modern tastes to suggest merely that truth is mysterious and that none amongst us can be certain of anything. This seems far more humble, at least on the surface anyway.. and on a human level, it certainly helps us all get along to say “you have your truth, I have mine – and what is true for you may not be true for me, but I certainly respect your truth…†But there’s a big problem with this when we consider that God Himself, Truth personified, has claimed to reveal Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ and in His Word, the Bible. This speaks of truth that is true, whether or not we believe it, or as Dr. Francis Schaefer called it, "true truth.""
What if you as a reformed believer get to the Gates of Heaven after serving God all your life, and the Lord says,"sorry your name is not in the Lambs book of life, you are not one of the elect".
Continue reading "Very Dogmatic?" »
"You Are From Below, I Am From Above"
From his blog at www.aomin.org Dr. James White writes:
I was reading John chapter 8 when I encountered these familiar words from Jesus' encounter with the Jews, "And He was saying to them, 'You are from below. I am from above. You are of (from) this world. I am not of (from) this world" (καὶ ἔλεγεν αá½Ï„οῖς· ὑμεῖς á¼Îº τῶν κάτω á¼ÏƒÏ„Î, á¼Î³á½¼ á¼Îº τῶν ἄνω εἰμί· ὑμεῖς á¼Îº τοÏτου τοῦ κόσμου á¼ÏƒÏ„Î, á¼Î³á½¼ οá½Îº εἰμὶ á¼Îº τοῦ κόσμου τοÏτου. John 8:23). I was struck once again by a theme I have pointed to many times in my preaching. We are so often used to hearing Jesus speak in the context of His divinity that we often do not "hear" how very strange His words would have sounded in their original context. We know Jesus is the Incarnate Lord, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, and so these kinds of words do not amaze us. But we must put ourselves in the context of the Jews standing in the gazofulakion, the treasury room of the Temple. And I think what caused me to especially focus upon this text at this time is my upcoming debates with Muslims.
If you can, put yourself in the original context, and "hear" Jesus speaking. What do you hear? What strikes you? Is there not a clear, strong differentiation between the Lord's view of Himself, His self-understanding, and that of everyone around Him? Are these the words of a man who sees Himself as "one of us" in the sense of origination? Surely not. The "below/above" and "this world/not this world" couplets are meant to communicate Jesus' divine origin very strongly. Jesus is not merely saying, "I am in harmony with God, and hence have a heavenly connection, one that you could have as well, if you only chose to do so." He is not saying, "I am a prophet like many before me." No, He is about to say (v. 24) that His opponents will die in their sins: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that ego eimi, (á¼Î³ÏŽ εἰμι) I am, you will die in your sins." One's eternal destiny, even one's forgiveness of sins, is tied to faith in Christ, and more to the point, faith in what He reveals about Himself. The "I am" saying here (note v. 28, 58, 13:19, 18:5-6) aside from going directly to Yahweh's self-identification in such texts as Isaiah 43:10, flows naturally from the assertion to be "from above" and to be "not of this world."
Isn't it just here that the enemy has been so insistent upon attacking the once-for-all-delivered-to-the-saints-faith? The list of falsehoods concerning the person of Christ propounded down through history (let alone today) is long indeed, but all the heresies of the past and present share this one consistency: they refuse to allow the Scriptures to speak fully in defining Him. The Jews rejected His self-identification in this text as well (8:58-59), and they are followed by the entire Muslim world today. The "Islamic Jesus," though a virgin born worker of miracles, is not divine, but is a "mere rasul, a mere prophet." But what "mere rasul" (Ø¥Ùلَّا رَسÙولٌ) speaks to his fellow creatures and says "you are from below, I am from above"? What mere prophet has this kind of self-awareness? Obviously, no sinner can say the words Jesus said, and, of course, this is exactly why Muslims reject the testimony of John, for they, like the Jews of Jesus' day, have a particular traditional understanding of who Jesus can, and cannot, be.
If today you embrace faith in Christ, obey Him as your Lord, love Him as your Savior, and rejoice in the fact that He is the God-Man, let your heart be filled with thanksgiving that He, by His Spirit, has opened your heart to see the very "Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:8).
Dr. Norman Geisler's "Parable of the Farmer" - Refuted
Some years ago I read Dr. Norman Geisler's book "Chosen but Free" and followed it up with Dr. James' White's response in a book called "The Potter's Freedom." It became clear to me that one side wanted to exegete the texts of Scripture in detail, giving them the necessary respect, and quite honestly, one side seemingly did not. This whole process brought me from semi-confusion on some of these issues to becoming a convinced 5 point Calvinist. I am aware of others who have taken the very same journey as myself through reading the two books mentioned above. Even though James has Scottish blood running in his veins and I have Welsh and Irish (and grew up in England), in the course of time, Dr. White became a good friend of mine, and I am very grateful for the very positive impact he has, and continues to have in my life and ministry.
The reason I say all this is because it was fascinating for me today to watch a 28 minute video by Dr. White on youtube, responding once again to Dr. Geisler's "Parable of the Farmer." On this video you will hear Dr. Geisler in his own words, as well as Dr. White's response.
Continue reading "Dr. Norman Geisler's "Parable of the Farmer" - Refuted" »
Theology Matters - A Vital Teaching Series for the Church
Just this last week, Dr. James White was teaching a series of messages at a Church in the Houston area on a number of vital themes for our day, defending the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, justification by faith alone and the doctrines of grace (responding to a recent sermon against Calvinism).
The series is now put together in a format that runs one message immediately after the other, but it is possible to go to any message in the series and begin watching. I have just finished watching the entire four part series and have been very blessed and encouraged, and commmend this series to you (available below). - John Samson
Heavenly Trips
Someone wrote to me this week asking me for my take on the Christians who claim to have taken trips to heaven and have come back to tell of the experience. Here is my response...
Hi .... , (name withheld)
Thanks for your question. Although I cannot find a scripture that specifically addresses the issue of whether or not people can take trips to heaven in their lifetime (in our day) I certainly see no scriptural basis for a desire for it. We are never told to desire a trip to heaven, except when we go to be with the Lord or He comes for us.
Though I would hesitate to make a complete blanket statement to say that God cannot do such a thing with a believer today, I am very much alarmed at the casual nature in which these experiences are usually refered to.... I have heard the experience spoken of in just the same way as you or I would of a trip to Walmart.. the awe of God and of the heavenly realms is very noticeably absent. Contrast this with the biblical descriptions of people who went to heaven or at least were allowed to see it.. Isaiah was "undone" (Isaiah 6) and the Apostle John fell at the feet of an angel and had to be told to get up and worship only Christ (Rev. 19:10). The inspiring awe John felt is very obvious.. So the question of "awe" is one I would raise..
Also I would simply ask each individual who has claimed such an experience... Ok.. what happened? What exactly did you see? What exactly were you told? Why do you think God gave you this experience? How is your life different as a result? and.. are you willing to have this experience tested by the scripture?
Then....
Continue reading "Heavenly Trips" »
Calvinism and Evangelism
I recently received an e-mail from a gentleman by the name of Abel who seemed to have severe mis-givings about Calvinism, especially regarding its practical ramifications in evangelism. I will not quote the entire e-mail discussion but I thought others might be interested in reading some of the exchange. It is cordial and friendly, even if we strongly disagree. My response to Abel is in bold so that it is more easy on the eye... - John Samson
Abel writes.... The purpose ... is to get directly to the practical applications of the doctrine of election as it is widely taught, and to illustrate how it determines what we really believe about the Bible and how we witness to the lost. This is an area most Calvinists rarely, if ever, discuss or even recognize.
I am not sure I would agree with this.. Ligonier ministries just had its National Conference on the theme of "Evangelism according to Jesus."
For example, did Jesus die for all mankind? This is a simple question that deserves a simple answer. This is what a lost person wants to know.
Sir, why do you start with a statement never made in scripture and hold it up as the standard for what is to be done in evangelism? Why is it so hard to just use biblical expressions rather than man made ones? The apostles certainly never used this phrase. Just because you do and many others do, does not make it a biblical expression.
They don't want some long -winded, drawn out explanation of how the Bible really doesn't mean what it says on the surface and that you really need to dig much, much deeper to get to the ‘hidden' information only the most skilled and educated can decipher. They want a simple yes or no.
