Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones And Heretics

Have you ever wondered how people can go so awry in their doctrine? How they can be familiar with the Gospel yet reject it and still use the Bible to support their departure from the truth? How these men and women can be so "sincere", "loving", "nice" and "gentle" and teach doctrines of demons as, Paul warned: "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons..."(1 Ti 4:1). I, too, have wondered this and have come to some conclusions but Lloyd Jones elaborates and gives us a very sobering explanation:

"Very well; it is obviously important that we should approach this Book in the right manner. We must start by agreeing that merely to read the Bible is not enough in and of itself. It is possible for us to read the Bible in such a mechanical manner that we derive no benefit from doing so. That is why I think we have to be careful with every kind of rule and regulation in the matter of discipline in the spiritual life. It is a good thing to read the Bible daily, but it can be quite profitless if we merely do so for the sake of being able to say we read the Bible daily. I am a great advocate of schemes of Bible reading, but we have to be careful that in our use of such schemes we are not content just to read the portion for the day and then to rush off without thought and meditation. That can be quite profitless. Our approach to the Bible is something which is of vital importance.

Now the Bible itself tells us this. You remember the apostle Peter's famous remark with regard to the writings of the apostle Paul. He says that there are things in them which are `hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest . . . unto their own destruction'. What he means is this. They read these Epistles of Paul, yes; but they are twisting them, they are wresting them to their own destruction. You can easily read these Epistles and be no wiser at the end than you were at the beginning because of what you have been reading into what Paul says, wresting them to your own destruction. Now that is something which we must always bear in mind with regard to the whole of the Bible. I can be seated with the Bible in front of me; I can be reading its words and going through its chapters; and yet I may be drawing a conclusion which is quite false to the pages in front of me.

There can be no doubt at all that the commonest cause of all this is our tendency so often to approach the Bible with a theory. We go to our Bibles with this theory, and everything we read is controlled by it. Now we are all quite familiar with that. There is a sense in which it is true to say that you can prove anything you like from the Bible. That is how heresies have arisen. The heretics were never dishonest men; they were mistaken men. They should not be thought of as men who were deliberately setting out to go wrong and to teach something that is wrong; they have been some of the most sincere men that the Church has ever known. What was the matter with them? Their trouble was this: they evolved a theory and they were rather pleased with it; then they went back with this theory to the Bible, and they seemed to find it everywhere. If you read half a verse and emphasize over-much some other half verse elsewhere, your theory is soon proved. Now obviously this is something of which we have to be very wary. There is nothing so dangerous as to come to the Bible with a theory, with preconceived ideas, with some pet idea of our own, because the moment we do so, we shall be tempted to overemphasize one aspect and under-emphasize another." 

Theology matters. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Kindle Locations 87-89). Kindle Edition. 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Kindle Locations 78-87). Kindle Edition. 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Kindle Locations 70-78). Kindle Edition. 

John 3:1-8: Breaking It Down

The first verse is self-evident; we might suppose all the rest to be so, but it is worth taking a closer look:

So, at this one time, Nicodemus came to Jesus to proclaim that which He believed about Jesus, and notice that which the leader of the Pharisees proclaims about our Lord:

“You are a teacher, come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”

Ah, how perceptive! He distinguishes our Lord as a teacher come from God, without giving any more understanding of Him than that – such a teacher would be one who performs signs, and this we know our Lord did, from the ending of chapter 2: “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing” (John 2:23). That such a teacher was from God is distinguished by the signs that that teacher did, and so, this might be a way of saying that he believed Jesus to be another of God’s prophets, but notice what he didn’t say, which Nathanael had said when simply confronted with our Lord’s seeing Him under the fig tree in chapter 1: Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel” (John 1:49)!

So, while giving our Lord a distinguished status because of the signs done by Him, this leader of the Jews did not have the recognition of Him afforded to one much less learned than he, and in essence, showed that understanding that Nathanael had spoken of (Can anything good come out of Nazareth?[before confessing what he did upon meeting the Lord]) – it was common knowledge among the Jews, regardless of station, status, or learning, that the Messiah would come out of Bethlehem, and that one of these men recognized Jesus as the Son of God, the King of Israel, was not out of character with that expectation: remember, our Lord’s disciples fully expected Him to restore Israel to it’s former glorious status as the conquering Messiah, and this never stopped until after the crucifixion and resurrection; still, this leader of the Jews did not afford our Lord such status even now, after seeing the signs He had done, for signs alone have never led any to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the great King spoken of in the prophets – that is the point of this discourse between our Lord and Nicodemus – there must be that divine intervention of the triune God, to take a man from spiritual death to spiritual life, of which we learn the Spirit’s work in these verses.