:-))) Of course all want this... and many things in scripture are extremely clear and plain, but as the Apostle Peter noted about Paul's writings, some things are "hard to understand".
"just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:15-16
Unstable and untaught people still distort the scriptures in our own day which is why we are called to study dilligently to show ourselves approved by God.
Continue reading "Calvinism and Evangelism" »
Mark Dever on Doctrinal Discernment and the Gospel
The Covenant of Works by Wayne Grudem
Some have questioned whether it is appropriate to speak of a covenant of works that God had with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The actual word covenant is not used in the Genesis narratives. However, the essential parts of the covenant are all there—a clear definition of the parties involved, a legally binding set of provisions that stipulates the conditions of their relationship, the promise of blessings for obedience, and the condition for obtaining those blessings. Moreover, Hosea 6:7, in referring to the sins of Israel, says, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenantâ€
Continue reading "The Covenant of Works by Wayne Grudem" »
Some Helpful Links 06-05-08
Adversity by Terry johnson - This is an outstanding chapter from the book, When Grace Comes Home by Terry L. Johnson. Ephhasizes the practical implications of the doctrines of grace ... how an understanding of God's sovereign, effectual mercy in Christ towards sinners like us, can change lives in very practical ways.
Outlines of Theology by A.A. Hodge Now online! In reviewing A. A. Hodge's Outlines in Theology (1878) C.H. Spurgeon once stated: "We commend the Outlines of Theology to all who would be well instructed in the faith. It is the standard text-book of our college. We differ from its teachings upon baptism, but in almost everything else we endorse Hodge to the letter." [my emphasis] In agreement with Spurgeon's enthusiasm, we believe this book should be on every persons shelf. Outlines of Theology also available in print.
"WHOSOEVER"
Visitor: You still must someday deal with the achilles heal of your theology. How do you reconcile "For God so loved the world that He gave his only Begotten Son the WHOSOEVER believes in Him will have eternal life" with a theology that believes God creates the vast majority of creation for the singular purpose of eternally damning them and their doom is sealed by the nature they were born with?
Response:
"For God so loved the world that He gave his only Begotten Son the WHOSOEVER believes in Him will have eternal life."
Friend, this is a passage from Scripture itself and I believe it just as it is written. WHOSOEVER believes the gospel will be saved. Anyone who's faith is in Jesus Christ, their sins are forgiven and they have eternal life. The misunderstanding here, I believe, is that you have failed to read the passage in its context. The passage (John 3) goes on to say, but men loved darkness and hate the light and will not come into the light ... those who do show what has been done is wrought by God. And prior to this same text is reads "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6) Which means that they "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). "so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." (Rom 9:16)
Continue reading ""WHOSOEVER"" »
Comments on Two Cheers for the New Calvinism
Yesterday Justin Taylor posted an interesting guest spot on the “New Calvinism†by a Wesleyan-Arminian professor at Trinity Evangelical entitled "Two Cheers for the Resurgence of Calvinism in Evangelicalism: A Wesleyan-Arminian Perspective.†The first part was what the author saw as positive elements of the new Calvinism and the second part some criticisms of it. Both positive and negative are interesting and should be heeded but he makes one statement which is not entirely accurate that I felt worth mentioning. He said:
"But it seems quite obvious to me that there indeed is a central dogma to the New Calvinism: belief that God determines everything, and that he does so for his own glory, is taken to be necessary and sufficient."
While it is true that Calvinists affirm the meticulous sovereignty of God over all things and consider this to be of highly critical importance, yet if there is something else which is even more substantial and central than this to their dogma, it is that Christ is all in all. History and creation revolve around Him. Calvinists, in other words, have a Christocentric view of all things.
How is this a distinctive you ask?
The Father says, "This is my Son with whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him." The Spirit has come to remind us of all that Jesus has done, to take from Him and give to us and ultimately to bring Christ, not Himself, glory. All are to honor the Son as they honor the Father. We preach Christ and Him crucified because it is He and He alone who is our hope. All that we have is from His hands…all spiritual benefits find their source in Him. In fact, what good things do we have that we did not receive from Christ? As this distinctive regards salvation, consider, what makes someone differ from another? Does Christ ALONE make you to differ from your neighbor, or is it Christ plus something else, such as your "good will" that generates a right thought? Is God's requirement of us, including the command to believe the gospel, something we have the power to do, or is it grace itself in Christ that we even have the desire, understading and faith to believe? It is only the gift of grace we have in Christ itself that we are obedient and humble. Humility is not something that springs from our unregenerate human nature. Only Christ can change that. It is only by grace alone in Christ alone that we have life, this is THE central difference between biblical Calvinism and all other synergistic forms of Christianity.
We believe that all erroneous and inconsistent views of the Bible come from not seeing the truth of Christ as the center of Scripture. See this essay for examples of some of these errors. Hopefully this will clear up exactly what Mccall gets wrong and what turns a lot of people off, the idea that God is sovereign is not the center of calvinism ... it's central but not THE center.
John Hendryx
Where is Your Theology of the Resurrection?
Recently I have been pondering the question: why in traditional theological circles is there such a lack of emphasis on the theology of the resurrection yet so much stress on Christ's death? Not to de-emphasize his atoning death but this oversight is especialy curious in light of the fact that in the New Testament there appears to be a great importance placed on the resurrection, at least, it seems, equal in emphasis to Christ's death, but we don't talk about or theologize about it much ... why? I have to ask because the implications of Christ's resurrection is a critical part of Christ's redemptive work in and for us.
In light of the resurrection of Christ, 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of our present victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of the work of Christ in his resurrection Paul is able to say in verse 58, "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord." As we participate in his resurrection now and are seated with him at God's right hand, where He reigns over all his enemies, including the world, the flesh, the devil and death, then, in light of this, this should somehow translate to our living in the world now.
Continue reading "Where is Your Theology of the Resurrection?" »
No Time for Seminary?
Beginning Theology Curriculum for laypersons wanting to learn theology but don't have time for Seminary. This Theology at home bundle is a great place to start
1) Westminster Confession of Faith
2) A Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson
3) The Ten Commandments by Thomas Watson
4) The Lord's Prayer (paperback) by Thomas Watson
5) Outlines of Theology by A. A. Hodge
6) An Old Testament Theology by Bruce K. Waltke
Read the books listed above in the following order: 1) Westminster Confession of Faith: a) the Shorter Catechism; b) the Larger Catechism; c) the Confession; 2) A Body of Divinity by Thomas Watson; 3) The Ten Commandments by Thomas Watson; 4) The Lord's Prayer by Thomas Watson; 5) Outlines of Theology by A. A. Hodge; & 6) An Old Testament Theology by Bruce K. Waltke.
For supplemental historical studies we also recommend 2000 YEARS OF CHRIST'S POWER 3 Volume set by N.R. Needham
The Christ-Centered Nature of the Doctrines of Grace
The TULIP can only be made sense of when we consider Christ and His work at its core ... the core from which all redemptive benefits spring. Four-point Calvinism (which rejects the "L") falls short since it inconsistently views whether or not Christ is the center and cause of all grace or redemptive blessings. It tends, rather, to see the TULIP as an abstraction. Here's why: Consider the TULIP as a chiasm with the "L" at the top of the pyramid. It is Jesus Christ which makes sense of all the doctrines of grace. Four-point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement but embrace irresistible grace must consider this: Irresistible grace is not some abstract doctrine but must be seen in relation to Jesus Christ, specially in relation to the grace purchased by Christ upon the cross. The Spirit of Christ illuminates, regenerates and effectually brings to faith his elect. And this enabling, effectual grace is, from first to last, Christ-wrought. It does not come out of a void, nor from some hidden source of grace in God the Father. Therefore Christ must have died for the elect so as to purchase that grace in a way – a redemptive way – that he did not die for the non-elect. That is why we often call it particular redemption. Irresistible grace is one of the redemptive benefits purchased by Jesus Christ ... and it was never granted to the non-elect nor intended for them. I believe that until Jesus Christ is seen as central to the TULIP then four-pointers will continue to reject what is plain.
Obedience (7)
Obedience Is Beautiful
True Christian obedience is haunting, jolting the minds of our opponents. It is compelling, winning worshipers to our God. We convey godliness through our good works, pleasing the One who calls us to holiness. The Word of God is more desirable than gold, and sweeter than honey. This Word produces obedience in the lives of God's people by their faith. Surely that fruit is beautiful.