The signs that Jesus did are not described, but that they were of a character which led Nicodemus to believe that God is with Jesus in certain – it may be that our Lord was doing that which He often did: healing the sick, casting out demons – but we are not told; we are only told that they were of enough significance to show that Nicodemus, as the leader of the Pharisees, said they believed (at this point) that God was with our Lord, not that our Lord was God.

In responding to Nicodemus’ assertion, Jesus not only does not answer his statement, He refutes it, in part: He IS God the Son, and this has not been recognized by Nicodemus; secondly, our Lord addresses the reason why Nicodemus has not recognized who He is – He states the absolute necessity of being born again to even see the kingdom of God. This seeming ignoring of Nicodemus’ assertion is nothing of the sort, as our Lord is teaching him what it needed to recognize that which leads to eternal life – He is addressing the assertion, refuting the part of it that does not have to do with seeing the kingdom of God, and making His own assertion that is strictly of God, which allows a person to have access to the proper view of the kingdom of God. This corrects the basic assumption of Nicodemus, which was shared by all the Jews, both learned and unlearned alike, for they thought the kingdom of God would be established on their behalf, taking the yoke of the oppressors off them, and restoring them to their former glory as the most prominent nation on earth, with whom God’s special favor rested.

In this first part of His teaching, our Lord is correcting this assumption, as well – the kingdom of God is not to be of simply the nation Israel, restoring them to political and economical power as the preeminent nation upon which God’s favor rests. It is necessary for this assumption to be refuted, for the Jews, and especially their leaders, thought themselves already favored by God, despite the abundance of evidence of the prophecies of the Prophets having been fulfilled, as to their disobedience to His laws, their continual idolatry and adultery, etc.

Looking through the record of all the things God had brought upon them, how they could still consider themselves God’s favored people was based solely on Scripture, but they had missed the one thing that would have ensured that favor when it came: the necessity for atonement to be made for the people, that their sins would be forgiven forever, by the very Messiah they waited for! Theirs was a conquering Messiah-King who would extinguish their enemies and reinstate the law and priesthoods and all that had to do with what they wanted, even though they had continually provoked Him to anger, and after all, hadn’t He restored them before? Hadn’t He promised them a king after the line, or from the line of David, that would rule them forever in righteousness?

Of course, they missed that the Messiah would be the literal fulfilling of those things which were but a shadow and type of He who was to come – if they had recognized this, they would have understood the Psalms, writings and Prophets which spoke of the suffering Lamb of God: and hadn’t His forerunner already called Him that?

How, then, could they mistake the parallel of which the Baptist spoke?

Because they looked for a new heart through the simple giving of it; a new spirit that would be theirs simply because God promised them it would be so – they completely overlooked the necessity of the need for their sins to be atoned for, and indeed, for many of them, this would not be so, as we shall see further in this study.

So, Jesus addresses this lack, which is in all men – this lack which cannot be met by any seeking, any searching, for it is the very lack of that which will seek and search for God: a new life imparted (Romans 3:9-12; 6:4; 8:11-17). This new life is the regeneration of the dead in sin spirit, literally represented, in our references, as dying with the literal death of Christ, and being made alive as the literal resurrection of Christ. This not only gives us new life now, it is a forerunner of that promise of the new bodies we shall have when He comes again, to judge the world (1 Corinthians 15:20-58).

Before that great and glorious day when our Lord returns to collect His elect from the four corners of the earth (Matthew 24:31), we who are Christ’s will already know of that eternal life which He has given us to have, not by our choosing, but by His working (Romans 9:16) – God, in His magnificent mercy towards those He has chosen to show forth the riches of His grace in Christ Jesus, does this work completely, effectively, and without the aid of anything of man, and here we see the working of the third Person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit.

Read through the passage, then read it again – you will find nothing whatsoever about the so-called “free will of man” in it, but the free will of God, the free will of the Spirit, which we cannot even tell from where He comes or where He goes in this work – man is never mentioned as anything in this section of Scripture but as the recipient of the magnificent work of the Spirit of God, and the result is that, just as Christ took on the sins of the elect, so His life is given to us – not literally, as in God the Son living in us, though we put it that way, and it is correct to say so; however, this means that we are given to have our dead in sins spirit reborn into the likeness of that very sinless human spirit our Lord had as a man – it is, as we observed, literally, “a new life imparted.”