Obedience (6)
Obedience Is Necessary
For the Christian to obey God is normal. It is no extraordinary thing to do what your Lord commands—even to deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Jesus… daily. But obedience is more than to-be-expected: it is inevitable. Someone who is saved by grace through living faith in Jesus Christ will certainly obey God. In fact, disobedience points to the absence of true and saving faith. So, although obedience is not a prerequisite for salvation, it is a necessary fruit of salvation.
Obedience (5)
Obedience Is Supernatural
Only Christians can obey God rightly. Therefore, the merest potential for obedience comes from outside nature, since just being a Christian is supernatural. Not only that, but we obey the will of God by being filled with the Spirit, by walking in the Spirit. How, then, could the origin or empowerment of our obedience be anything but supernatural—unless you would reduce the Holy Spirit of God to the level of nature?
Obedience (4)
Obedience Is Legal
le•gal: adj. of, based on, or concerned with the law. Christian obedience takes the form of law-keeping. What's that you say? Obedience has more to do with love than with law? What are the greatest precepts of the Law of God? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength… [and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself." That's right, love is a commandment, the fulfillment of the Law. If you're a Christian, you do what God tells you to do, which he has told you by way of the moral Law.
Obedience (3)
Obedience Is Glad-Hearted
Good works drawn from a reluctant heart do not constitute God-honoring obedience. In fact, this is lip-service, performed for some reason other than a joyful response to grace—which is the same as disobedience in God's eyes. Only the heart made healthy and glad with salvation can be truly obedient. "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." If you truly love your Savior God, then he cannot ask too much of your allegiance.
Obedience (2)
Obedience Is Covenantal
The Christian obeys God for reasons stipulated by God. The Ten Commandments are prefaced with these words: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." This creates the atmosphere in which obedience takes place. The Christian obeys God because God has shown favor to him—not so that God will show favor to him. In Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Covenant sacrificed himself to save his people from their sin and to redeem them for righteousness. This is the ultimate motivator to Christian obedience.
Obedience (1)
Obedience Is Relational
This may seem obvious, but obedience requires two parties: the one obeying, and the one obeyed. The Christian obeys God. Christian obedience is not some sort of purity detached from relationship to God. We do not pursue a self-contained morality, as if virtue in itself meant something. "Getting better" at obedience (a.k.a. sanctification) is becoming submissive to God. Either we are righteous for God's sake, or righteous for the sake of self (self-righteous, which is to say unrighteous).
Death and the Afterlife
If you're in the Portland area this Friday night, feel free to join me at the Lucky Lab Beer Hall (1945 NW Quimby) for a Table Talk (after the fashion of Martin Luther's olden days discussions). We'll talk about Death and the Afterlife. Here is a PDF of the handout.
How theology affects our view of "revival"
An excellent article by Iain H. Murray found here. It discusses the consequences of bad theology on the modern day church and the massive infuence of Charles G. Finney and his view of revival.
Question Regarding the Ordo Salutis (the order of salvation)
Visitor: I have a question regarding the order of salvation. I realize that you have to be regenerated before you can believe, so the question I am asking is regeration the same as being born again? If so were does repentance fall into place? Before or after justification, then what about sanctification and so on? I have read some articals on the site and have probably missed it, so I will apreciate you taking the time to write me back.
Response: Thanks for your great question. Jesus Christ is the source of all redemptive blessings, including regeneration, justification, sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). Regeneration is the fountain, and sanctification the river. In other words, when one is united to Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, our hearts of stone are made flesh, our blind eyes now see and our deaf ears now hear. All things, obedience, repentance, faith spring forth from the regenerating work of the Spirit within us. They all happen simultaneously once God breathes new life into us.
I would suspect, however, that if we are to use logic, faith must come before repentance, for how can you repent if you don't know what you are repenting of. Yet these are all so close that it would be difficult to say. The Spirit, in working faith in us also reveals our spiritual bankruptcy and a repentance of all trust in our own self-sufficiency. In order to have genuine faith anyone who believe must recognize that we justly deserve the wrath of God save for Christ's mercy alone. We abandon all confidence in self and repent of all trust in our own works, good and bad. Neither are our savior. Christ alone is suffiicient to save. So ultimately you could say that genuine faith is a repentant faith. Hope this helps
Visitor: I just want to thank you for taking the time to wright to me and explaining the issue it has been very helpful to me.
---------------
"We are initially united with Christ in regeneration." [next] "We appropriate and continue to live out of this union through faith."Third, "We are justified in union with Christ."Fourth, "We are sanctified through union with Christ."Fifth, "We persevere in the life of faith in union with Christ."Finally, "We shall be eternally glorified with Christ." - by Anthony Hoekema
Two Lectures on Monergistic Regeneration (MP3s)
Last week we held our Reformation Society of Oregon meeting and Dr. Art Azurdia III gave two expositions/lectures on the subject monergistic regeneration. We have posted the MP3s for free download. IMHO, they are superb biblical exegesis and I highly recommend them for your personal edification.
Right-Click and save to your hard drive
Monergistic Regeneration - Part I by Dr. Art Azurdia III
Monergistic Regeneration - Part II by Dr. Art Azurdia III
Repentance is necessary for MORAL people
Exerpt from Thomas Watson's, The Doctrine of Repentance
These [moral people] have no visible spots on them. They are free from gross sin, and one would think they had nothing to do with the business of repentance. They are so good, that they scorn God's offer of mercy. Indeed these are often in the worst condition: these are they who think they need no repentance (Luke 15:7). Their morality undoes them. They make a "savior" of it, and so on this rock they suffer shipwreck. Morality shoots short of heaven. It is only nature refined. A moral man is but old Adam dressed in fine clothes. The king's image counterfeited and stamped upon brass will not go current. The moral person seems to have the image of God—but he is only brass metal, which will never pass for current. Morality is insufficient for salvation. Though the life is moralized, the lust may be unmortified. The heart may be full of pride and atheism. Under the fair leaves of a tree, there may be a worm.
I am not saying, repent that you are moral—but that you are no more than moral. Satan entered into the house that had just been swept and garnished (Luke 11:26). This is the emblem of a moral man, who is swept by civility and garnished with common gifts—but is not washed by true repentance. The unclean spirit enters into such a one. If morality were sufficient to salvation, Christ need not have died. The moral man has a fair lamp—but it lacks the oil of grace.
Knowing Ourselves
Introduction
When Plato expressed the ultimate purpose and great imperative of philosophy with this command, “know yourself,†he had struck upon a valuable insight. If we would know our purpose in life, how we should relate to the world and to others around us, what our goals and dreams and desires should consist of, how we should spend our time, then we must know who we are. We must know how we were made and for what purpose, and we must know whether or not we are fulfilling that purpose, and if not, how we might do so. If we desire to order our lives according to wise and reasonable principles, then first a thoroughgoing self-knowledge is indispensable.
However, this command is not so easy to put into practice. Who really knows what he is like, deep down inside? Who can say from what mysterious inner workings of our minds come bizarre dreams, unexpected, random thoughts that defy all reason, moments of insight and creativity, moments of foolishness and lapses of judgment? Do we really know how our minds function? Do we really know what we actually want or need? If so, then why is it that, when we have finally accomplished or acquired something that we thought we wanted, we suddenly feel so empty and let down? Who has not felt the deep and inexplicable yearning for something more, and not knowing quite what it was or how to pursue it, tried to bury the yearning in a busy pursuit of professional advancement or entertainment or any of those other things that have always let us down before? If we are ever to rise above this condition, we must know who we are, what we were made to do and enjoy, why we are not doing and enjoying what we were made for, and how to pursue a soul-deep change.
Continue reading "Knowing Ourselves" »
This is not your father's Mormonism (part 2)
What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints mean when it states that Jesus is "the Son of God"? Is Jesus divine? Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus? Are Jesus and Lucifer brothers? Does God the Father live on a planet circling a star named Kolob?
From Dr. James White's blog at aomin.org there are two articles showing how the Mormonism of a previous era is being gradually replaced by a much more nebulous, fuzzier version, seen here. Part two here.
This is not your father's Mormonism
Old and New Mormonism contrasted in an article by Dr. James White here.