Ever Heard Of George Smeaton?

He was a nineteenth century Scottish theologian. A great one, too. He wrote two books on the atonement of Christ- The Doctrine of the Atonement, As Taught by Christ Himself and The Doctrine of the Atonement, As Taught by the Apostles. Both are great expositions of penal substitutionary atonement and a defense of it. If you're not familiar with George Smeaton, you probably should be. Here is a snippet from one of his books:

"Yet many in these days who exalt the inner life at the expense of true and proper doctrine, are not slow to say that it is indifferent whether the death of Christ be regarded as the procuring cause and ground of pardon, or as the mere assurance of it. They will not inquire how the atonement was effected; they avoid the definition of terms and all biblical precision of thought, as if it could be of little moment to a Christian, whether the death of Jesus is considered as a vicarious sacrifice, or an expression of divine love,—whether it display the evil of sin, or merely stand for a solemn revocation of the Old Testament sacrifices. They will have it, that these points are but theological debates or human speculations, from which they do well to stand aloof in the discussion of the doctrine. That is a process of unlearning, or of leaving all in uncertainty, which does not spring from a commendable zeal for truth, but from a wish to blunt its edge; and it is tantamount to saying, that there is in Scripture no doctrine on the subject. This is the watchword of a tendency which is adverse to clearly-defined views of doctrine or of Scripture truth.

The very reverse of this is our duty. We must acquire, as much as lies in us, sharply-defined ideas on the atonement from the gospels themselves; which, in our judgment, are by this very topic far elevated above all mere human wisdom. Whatever cannot be asserted from the Scriptures, or is overthrown by their teaching, can easily be spared; and we are willing to dismiss it. But we must collect whatever is really taught, comparing text with text, and the less obvious testimonies with the more easy and perspicuous, if we would think our thoughts with God.

Nor is it less common for another school to allege in our day, that the death of Jesus was rather His fate or fortune than a spontaneous oblation, in the proper sense. These writers will make Christ fall a victim to His holy and ardent zeal, while preaching religious and moral truth, and discharging a high commission as the Herald of forgiveness. His death thus becomes a merely historical event or an occurrence; which, however, it is alleged was the occasion of giving a weighty confirmation to that declaration of absolute forgiveness of which He was the preacher. That is an insipid half truth, which is seemingly right and essentially wrong. It will offer a certain spiritual phase to those who are hostile to the vicarious sacrifice, and who will see nothing but love in God. They view Jesus as a mere preacher or herald of salvation, but not as a veritable Saviour in the full sense of the term. They will go farther than this, and will extol Him as the Prince of Life, and as its Dispenser; but it is life unconnected with the price paid, or the ransom offered. And the prominence given to Christ’s example, or to the pattern of His life, is never free from a certain influence that operates like a snare. We shall try this view, which has many pretensions to spirituality, by the explicit testimonies of our Lord Himself. But, meanwhile, we indicate the danger from which it is not free. It never brings off the mind from legality, from self-reliance, and self-dependence. It perverts the spiritual life and the example of the Lord to be a ground, if not a boldly avowed argument, for fostering a certain self-justifying confidence. That is the vortex, within the attraction of which every school is drawn irresistibly, that offers no objective atonement, or perfect plea on which the soul can lean. Nothing so effectually carries off the mind from self-dependence as the atonement,—nothing so exalts grace and humbles the sinner; and on this account, God appointed that acceptance and forgiveness of sin should not be given without a Mediator, and without a dependence upon His merits. Hence the jealousy of the apostles and of all Scripture on this point. The apparent spirituality of any tendency will be no compensation for this hazard" (George Smeaton, "The doctrine of the atonement, As taught by Christ Himself (Second Edition) (17–19). 

Sounds like he was refuting the Emergent Church before it ever existed, doesn't it?  That's because this heresy has been around for a long time and changes form, name and leaders but still is a departure from the Gospel. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Why I Am A Credobaptist

There are several reasons why I am a Credobaptist but the one I wish to deal with stands out from among the others. Anyone informed of the subject should be aware of the Credobaptist arguments that there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible (admitted by Paedobaptists) and that communion and baptism go hand in hand.

The third argument is the one I wish to address in this piece. I do so because I have observed that many young men who first embrace Reformed soteriology, and are baptistic, tend to study the subject of baptism and notice that the vast majority of the greatest theological minds in the history of the Church, were Paedobaptists. Not only that but the roots of infant baptism are many and go very deep. With this observation in mind, many usually swallow all that the Reformers held. They dive head first into the fount of paedobaptism because they believe (many baptists make this error as well) covenant theology ultimately leads to infant baptism. Of course I don't believe that to be the case at all. In fact, I believe it is the exact opposite.

What seems to overwhelm some is how many people- theological giants- have adhered to paedobaptism. Yet what often gets overlooked is how they have disagreed amongst themselves for the theological reasons why infants should be baptized! This is the third point many of us Credobaptists will point out. This is the one I focus on in this article. As Neville Clark writes, "from the earliest times infant baptism has been a practice in search of a theology; in many quarters it is still so today."  It seems strangely odd that the reason(s) for infant baptism have evolved over time, especially, for a position that champions the historicity of it. Even Louis Berkhof admits, "Reformed theologians did not all agree in the past, and are not even  now all unanimous, in their representation of the ground of infant baptism" (Systematic Theology p. 639). What an admission and it validates Neville Clark's point. It seems that once paedobaptism was administered in the Church, the theological reasons for it evolved. It's still "a practice in search of a theology." Ask a Lutheran why they baptize infants and you will get a different theological reason from, say, a Presbyterian.

 J. M. Pendleton points out: " How contradictory! How antagonistic! It seems that infants are baptized that they may be saved- that they may be regenerated- because they have faith, because their parents are believers- because they are involved in original sin- and because they are holy- because they ought to be brought into the church- and because they are in the church by virtue of their faith- and because of their 'personal connection' with Christ, in consequence of His assumption of human nature" (Three Reasons Why I am a Baptist p. 75) Why such a wide spectrum of reasons for infant baptism?

Zwingli did not like all the reasons for infant baptism that came before he developed his covenantal view (which was adopted and modified by the Reformed Paedobaptists ). He writes, "In this matter of baptism- if I may be pardoned  for saying it- I can conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles" (De Baptismo. Cited in Jeffery Johnson, The Fatal Flaw). It seems that Zwingli did not like the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholic Church and it's ex opere operato (by the fact of the action performed), nor did he like Augustine's view of baptismal regeneration through the faith of the church, nor Luther's view that baptism "worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe" (Luther's Small Catechism p. 242) through the faith of the infants themselves. Rejecting those views but still holding to infant baptism, Zwingli went on to develope the "exernal" view of baptism, relating it to circumcision in the Old Testament.

This is the position that has been expounded on, as some were not comfortable with baptism being only an external sign. The Westminster Divines believed that baptism is also a seal which confers grace, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time" (WCF ch. XXVIII article VI).


This evolution of paedobaptism is of much concern to me. It certainly rings true that "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology." Many of our Paedobaptist brothers quicly point to the historicity of it and how a great majority of brilliant theologians embraced it. Yet I concur with John Tombes, "The assessors of infant baptism little agree among themselves, upon the foundation they may build infant baptism. Cyprian and others of the ancients draw it from the universality of divine grace, and the necessity of baptism to salvation. Augustine, Bernard, and others, bring the faith of the church as the reason of baptizing infants. Others, among whom is the Catechism in the English Liturgy, put as the reason of infant baptism, the promise of sureties, in the place of the faith and repentance of the baptized. The Lutherans, the faith of the infant; others, the holiness of a believing nation; others, the faith of the next parent in covenant in a gathered church. This difference of the maintainers of infant baptism, deservedly casts doubt concerning the thing itself" (Cited in Gary Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism p.8). This is a  reason why I am a Credobaptist.

Finally, let me say that I do not wish to make this a divisive issue. We here at the blog love our Paedobaptist brethren. We sit at their feet and learn much from them. They are our teachers and we their students. We simply disagree with them on baptism. We hope and pray they will extend us the same love and respect in light of our disagreement. We must remember that we stand united as brothers and sisters in Christ because of the glorious Gospel that bears His name. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Why Deal With False Teaching?

"And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete" (1 Jn 1:4).