Essays on the New Birth
The New Birth (.pdf) Essays by William Plumer, Octavius Winslow, Arthur W. Pink, John Gill, James Buchanan, J. C. Ryle, John Owen, Charles H. Spurgeon -- These are very helpful essays from the Free Grace Broadcaster's Winter 2007 edition. Very edifying and crucial to understand if one is to have a well-rounded ministry. John Owen said, "THE work of the Spirit of God in regenerating the souls of men is diligently to be inquired into by the preachers of the Gospel and all to whom the Word is dispensed. For the former sort, there is a peculiar reason for their attendance unto this duty, for they are used and employed in the work itself by the Spirit of God and are by Him made instrumental for the effecting of this new birth and life...Now, certainly it is the duty of ministers to understand the work about which they are employed, as far as they are able, that they may not work in the dark and fight uncertainly, as men beating the air. What the Scripture hath revealed concerning it, as to its nature and the manner of its operation, as to its causes, effects, fruits, evidences, they ought diligently to inquire into. To be spiritually skilled therein is one of the principal furnishments of any for the work of the ministry, without which they will never be able to divide the Word aright, nor show themselves workmen that need not be ashamed." We agree with Owen and believe that if you are not going to a church that preaches the kind of Christ-honoring principles in the following essays, then we are only getting a partial gospel at best. Set aside some time to read and linger over these Bible-saturated essays.
Knowing Our God
Introduction
Of all the possible pursuits, activities, or studies that are practically relevant and positively beneficial which we might spend our time pursuing, there is none, however profitable or necessary, that is as needful and uplifting and valuable as the subject matter of this study. As Christians, there is nothing more practical for us than to know our God. As created beings, there is nothing we need more than to understand our Creator. As desperate and wandering souls searching for significance, longing for something that is infinitely satisfying, seeking pleasure from finite things when God “has set eternity in [our] heart†(Ecclesiastes 3:11), there is nothing that can even begin to answer to the depths of our vast needs, desires, and longings, except for one thing. That one thing is knowing our God. And that one thing is what we are hoping by his grace to pursue in this study. I hope that all of us can resonate with the truth A. W. Pink once observed, that “a spiritual and saving knowledge of God is the greatest need of every human creature,†and furthermore, that “the foundation of all true knowledge of God must be a clear mental apprehension of His perfections as revealed in Holy Scripture.†As we turn to the scriptures, it is with the hope and prayer that God will †shine in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ†(II Corinthians 4:6).
Continue reading "Knowing Our God" »
Is God Angry at Sin?
"So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia." Revelation 14:19-20"He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." Revelation 19:15-16
For those few of you not familiar with him, Rob Bell is one of the leading spokesmen of the emerging (t) church and was featured in a recent Time magazine article. He prides himself on teaching a God of love and not one of condemnation. But his recent “The Gods Are Not Angry†tour, as one blogger pointed out, sounded more like Oprah's god than any semblance of one which represented Christ. Unlike Oprah, whose followers are mostly women over 50, Bells' disciples are predominately young 20-something males.
One of the main messages that Bell is communicating to his audience, for which he gets standing ovations, is that 'God is not angry because God is love'. Does this sound familiar to anyone? It should because it is the vision of god which we hear from pop-culture every day. So from all appearances, Bell is essentially saying is that we should abandon the God of the Bible for a more user-friendly version. How is this different than the anti-doctrinal tactic already used by today's mega-churches? Well, not much except that it is dressed in postmodern garb. It avoids doctrine and goes straight for practice (not orthodoxy but orthopraxy). In other words, it is just 19th & 20th century liberalism refashioned for the current age. Jesus without content and thus Jesus without grace.
It is not Christianity. How do I know? Consider the following question:
Do you believe you justly deserve the wrath of God save for Christ's mercy alone?
Can someone even be a Christian if they cannot unhesitatingly affirm this?
Continue reading "Is God Angry at Sin?" »
What's my theology?
"No Christian can avoid theology. Every Christian has a theology. The issue, then, is not, do we want to have a theology? That's a given. The real issue is, do we have a sound theology? Do we embrace true or false doctrine?" R. C. Sproul
I have a confession to make: I am a Calvinistic, charismatic, complementarian, Christian hedonist. Confused? Read more here. Having written this article (well I can't even say I wrote much of the article myself), I am now running for cover in the trenches while the bullets fly at me from all directions.. Merry Christmas everyone!!! :-)
- Rev. John Samson
Is Justification is the CAUSE of regeneration?
These are some excerpts from a recent conversation with a visitor.
Visitor: Justification is the CAUSE of regeneration, just as sin is the cause of death. Sproul and others are teaching that justification comes two steps AFTER regeneration in a literal temporal order. They teach that faith comes, not IN, but AFTER regeneration, and that only THEN are we justified. That means that we are united to Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit, but not YET justified. Our union with Christ doesn't justify us, it only "enables" us to do the work necessary to get ourselves justified. I hold that justification can't FOLLOW regeneration, because it is the CAUSE of regeneration. I also hold that we can't be united to Christ (by regeneration) if justification has not occurred and we are still in our sins. Even if you say that these events are "nearly" simultaneous, it would still mean that the body of Christ has sin that has not been dealt with, if only for the briefest time.
Response; I may have misunderstood, but from all appearances you are denying that the Spirit can work in any way on an unregenerate person to change their heart prior to belief (since regeneration cannot, by definition, precede faith in your book). But this is obviously not the case. Can you repent and believe in Christ by your own power? No, the Spirit works before, during and after salvation. Even though you [elsewhere] claim to be monergistic, if you deny that the Spirit acts in some way to bring forth belief, your challenge is essentially a denial of this aspect of the Spirit's work. Sproul is not and has never, taught a temporal order in the way you describe. You may have misunderstood him and others who use temporal language (in order to distinguish the benefits of salvation) to describe a non-temporal event. The purpose of this is to demonstrate the Spirit's monergistic working in the soul that is causally "prior" to any human response. To clarify perhaps we can consider the following text of Scripture and an example from the physical world:
In Acts it reads that when Paul was preaching "...the Lord opened her [Lydia's] heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Plainly, here the Spirit works a change in the heart of the person prior to their faith. Regeneration is a change of our heart of stone to a heart of flesh - the Spirit working grace and faith in their heart of the unregenerate prior to anything else. In other words, no one believes while their heart is still stone and something (regenerative grace) must occur before a change happens. The heart must first be made flesh. God does something to change the heart of people prior to ANY faith, though one is connected to, and springs from, the other. The Bible calls this work regeneration.
Continue reading "Is Justification is the CAUSE of regeneration?" »
From Packer's Intro to Luther's Bondage of the Will
J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, translators of Luther’s masterpiece Bondage of the Will from German and Latin to English, say in the Introduction:
Free will was no academic question to Luther; the whole Gospel of the grace of God, he held, was bound up with it, and stood or fell according to the way one decided it. . . . It is not the part of a true theologian, Luther holds, to be unconcerned, or to pretend to be unconcerned, when the Gospel is in danger. . . . [T]he doctrine of The Bondage of the Will in particular was the cornerstone of the Gospel and the foundation of faith (40-41, emphasis added).
In particular, the denial of free will was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the Gospel and come to faith in God. The man who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel (44-45). Justification by faith alone is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide [by faith alone] is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia [by grace alone] . . . for to rely on oneself for faith is not different in principle from relying on oneself for works (59). The Bible teaches that faith itself is and has to be a gift of God, by grace, and not of self (Ephesians 2:8). It is safe to deduce that for Luther, any evangelist who advocates free will has not only "not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel," but also that he has not yet preached the Gospel at all; his is a counterfeit gospel.
Continue reading "From Packer's Intro to Luther's Bondage of the Will" »
Clarifying the Love of God for His People in Christ
Although some may not think so, we really do work hard to accurately represent those whose positions differ from us in regards to the work of Christ in our salvation. Recently I gave an illustration which highlighted the differences between the Arminian traditions' view of God's love and the traditional Augustinian view, which at least one visitor said misrepresented both sides ...