There are numerous reasons for responding to false teachers and false teaching but the one that I wish to deal with is because it robs believers of their joy. False teaching often causes people to doubt the Gospel of Christ (there is no joy apart from it) in some fashion and can lead them into dangerous teachings that are a departure from the truth. And when a believer wanders or is exposed to doctrinal error, doubts tend to arise about the content of the Gospel and they are often left confused and joyless.In another manner, false teachers often use common Christian language but blatantly or subtly redefine the terminology. This results in many being left in a state of confusion, while others know something is amiss yet can't quite put their finger on it. Hence, it becomes quite a joyless time listening to someone when you feel as if you cannot quite trust what they are teaching about Christ, man and salvation.

The book of 1 John was written for precisely this reason. Many had been exposed to false teaching about Christ (denying His humanity and that He is the Christ: 1:1-3 4:2, 2:22), sin (teaching sinless perfectionism: 1:8-9) among other errors. The Apostle in his pastoral love for his "little children," writes to assure them of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, specifically, because he wants to maintain their fellowship (with him and the Father and Son) and, therefore, their joy to be complete. In order for this to be done John had to deal with the false teaching. He pointed out specifics in doctrinal heresy while reminding them of the pure Gospel.

Doctrinal error never goes away on its own. It must always be confronted and exposed with its proponents. This is the divine mandate in Scripture: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jud 3–4) and the consistent testimony of church history.To tolerate unbiblical teaching  for a moment is to invite confusion and joylessness among the people of God. This why Paul says: "Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you" (Ga 2:4–5). You would be surprised at how many N.T. books were written to refute false teachers and their doctrine. 

When men and women stand up for the truth of God's Word it's because they understand what is at stake. Their love for Christ and the brethren moves them to action. They are only doing what they have been commanded to do by their King. Sadly, they are viewed as being "divisive" from some of the very people they are trying to protect. They love the brethren. Something that is an identifying mark of a true Christian. Yet, those claiming to love the brethren are deceiving them and convincing many unbelievers that they are apart of God's people by some other means other than the Gospel of Christ; they are given a free pass because they know how to emotionally manipulate people. However, it is they that hate true believers that embrace the biblical Gospel, preach it, defend it and call out those that pervert it.

J. Gresham Machen wrote: "... the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology." 

The joy of believers is in jeopardy when false teaching prevails. It cannot be ignored and must be dealt with. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Dealing With Emergent Proof Texts: Mark 2:5

 "And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mk 2:5).

It's been a long week. Work has been very busy and tiring and is the reason for the lack of articles on the blog. But manual labor is a blessing from the Lord. I get to dwell on Him and reflect on His Word. This week Mark 2:5 has been on my mind because I have read the Emergent take on it- distorted and completely wrong. I have moved past the point of wondering if they care about context because it has become obvious that it is irrelevant to them. But for those that are exposed to their teaching I feel it necessary to deal with their proof-texts.

According to the Emergent types Mark 2:5 is supposed to teach that God can forgive anyone apart from any recognition of sinfulness in the sinner. That one need not even believe in the deity of Christ. God can even forgive people on the basis of someone else's faith and that all one needs to do to be forgiven is to come to Jesus for any need (some Emergent types may disagree within themselves). Believe that He can help or deliver you from whatever your problem is: emotional suffering, depression, a physical need e.t.c. and "follow" Him and you will be forgiven and have a "better way of living." According to them Mark 15:2 is clear proof. Allegedly the paryletic was forgiven of his sins without acknowledging that he was a sinner in need of forgiveness and without even looking for it; he received it on the basis of his friends faith.

The problem the Emergent folks come against is context. The immediate context as well as the whole Word of God. So let's take a look at the context of Mark 2:5. It is not as if the idea of sin and man's need to recognize his own sinfulness, before a Holy God, is absent from Mark. He starts his gospel account off with that very idea! Mark 1:4-5- "John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.  And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Here Mark records for us that John the Baptist, the forerunner to the King, is preparing the way for Christ with the proclamation of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Note how it is also written that the people were confessing their sins.    Then we find the Lord also proclaiming repentance and faith in Him- "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:14–15). This has to be accounted for when dealing with Mark 2:5. It's all there- sin, faith, repentance and forgiveness.

With that in mind, we now come to Mark 2. What exactly is drawing such a loud crowd to the Lord? It  was the miracles He performed accompanied by His message- "And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee" (Mk 1:26–28). This is precisely what we find the Lord doing in Mark 2. He is "preaching the word" to a large crowd (Mark 2:2). When Mark says that Christ was preaching the Word to them, there is no doubt that the Lord is preaching about Himself (the same message He arrived with (Mk. 1:14-15). This message would include sin, repentance, faith and forgiveness of sins with forgiveness made only possible through His law keeping life, substitutionary death in place of sinners and victorious resurrection - "And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk. 24:25-27). This is the "word" Christ was preaching to the crowd.


Then we find the faith and actions of the paralyzed man's friends that resulted in the Lord forgiving the man on account of "their" faith. Now, it is not probable that his friends took him against his will, thus, it is most likely that "their" faith included the man's as well. But the emphasis is not on the healing but Christ's authority to forgive sins. The healing only comes after Jesus forgives the man and that to validate His deity. But why does He forgive the man's sins when Mark seems to only record that he was brought forth to be healed? To answer that I will defer to New Testament Scholar R.T. France from his commentary on Mark (NIGTC):

"Mark clearly believed that Jesus dealt with the condition of the paralytic by focusing first on his sins, and that in some way the forgiveness of sin and physical healing were interrelated (vv. 9–11). Nor would this have been so surprising to his original readers as it may be to us, since a link between illness and sin runs through much of biblical literature, as well as being widespread in the ancient world. In many OT texts healing and forgiveness are so closely related that it is hard to tell whether the language of healing is meant to be understood of physical illness or metaphorically for restored spiritual health (e.g., Pss. 41:4; 103:3; Is 53:4–6), but sometimes physical healing is clearly related to forgiveness of sin (2 Ch. 7:13–14; Is. 38:16–17) just as physical suffering can be attributed to the sin of the sufferer (Nu. 12:9–15; 2 Ch. 26:16–21) or indeed to sin in the community (2 Sa. 24:10–15). That suffering is the result of sin in the general sense that the world’s evils are traced to the Fall would have been generally agreed, but the Book of Job testifies to a strong reaction against the view that the suffering of an individual must necessarily be the result of his or her own sin. A similar balance is maintained in the NT, with some suffering and death being attributed to the specific sin of those concerned (Jn. 5:14; Acts 5:1–11; 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 Jn. 5:16), while in other places such a direct connection is denied (Lk. 13:1–5; Jn. 9:2–3; 2 Cor. 12:7; Gal. 4:13–14).
The link between healing and forgiveness in this case is clear, but the nature of the connection is more obscure. The explicit link in v. 10 is that the physical healing proves the authority of the Son of Man to forgive; otherwise healing and forgiveness are mentioned side by side without explicitly making the one dependent on the other. Even the comparison in v. 9 of the relative ‘easiness’ of the declaration of forgiveness and the healing command is left in the form of a question. Since Jesus did not normally preface a healing with a declaration of forgiveness, there must be some special reason for introducing the issue in this case. Three seem worth considering: (1) that Jesus was aware that this man’s illness, unlike others, was directly attributable to his sin; (2) that the patient so understood it (whether rightly or wrongly), and so was looking for more than physical relief; (3) that Jesus, intent on raising the issue of his authority with the scribes, took this opportunity to do so, even though it was not strictly necessary to the case. Of these, (3) sounds improbably artificial, especially in view of the lack of any indication hitherto that Jesus intended to invite confrontation; his withdrawal from public notice in 1:35–38, 45 rather suggests the opposite. Both (1) and (2) depend on access to the minds of the actors which the narrative does not allow us; either is plausible, but each must be speculative."

To put it simply- the man and his friends understood to correlation between sin and illness- whether he understood his own illness to be a result of his own personal sin(s) is not clear but the association between sin and suffering is clear. The man wanted to be forgiven of his sins and healed. Though it is not explicitly stated the man wanted forgiveness of sins, the context demands this understanding. Are we to assume that the man did not think He was a sinner in need of grace and mercy?

We can put the icing on the cake if we just follow the flow of context when we continue to read further in the chapter and we come to this statement from the Lord: "And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mk 2:16–17). Please note the language of "physician," "sick" and "sinners." This should sound familiar because He just demonstrated it in Mark 2:5-12!

If the Emergent crowd spent more time studying the context and less time listening to what their leaders say about these passages, they would suffer less embarrassment when caught in their manipulation of the Holy Writ. But, then again, this is all contingent on a desire for the truth of God's Word and not an agenda to re-define Christianity. Sure there is an awful lot of talk about the "good news," "sin," "grace," "repentance," "faith," and "salvation" but they have their own definitions. Make no mistake about that.