The illustration has two parents whose children run out into the street when a car is coming. The first parent calls to his child to get out of the way but stays on the curb hoping he will obey, while the other parent sees the danger and runs out to scoop up the child to make certain he/she is safe. We believe this demonstrates two radically different conceptions of love. Synergists often challenge us that we put God's holiness over His love, but this illustration attempts to highlight that this is not the case, but rather, reveals a vastly different view of God's love and the message of salvation: one type of love is intensive and the other extensive. One loves makes certain that the job is done - that the child is safe, while the other love does not make this a certainly but sees love in the giving of a choice itself ... and consequently values more highly the will of the child as the final determiner of salvation.
To clarify this illustration so you can see how it explicitly explains the two positions:
First of all, both positions believe that Christ died for sinners .... but there are clear differences in what Christ's death actually accomplishes for His children:
1) The Arminian position believes that Christ does a great deal to bring salvation to His people, but His death does not actually secure that salvation. It is not sufficient of itself to save lost people. There is still a requirement that sinners themselves must meet if Christ's death is to be effectual ... in other words, what Christ does for sinners in the Arminian scheme is really conditioned upon man fulfilling another requirement that is in addition to Christ's death ... in this case, faith.
2) The Augustinian position, in contrast, believes that Christ's death and resurrection actually secures the salvation of His people. It is completely sufficient in itself to save sinners. God does require faith of His people but Christ's death even pays for the sin of our unbelief and thus He meets all the requirements necessary for our salvation ... requirements that we were morally impotent to meet ourselves. Thus, Jesus Christ gives His children everything necessary to secure salvation. This is an unconditional love ... salvation by grace alone in Christ alone. Christ plus nothing. Salvation is, therefore, not conditioned upon our prior faith but Christ actually even secures our faith. The finished work of Christ guarantees that none of his children will be lost and will all be raised up at the last day (John 6:37-39, 44)
Understanding Free Will
from the archives - by John Samson...
Why are you reading this? Yes, this particular sentence? There are billions of sentences out there just waiting to be read, in many different languages, but right now, you are reading this one. Why?
Well, it could be that some reformed and crazed individual has put a gun to your head and told you that if you did not read this article he would shoot you. He would definitely be what I refer to as a "caged stage Calvinist," when after coming to understand the doctrines of grace, for a period of a couple of years or so, he needs to be locked up in a cage. That's the best thing for everybody concerned!! His zeal for reformational truth needs to be augmented with sanity in human relations! He sends books, tapes, CD's, DVD's, and e-mails to all unsuspecting victims, regardless of whether or not they have ever shown an interest in these things. Christmas is his favorite time of the year, for he's been eagerly waiting for this opportunity to send R. C. Sproul's book "Chosen by God" to everyone he knows. He's on a mission alright, but the best thing would be for him to cool down for a couple of years in a cage!
However, even with the crazed reformed nut with a gun scenario, you are still making the choice to read this blog article rather than face the contents of the gun. You prefer to read this rather than to feel the impact of the bullet. Even now, you are reading this because you want to - right now you do, anyway. In fact, because this is your strongest inclination, there is no possible way for you to be reading anything else at this moment.
Continue reading "Understanding Free Will" »
Buliding Bridges Conference: Southern Baptists and Calvinism
Streaming audio and/or MP3 podcasts of sessions from the Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism conference, sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministries. The conference, which takes place Nov. 26-28 at LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Center, consists of sessions featuring speakers who address different perspectives of each of the topics listed below.
Buliding Bridges Conference: Southern Baptists and Calvinism <
What Love is This?
"[Arminians] ... say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God ... But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular. Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it's the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done? The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask? - Steve Hays
An illustration that may further shed light on this is as follows:
Two parents see their child run out in the street. A car is coming. The first parent calls out to the child hoping he will get out of the way in time. In other words, he gives him a choice. The second parent on the other hand, due to his love for the child runs out at the risk of His own life, scoops up the child and MAKES CERTAIN his child is not run over.
Even on an earthly level we see that true parental love acts and gets the job done. This kind of intensive love does not stand on the sidelines worried about whether their child's will was violated or not. He cares too much for the child to make his will the deciding factor. Yes the child will believe and trust in his parent, but the parent loves the child first, not because of what he does (conditional acceptance) but because the parent loves the child. Therefore the Arminian tradition has a view of God whose love is conditional while those in the Augustinian tradition see HIs love for His people as unconditional.
To clarify the illustration so you can see how it explicitly explains the two positions:
First of all, both positions believe that Christ died for sinners .... but there are clear differences in what Christ's death actually accomplishes for His children:
1) The Arminian position believes that Christ does a great deal to bring salvation to His people, but His death does not actually secure that salvation. It is not sufficient of itself to save lost people. There is still a requirement that sinners themselves must meet if Christ's death is to be effectual ... in other words, what Christ does for sinners in the Arminian scheme is really conditioned upon man fulfilling another requirement that is in addition to Christ's death ... in this case, faith.
2) The Augustinian position, in contrast, believes that Christ's death and resurrection actually secures the salvation of His people. It is completely sufficient in itself to save sinners. God does require faith of His people but Christ's death even pays for the sin of our unbelief and thus He meets all the requirements necessary for our salvation ... requirements that we were morally impotent to meet ourselves. Thus, Jesus Christ gives His children everything necessary to secure salvation. This is an unconditional love ... salvation by grace alone in Christ alone. Christ pluys nothing. Salvation is not conditioned upon our prior faith but Christ actually secures our faith. The finished work of Christ guarantees that none of his children will be lost.
E-Sword Files
The .top files of my scripture lists on the Doctrines of Grace and the People of God (for use on e-Sword) are now available here. There are also files for similar lists on the Trinity, Knowing Our God, and Knowing Ourselves. If anyone would benefit from them, please feel free to download and use them!
Choosing to Believe and Luther's Bondage of the Will
Visitor:
Hi, I just came across your site, after trying to understand Luther and his ideologies, and something about these quotes confuses me: [after reading this article] If he is saying that accepting Christ as your savior is sufficient to receive God's grace, does he not discount the fact that CHOOSING to accept the sacrifice of Jesus is in and of itself, an action?
Response:
Hi Mike ... Yes, choosing Christ is an action but faith and choice do not spring from an unrenewed heart. God must renew the heart if we are to believe and obey the gospel. Apart from the Holy Spirit no one natually comes to faith in Christ.
The new birth is not a decision you make. Whoever you are, however you came to Jesus Christ, is because God has done a supernatural work of grace in your heart. That is why we pray for unbelievers because they would never come on their own.
Notice the order of grace in the following passage:
Ezekiel 36:25-27 says 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Likewise Jesus teaches that no one can believe in him unless first God grants it (John 6:65) and ALL that God grants will believe (John 6:37). Luther's wrote Bondage of the Will to point out that the Bible teaches that we are morally unable to obey any of God's commands, including the command to believe, apart from a supernatural work of grace in the heart of the unregenerate.
Hope this helps
J.W.H
What the Bible Says about Doctrines of Grace & People of God - Free PDFs
What the Bible Says about THE PEOPLE OF GOD & What the Bible Says about THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE are two very popular items available at Monergism Books. Below we have the free pdf versions so you can get a taste of what content you are getting .... and then, when they least expect it, you can put it into the hands of your unsuspecting Arminian and Dispensationalist friends. Very persuasive!
Note: Unlike the print versions, these versions do not have the Table of Contents
What the Bible Says about THE PEOPLE OF GOD - Pdf Version Here
What the Bible Says about THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE - Pdf Version Here
The Unity of God's Covenant People
To understand the relationship between the Church and Ethnic Israel, I encourage you to first and foremost submit your thinking to the whole counsel of scripture and find your method of interpreting of the Bible from the Bible itself! Wisdom does not come on this issue from extra-biblical sources but rather we must ask the Holy Spirit to help us understand the Word, and, according to the Word, the meaning of the Law and Prophets are found and explained in Jesus Christ.
The Apostle said, "no matter how many promises God has made, they are "yes" in Christ" (2 Cor. 1:20), These very promises are the fulfillment of the covenant blessings promised to Abraham that all the people's of the earth would be blessed through Him. "He redeemed us in order that the blessing promised to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (Galatians 3:14). The kingdom of God is a kingdom only because Jesus is the King who reigns over it and so only those who are united to Christ are members of this kingdom.
Continue reading "The Unity of God's Covenant People" »
Two New Books by Nathan Pitchford
The following are two valuable reference tools newly published by Monergism Books
What the Bible Says about THE PEOPLE OF GOD by Nathan Pitchford
According to historic Dispensational teaching, Israel and the Church are two distinct peoples of God with two distinct destinies. But is this view supported by the testimony of Scripture?
Designed as a reference tool, this booklet succinctly presents the major tenets of Dispensationalism followed by the key Scripture passages that address each tenet. With this simple format, Nathan Pitchford has created a valuable resource for evaluating the merits of Dispensationalism in the light of Scripture. This booklet is a great tool for guiding your own personal study or for engaging in fruitful dialogue with others.
What the Bible Says about THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE: A Categorized Scripture List by Nathan Pitchford
Designed as a reference tool, this booklet succinctly presents the five points of Calvinism followed by the key Scripture passages that support each point. With this simple format, Nathan Pitchford has created a valuable resource for understanding the biblical basis for the doctrines of grace. This booklet is a great tool for guiding your own personal study or for engaging in fruitful dialogue with others.
"Ever since the Serpent first tempted Eve in the garden by casting doubt on God's word and his character as he had revealed himself to her, mankind has always been engaged in the idolatrous pursuit of fashioning a god after his own imagination...There is no cure for this, but to cast off all our prior ideas of who we think God should be, or what we think he should mean when he speaks of his love, his grace, his justice, and his salvation, and to go to his word for all our answers." (from the Introduction)
Monergism Books Launches Major Website Upgrade
We are excited to announce that the new and improved reformed Monergism Books Website is now here! Monergism Books has been completely redesigned, redeveloped, and reformed to provide you with even better service. Just as at Monergism.com, we at Monergism Books are committed to equipping you in the faith by making available the finest classic and contemporary books in the rich tradition of historic Christian orthodoxy.
We encourage you to visit MonergismBooks.com to check out these new and improved features:
>
Customer profile: Now you can save your personal information so that you don’t have to reenter it every time you make a purchase. In addition, your profile will keep track of your purchase history.
Easier browsing: Our products have been completely re-categorized to make it even easier for you to find what you’re looking for. Now you can also browse for titles according to the publisher.
Improved search functions: We now offer an advanced search function in addition to the basic search. Also, search results now display images of the book covers for quicker identification.
Recommendations: Many items now have a section with several related items that you may also like. In addition, each product page displays a list of products also purchased by customers who purchased that product.
Customer reviews: Now you can read what other customers think about a particular item, and you can also post your own reviews for others to read.
Wish list: You can create and save a list of products that you wish to purchase at a later date.
Product ratings: You can rate each product (on a scale of one to five stars) for your own personal reference as a way to record your research and increase the efficiency of your shopping.
Email items to friends: You can now email product pages to a friend to whom you want to recommend certain items.
Affiliate program: As a shopkeeper or blogger, you can now earn store credit for cross selling our products on your website. If customers make purchases on Monergism Books as a result of clicking through a link on your site, you will receive a commission.
Also, be sure to take advantage of our even better price for economy shipping. For only $3.99 we will ship an unlimited number of items (in the continental US).
Please remember that every time you purchase something from Monergism Books, you help support the ministry of Monergism.com. In doing so, you enable us to continue to provide you with an ever-growing number of high quality resources for absolutely free.
When Does God Become 100% For Us? by Dr. John Piper
I have asked the question in public, “When does God become 100% for us?†And I have given an answer that rightly troubles thoughtful, biblical people. So this article is an effort to answer their question.
In my message to the Desiring God National Conference on Sunday, September 30, I answered the question like this:
What the Bible teaches is that God becomes 100% irrevocably for us at the moment of justification, that is, the moment when we see Christ as a beautiful Savior and receive him as our substitute punishment and our substitute perfection. All of God’s wrath, all of the condemnation we deserve, was poured out on Jesus. All of God’s demands for perfect righteousness were fulfilled by Christ. The moment we see (by grace!) this Treasure and receive him in this way his death counts as our death and his condemnation as our condemnation and his righteousness as our righteousness, and God becomes 100% irrevocably for us forever in that instant.
The question this leaves unanswered is, “Doesn’t the Bible teach that in eternity God set his favor on us in election?â€
Continue reading "When Does God Become 100% For Us? by Dr. John Piper" »
I love the Trinity!
I love the Trinity. That's because I love God, and God is a Trinity.
Very few people have a firm grasp of the concept of the Trinity. It is important therefore to determine what we as Christians mean by the term. The doctrine of the Trinity, stated simply is that there is one eternal being of God, and this one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God is therefore one in essense and three in personality.
It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. There is no contradiction though because that is not what is being said at all. There is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what and three who's.
Continue reading "I love the Trinity!" »
Before you convert to Roman Catholicism... (Top Ten List)
At his blog at www.aomin.org, my friend, Dr. James White writes:
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.
Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
Continue reading "Before you convert to Roman Catholicism... (Top Ten List)" »
D.A. Carson on Piper's "The Future of Justification"
"The so-called 'New Perspective on Paul' (NPP) has stirred up enormous controversy, especially, but not exclusively, in the English-speaking world. The issues are so complex that it has taken time to mount a careful evaluation. During the last decade many have undertaken the task, often with helpful contributions. John Piper’s work may not be the last word on the subject, but it brings to Christian leaders everywhere five enormous strengths: (1) By focusing on N. T. Wright, by far the most influential writer of the NPP, Piper brings to bear a badly needed focus. (2) Despite the interlocking complexities of the debate—Tom Wright has an amazing capacity to move theological and exegetical pieces around, creating such a new tableau that words have shifted in meaning and theological notions their conceptual location—Piper has written with admirable clarity. (3) Better yet, John has engaged Tom with simultaneous depth and courtesy. That is a rare but wholly admirable combination. (4) Certain parts of John Piper’s book have quietly broken new ground—not least his handling of “righteousness†and “justification,†their connection with the “gospel,†and his careful insistence that making the words mean different things for the Judge in God’s law-court and for the defendant in that law-court really cannot be sustained in the light of Scripture. (5) John Piper sees the moral and spiritual implications of what he is seeking to explain. Are men and women saved, on the last day, on the basis of the whole life lived? But if not, what is the nature of the connection between justification and good works? The issues are not secondary, and, pastor that he is, John Piper will not allow believers to put their trust in anyone or anything other than the crucified and resurrected Savior."
D. A. Carson
Research Professor of New Testament
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL
From Justin Taylor's Blog, Between Two Worlds
Regeneration T-Shirt
Our T-shirt design contest winner Jake Stutzman produced this cutting edge design for Monergism.com which closely reflects the purpose and mission of our Website. Many of you have written expressing a desire to get one as soon as it comes out. Wait no longer - it is here...
the god of our sentimentality
One thing that makes the Bible so believable is that is does not back down from facing the hard questions about God or human nature. Unfortunately, in order to maintain some sort of hope or dignity in ourselves, we often keep a safe distance from these hard questions. In our various church traditions we tend to avoid looking these uncomfortable questions directly in the eye. Our readings of the Bible are selective and we cherry pick portions that affirm to us what we want God to be like but circumvent the Texts which show characteristics that seem to contradict our imaginary deity. This makes us feel good until reality strikes in the real world and we suffer affliction. Shallow theology will not do in the face of suffering. We need, rather, to sink our roots deep down in the Scriptures as to be ready for any contingency. As it is, what do we do when we face difficulties? Unfortunately, more often than not, we complain ... so today I wish to wrestle with the concept of how we can change our thinking about our lot in life so that we would glorify God by being content in the conditions He has placed us in. We will cover the subject of complaining and murmuring along with God's fairness.
Continue reading "the god of our sentimentality" »
Dispensationalism – Categorized Scripture List
Well, as my previous categorized scripture list on the Doctrines of Grace met with such a favorable reception, I decided to construct another such list, this one pertaining to Dispensationalism. After all, I think both topics are addressed and answered by an abundance of scriptural passages. As before, if any of you should find the complete list with scripture text helpful (and not just the abbreviated version posted here), feel free to comment or e-mail me with a request.
Continue reading "Dispensationalism – Categorized Scripture List" »
Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
Ask yourself, what makes you to differ from your unbelieving neighbor? Is it the grace of Christ alone that saves or is it grace plus your good will? Where did this faith come from? Does it naturally arise in some and not others? Or is your faith itself a working of God's grace to change your heart? Is it something that came forth from our unregenerated human nature? The witness of Scripture would affirm that sinners are, not partly but wholly helpless and impotent in their sin. The Reformers vehemently opposed the synergistic doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church by confessing that God redeems His people by a free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying us in Christ when we exercise faith, but also resurrecting us from spiritual death by His quickening Spirit in order to bring us to faith.