"“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mk 2:17). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

"Don't Call It A Comeback"

A great book edited by Kevin DeYoung and has eighteen other contributing authors. I just purchased it today and have only read one of DeYoung's chapters; already I'm a bit excited about the rest. The book is focused on doctrine (half the chapters on this issue) and putting this doctrine in practice (the other chapters deal with this matter). Sound doctrine results in Christ honoring living- definitely my kind of literature. The following are some appetizing quotes:

"I don’t know whose fault it was, if it was anyone’s, but I remember staying awake into the wee hours thinking “I can’t articulate what I believe and why I believe it.” I felt a bit embarrassed that after all those years I still didn’t have a good grasp on some of the most foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. Looking back, I wish I had been challenged more (or had challenged myself more) to really understand Christian doctrine when I was younger. The catechism was being phased out of the curriculum by the time I was going through the later years of Sunday school, and the youth group messages seemed to end with the predictable refrain of asking Jesus into our hearts. I was probably one of the best Bible students in our church, and yet I could barely articulate basic Christian theology past “Jesus died on the cross for our sins.” And if I couldn’t articulate the basics after seventeen solid, earnest years in the church, what must the predicament be for the seventeen-year-old just converting to Christianity, or for the thirty-four-year-old who’s getting serious about her faith for the first time?" Kevin DeYoung


"People don’t need a lecture or an oration or a discussion from the pulpit on Sunday morning. They need to hear of the mighty deeds of God. And they need to hear the message from someone who not only understands it but has been captured by it." Kevin DeYoung 



"My congregation needs me to be humble before they need me to be smart. They need me to be honest more than they need me to be a dynamic leader. They need me to be teachable more than they need me to teach at conferences. If your walk matches your talk, if your faith costs you something, if being a Christian is more than a cultural garb, they will listen to you." Kevin DeYoung

"The one indispensable requirement for producing godly, mature Christians is godly, mature Christians." Kevin DeYoung

"In the church-growth heyday, scholars and pastors were wrestling with how to reach out without dumbing down. Today I would argue that we reach out precisely by not dumbing down" Kevin DeYoung


"Church people are not stupid. They are not incapable of learning. For the most part, they simply haven’t been taught. No one has challenged them to think a deep thought or read a difficult book. No one has asked them to articulate their faith in biblical and theological categories. We have expected almost nothing out of our young people, so that’s what we get." Kevin DeYoung


"Challenging the next generation with truth starts with honest self-examination. We must ask, Do I know the plotline of the Bible? Do I know Christian theology? Do I read any meaty Christian books? Do I know anything about justification, redemption, original sin, propitiation, and progressive sanctification? Do I really understand the gospel? We cannot challenge others until we have first challenged ourselves. That’s one of the driving passions behind this book. I want the “average” churchgoer to think more deeply about his faith. I want Christians to realize, like I did that night in college, that they have a lot more to learn." Kevin DeYoung

"The gospel is not a message about what we need to do for God, but about what God has done for us. So get them with the good news about who God is and what he has done for us." Kevin DeYoung

What a great book and I'm glad to have it in my library. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

It Had To Be Jesus

It had to be His brow, because I dishonored Him with a crown of thorns.
It had to be His face, because His countenance fell, when He bore my shame.
It had to be His eyes, because He took on my blindness, blood and tears filled his eyes.
It had to be His shoulders, because he bore my iniquity, and bore the weight of my sin.
It had to be His chest, because He bore a sinners heart, and struggled to breath the air that I take for granite.
It had to be His hands, because I pierced them with nails, onto a cross.
It had to be His legs, because they were weak and bruised from carrying the iniquity of us all.
It had to be His feet, because I pierced them with nails, onto a cross.

The Son of God hangs lifeless on Calvary.......

It had to be His brow, for I deserved the crown of thorns.
It had to be His face, for I deserved no esteem, and all the shame.
It had to be His eyes, for I was estranged from birth, never to see truth.
It had to be His shoulders, for God's wrath upon my sin would have surely crushed me.
It had to be His chest, for I, a dead man, would have never felt a heart beat of true life.
It had to be His hands, for the nails were designed to pierce my sin, and the cross was mine.
It had to be His legs, for I walked in paths of iniquity.
It had to be His feet, for the nails were designed to pierce my sin, and the cross was mine.

"I have been crucified with Christ..." Gal 2:20

I hang lifeless with the Son of God on Calvary.......

It had to be Jesus, because he rose from the dead because of our justification. Rom 4:25
　
"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me..." Gal 2:20

I now live because Christ Jesus lives.