Grace is God's unmerited favor toward undeserving sinners like us. Being unmerited, people can do nothing to obtain it. In other words, grace is not conditioned upon anything God sees in us, like our merit or even our good will. But here is precisely where protests rise from Roman Catholics and even some modern Evangelicals. These complaints, unfortunately, are against one of the central components of the biblical doctrine of regeneration. Note that Evangelicals will, without exception, affirm that they are saved by grace, but many will actually hesitate when they are told that they are saved (regenerated) by "grace alone". It is more than many can bear and often even creates resentment. I know as I have often been the one bearing the brunt of the resentment. This anger arises, most likely, because sola gratia (or grace alone) means that God chooses to save His own prior to any movement of their own will (i.e. we contribute nothing to our salvation). It strips man of any and all hope from himself, including his faith. This is important because if God left men to their boasted will we would all perish, for no poison-filled well, like us, would freely use their polluted will to choose God, for the Scriptures affirm that the natural man hates the light and will not come into it (John 3:19, 20). Therefore, in His great mercy and, in spite of ourselves, God regenerates His people through the work of Christ's grace wrought in us. Exercising faith is our responsibility so, of course, we affirm that all men have a will and make voluntary choices, but since our will is broken and spiritually bankrupt, if we are ever to exercise faith in Jesus Christ it will mean that God must do a supernatural work of grace in our heart to disarm our natural hostility and restore our brokenness lest our hearts remain like stone, and we as a stiff necked people will refuse to come to Jesus Christ. We do not repair ourselves and then believe. Rather, we believe because God has repaired us, has illumined our mind that we might see and believe.
Continue reading "Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)" »
J.I. Packer Interview on Election
What is meant by the phrase "unconditional election"?
Why do we need an election?
Doesn't this detract from our responsibility to respond to the gospel?
If I'm one of the elect, God will save me, and if I'm not, I cannot be saved anyway, so why worry about it?
Isn't foreknowledge the basis of election? Didn't God choose us because he looked down into the future and foresaw that we would believe in him?
Wouldn't it be unfair for God to elect one person to heaven, but then not elect my next-door neighbor?
How essential is this doctrine to our understanding of salvation in general?
Is this something really practical for the Christian and not something that should be left in the seminary classroom for theological debate?
If this doctrine is true, is there any reason to believe that the gospel invitation is genuine?
Read Dr Packer's brief answers to these questions here.
The Five Points of Hyper Calvinism
"Remember, two cardinal rules to debating Calvinism: first, while some Arminians are Armenians and some Armenians are Arminians, Armenians and Arminians are two very different groups. Second, while it's true that some Calvinists can be a bit hyper, that doesn't make them Hyper-Calvinists." - Justin Taylor
According to Timothy George (from his book Amazing Grace: God’s Initiative–Our Response), a Hyper-Calvinist departs from orthodoxy on five key doctrines:
1. Hypers teach the doctrine of eternal justification, which effectively removes human responsibility to respond to the gospel.
2. Hypers deny the free moral agency and responsibility of sinners to repent and believe the gospel.
3. Hypers deny the free offer of the gospel to all people, regardless of whether a person is presumed to be elect or not.
4. Hypers teach that sinners have no warrant to believe in Christ until they feel the evidence of the Spirit’s moving in their hearts–in other words, a sinner needs to be convinced he is elect before he has a right to believe.
5. Hypers deny the universal love of God. Hypers claims that God hates sinners and has no meaningful love for the non-elect.
You will find a very interesting article on these issues by Nathan Finn found here.
Compatibilistic Determinism
Recently I received two questions which were similar in nature:
Question #1) Do compatibilists believe in free will, that is, do they believe we are free from God? I often hear the phrase "compatibilistic freedom".
Question #2) As I research more about the reformed position I come across the subject of determinism and compatibilism being mentioned frequently. I want to learn more about this subject. I tried searching but could not find any books specifically on these subjects. I’m not looking for anything technical, just something the lay person can understand. Please let me now if you are aware of any books that deal with these topics specifically.
I will try to answer both questions in this post....
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...
Continue reading "Compatibilistic Determinism" »
A Survey of the Usage of “Tsedek/Tsedekah†in the Hebrew Old Testament
Introduction
While the issue of authority no doubt underlay the Protestant Reformation, so that the basis upon which men began to question the corruption of Rome was only the “formal principle†of sola scriptura; and while the sole weapon which the Reformers ever wielded against their doctrinal foes was the grammatico-historical hermeneutic; it is no less certain that the one great battlefield upon which the war was waged was constituted of the biblical word groups for “righteousnessâ€: in the Old Testament tsedek/tsedekah, and in the New Testament dikaiosis/dikaiosune. It is no accident that the question of justification, or how a sinner may be declared righteous before a holy God, is the question to which sola scriptura must ultimately give rise: for from the beginning of the scriptures, man’s plight is cast in the direst of terms, and the basic direness is the result of a lack of righteousness, and all the troubling effects to which that condition must succumb, when the righteous Judge appears upon the scene. In other words, the “formal principle†of the Reformation, namely sola scriptura, could not but give rise to its “material principle,†justification by grace alone through faith alone.
Continue reading "A Survey of the Usage of “Tsedek/Tsedekah†in the Hebrew Old Testament" »
Clarifying Some Confusion About "Free Will"
Have you ever heard anyone ask something like "How do we reconcile the fact that God is sovereign but man has a free will"? We need to take a close look at the question itself because it has assumptions that may or may not be be in the Scripture.
First we must ask those who pose this question what they mean by the phrase "free will". We can reveal this simply by asking them, Free from what?... What is it that people are free from?" "Are people free from sin?", are they "Free from God's decree?" No ... in both cases people are not free. Natual people are not free from sin and there is nothing you do that takes God by surprise for He has ordained all things that come to pass (Eph 1:11) There are no maverick molecules which act independently from God, as R.C. Sproul says, where God might say "I did not know such and such would take place". Nor does anything happen by chance, as if chance were some other competing force in the universe that is outside God's control.
So what do you think people actually mean when they boldly assert man has a free will? Perhaps what persons mean to say is that man is free from external coersion. That his choices are voluntary. In this people of all sides of this issue can agree (even hard determinists), but just because someone is free in one sense (from coersion in this case) does not mean his will is free in another. He is not free from sin nor is He free to do other than what God has determined he will do. Yes, man voluntarily chooses what he will do, but this is compatible with God's sovereignty and meticulous providence (Gen 50:20; Acts 2:23).
Consider, if the natural man sins by NECESSITY (not coersion) then he also lacks freedom. The will or affections are not free from the bondage of sin. Also we must, above all, consider whether the Bible uses the expression 'freedom' to describe any fallen, unregenerate man. Since the Bible never uses this expression or even alludes to the concept that man has a free will (but actually teaches the opposite), the question originally posed has false assumptions which are alien to the text (our only authority in such matters). Here's why:
Continue reading "Clarifying Some Confusion About "Free Will"" »
A Thought on Penal Substitution
It is a tragedy of the highest degree that so many theologians today are emphasizing such models of the atoning work of the Savior as Christus Victor to the minimization of penal substitution. The tragedy is not that the reality of Christ's conquering Satan through his work on the cross is acknowledged or even emphasized, but rather that this idea is passed off to some degree as mutually exclusive of his bearing his people's sins, and undergoing the just wrath of the Father in their place. The Serpent's enmity against God has ever been waged in terms of tempting his children to sin, and thus barring them from his holy presence; and the final defeat of the enemy was won by a Substitute who found a way to reconcile them again to God, without compromising his righteousness. The weapon which destroyed the forces of darkness is only the spear which pierced Jesus' side as he hung upon the cross in the place of his people. Take that weapon away, and you may talk all you want to of how Jesus won a victory against Satan on the cross, but the victory becomes nothing but hollow words. I can't help but think that the Devil laughs at all those who make a great show of announcing his defeat, but forget the sin-bearing nature of the Lamb of God, who took away the sin of the world by being lifted up as a curse. But mention Golgotha as the place where the Messiah bore the wrath of God, and in our place was lifted up to die, and he must flee in terror, acknowledging his final failure to accomplish his antagonistic designs. Jesus made an open show of the rulers of darkness, triumphing over them by his blood, when he took the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14-15). That is what we must ultimately emphasize, or we have cut away the very foundation of every other claim that we might make about what transpired on Calvary.
Monergism Books: 3rd Annual Banner of Truth Mega Sale
Works Of John Owen-16 Vol Set ; The Works of Jonathan Edwards ; Works of Richard Sibbes:The Works of John Bunyan ;D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Romans 14 Volume Set:Works of Flavel ;Exposition of Hebrews by John Owen ;Works of Thomas Brooks;Puritan Paperback Bundle
The Divine Intention of the Cross by Pastor John Samson
What was God's intention in sending His Son to die on the cross? What did Jesus actually accomplish on the cross? Who did He accomplish it for? Updated article here.
Doctrines of Grace – Categorized Scripture List
God has recently given us the opportunity to discuss some theological issues with other Christians who believe differently than we do on a number of points, most notably the doctrines of grace. In such a circumstance, given the overwhelming supply of scriptural evidence that comes to bear on the topic, it seemed to me that the best approach would be a simple categorized scripture list: the fact that the entire paper would be scriptures, with the exception of a few brief explanatory notes, would underscore the truth that this is God's own word and teaching; and the fact that it would be categorized would facilitate the ready comparison of scripture with scripture so as to lead one to a full-orbed understanding of the biblical teaching. Although I found a few good scripture lists of that nature available online, none of them was laid out in quite the progression that I was looking for, and so I developed my own. I'm posting it here with just the scripture references, but if anyone should find the list with the full text already printed out useful for a similar study, I would be glad to e-mail the file. Just leave a comment or contact me by e-mail.
Continue reading "Doctrines of Grace – Categorized Scripture List" »
Who is Israel?
Interesting article by Michael Horton found here.
The Sufficiency of Christ's Obedience in His Life and Death by John Piper
When we teach that our right standing with God is attained through the imputation of Christ’s obedience to our account (Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4:6, 11; 10:3), does this imply that the work of Christ on the cross—his final suffering and death—is insufficient for our justification?
Romans 3:24-25: “[They] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood.â€
Romans 4:25: “[He] was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.â€
Romans 5:9: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.â€
Galatians 2:21: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.â€
To see the answer, we might ask a similar question concerning the forgiveness of sins. In other words, let us ask: Does the insistence upon Jesus’ sinless life imply that the work of Christ as the spotless Lamb of God on the cross is insufficient for the canceling of the debt of our sins? Our sins being cancelled and forgiven is connected most directly to the death of Christ. For example:
Continue reading "The Sufficiency of Christ's Obedience in His Life and Death by John Piper" »
JONATHAN EDWARDS' 'THE EXCELLENCY OF CHRIST'- Edited by Charles R. Biggs
Dear Beloved in Christ,
In my reading and study, I am oftentimes reminded of what C. S. Lewis said one time concerning the reading of old books. In essence, Lewis wrote that for every new book we read, we ought to read at least three old ones. What he wanted to communicated wisely to the Church was that the reading of old books takes us out of our culture and religious "present-tense" context and allows us to see a clearer and bigger picture of the teaching of Scripture without being hindered by the biases and narrowness of our present cultural milieu or context.
Recently, as I was studying and praying generally for the future of Christ's Church, and considering more specifically gaining wisdom with regard to how to pastor Christ's people, I came across a discourse, or study written by Jonathan Edwards in the early 18th century. Jonathan Edwards was a great and godly preacher of God's Word, and was perhaps the finest and most able theologian America has ever produced!
The discourse or study is entitled 'The Excellency of Christ'. The study struck me deeply in my heart and mind because it helped me to reflect on the glory of God in the incarnation, but perhaps even more practically, it helped me to think of how Christ builds and matures His Church in a way consistent with the incarnation, yet paradoxical with regards to the ways and methods of the world.
Continue reading "JONATHAN EDWARDS' 'THE EXCELLENCY OF CHRIST'- Edited by Charles R. Biggs" »
The Advance of the Kingdom
The following notes were taken from power point slides, which were used for a series of ten sermons delivered by Pastor Dave Hayton, at Martin Baptist Church. They give a brief overview of the basic message of the biblical story from Genesis to Revelation. I trust that they will be as helpful for many of you as they were for me, when I first heard them.
Continue reading "The Advance of the Kingdom" »
Whosoever Will May Come
On his blog, Vincent Cheung writes: The following is an edited email correspondence.
When I speak to my parents and pastor, it is typical for them to bring up the line "whosoever will may come" as the statement that somehow proves man's free will and refutes the idea that salvation comes from God alone.
One of the most frequent fallacies that people commit is the fallacy of irrelevance. Therefore, whenever we come across an argument or objection that supposedly refutes what Scripture teaches, sometimes it suffices to simply ask, "So what?"
Like many of the objections from Arminians, this one entirely misses the point. Perhaps they have in mind Revelation 22:17, which says, "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (KJV). Since this is what God says, we readily agree with it, but then what? Who will actually come? It does not tell us. Or, to be more precise, why does anyone decide to come? What is the metaphysical and spiritual cause behind the person's decision and his change in disposition? That is the question. The statement from Revelation, or any other "whosoever" statement for that matter, tells us only about what is available to or what will happen to the person who comes. It does not tell us why anyone would come, or why a person comes when he does.
Here is something that I wrote in Born Again, my exposition of John 3:
I can say, "Whoever becomes a fish can breath under water." The statement is true, but it does not mean that a person can become a fish anytime he wishes. In fact, any inference about one's ability is strictly invalid, since the statement contains no information about ability except for the fish's ability to breath under water. Whether or not it is possible for a person to become a fish, one can infer nothing about it from the statement itself, but it only informs us as to what would happen to a person who turns into a fish.
Continue reading "Whosoever Will May Come" »
The Purity of New Covenant Membership as a Defense of Credo-Baptism
Some of you may wonder, "Why even post on such a controversial topic, when many godly men and qualified exegetes may be found on both sides of the question?" I agree that there are other more important issues on which we should expend the bulk of our energies; but baptism is a precious sign from God, and its importance should not be diminished, either. So when a Baptist friend of mine asked for some feedback on an article he had written defending credo-baptism (the link to his article is at the bottom of this post), I decided to post my response here, as well. I trust that any dialogue may be useful in helping all of us grow up to greater doctrinal maturity, and will be employed with love and an acknowledgement of our unity in the gospel.
Although many credo-baptists will base their argumentation on the fact that every clear New Testament example of baptism follows a confession of faith, there are some who recognize the problem with this argument, namely, that while it is helpful and gives clear exemplary warrant for the practice to be followed in like cases for the church today, it does not provide any example to be followed for the case in question: what do we do with the children of believers. If we had a clear New Testament example for this situation, the debate would be effectually over. But as it is, we are forced to bring other scriptural data to bear on a question which is not explicitly addressed in the bible. Recognizing this shortcoming of exemplary New Testament texts, these Baptist apologists have largely based their arguments on the prophesied difference between the Old and New Covenants, with respect to the purity of their respective membership. On a number of points, they are to be commended; for first, they have recognized the need for additional biblical evidence; and second they have sought this additional evidence in the right place – they have honed in on the true locus of the debate. The strands of evidence we must employ, in the pursuit of a biblical stance on the baptism issue, have ultimately to do with the nature of the New Covenant, and the quality of its members.
Continue reading "The Purity of New Covenant Membership as a Defense of Credo-Baptism" »
Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture
Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture
With Four Examples of Doctrinal Errors that Arise When this Key is not Used.
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." (John 5:39, 40)"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" - (1 Tim 2:5)
"The Scriptures should be read with the aim of finding Christ in them. Whoever turns aside from this object, even though he wears himself out all his life in learning, he will never reach the knowledge of the truth." - John Calvin
I have recently had the privilege of reading a phenomenal book that I highly recommend to all teachers of the Word. That book was Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy. Its thesis is simple: the Gospel (or, Jesus Christ) is the Key to all Christian Hermeneutics. During the course of reading, his focus got me to thinking about its antithesis which would be that almost all errors and inconsistencies in our understanding of Bible texts occur when our interpretation