It had to be Jesus.

It had to be Jesus who was scarred.

The gospel of Jesus will never be forgotten.

We will know and see the atonement for sin that Jesus made, throughout all eternity.

We will know the scars, and know why we were forgiven.

It had to be Jesus. It had to be God.

Yours in Christ,
Chris Fincher

What Is The Gospel?

Greg Gilbert answers this question in his book What Is The Gospel? The following are some quotes from this much needed piece of literature:

"Let me suggest that, for now, we approach the task of defining the main contours of the Christian gospel not by doing a word study, but by looking at what the earliest Christians said about Jesus and the significance of his life, death, and resurrection. If we look at the apostles’ writings and sermons in the Bible, we’ll find them explaining, sometimes very briefly and sometimes at greater length, what they learned from Jesus himself about the good news. Perhaps we’ll also be able to discern some common set of questions, some shared framework of truths around which the apostles and early Christians structured their presentation of the good news of Jesus" ( P. 26-27 Kindle Edition).


"By the middle of chapter 3, Paul has indicted every single person in the world with rebellion against God. “We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (v. 9). And his sobering conclusion is that when we stand before God the Judge, every mouth will be silenced. No one will mount a defense. Not one excuse will be offered. The whole world—Jew, Gentile, every last one of us—will be held fully accountable to God (v. 19). Now, strictly speaking, these first two points are not really good news at all. In fact, they’re pretty bad news. That I have rebelled against the holy and judging God who made me is not a happy thought. But it is an important one, because it paves the way for the good news. That makes sense if you think about it. To have someone say to you, “I’m coming to save you!” is really not good news at all unless you believe you actually need to be saved" (p. 29 Kindle Edition).


"Third, Paul says that God’s solution to humanity’s sin is the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Having laid out the bad news of the predicament we face as sinners before our righteous God, Paul turns now to the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ. “But now,” Paul says, in spite of our sin, “now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law” (v. 21). In other words, there is a way for human beings to be counted righteous before God instead of unrighteous, to be declared innocent instead of guilty, to be justified instead of condemned. And it has nothing to do with acting better or living a more righteous life. It comes “apart from the law.” So how does it happen? Paul puts it plainly in Romans 3:24. Despite our rebellion against God, and in the face of a hopeless situation, we can be “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Through Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection—because of his blood and his life—sinners may be saved from the condemnation our sins deserve" (p. 29-30 Kindle Edition).

"Finally, Paul tells his readers how they themselves can be included in this salvation. That’s what he writes about through the end of chapter 3 and on into chapter 4. The salvation God has provided comes “through faith in Jesus Christ,” and it is “for all who believe” (3:22). So how does this salvation become good news for me and not just for someone else? How do I come to be included in it? By believing in Jesus Christ. By trusting him and no other to save me. “To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly,” Paul explains, “his faith is counted as righteousness" (4:5)" (p.30 Kindle Edition).

"Faith and repentance. This is what marks out those who are Christ’s people, or “Christians.” In other words, a Christian is one who turns away from his sin and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ—and nothing else—to save him from sin and the coming judgment" (p. 73 Kindle Edition).

"An emaciated gospel leads to emaciated worship. It lowers our eyes from God to self and cheapens what God has accomplished for us in Christ. The biblical gospel, by contrast, is like fuel in the furnace of worship. The more you understand about it, believe it, and rely on it, the more you adore God both for who he is and for what he has done for us in Christ 

" (p. 20 Kindle Edition).

What a great book! So what are you waiting for? Go out and get it for yourself or your unbelieving friends.

"how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ac 20:20–21). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando

Serving A Batch Of Poison

I understand that many people have a problem with biblical Christianity. I'm starting to get it and we were even warned about it- "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 3:14-16). Yet I'm just amazed at the lengths many will go to redefine Christianity- the distortion of passages in the Bible and the neglect of the majority of the Word of God. We're dealing with people that want to serve a batch of poison as Christianity.

It is nothing more than patchwork theology- grab a verse here that seems to teach my preconceived ideas about God, then grab a verse there while distorting it and put them together- bam! Now we have something that caters to the felt needs of man and we can call it Christianity. But it doesn't work that way folks. The Word of God stands (Is. 40:8, 1 Pe. 1:25) and as long as we test all things according to the Word of God, we can identify false teaching: "but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil"(1 Th 5:20–22).


Take this poor and wrong paraphrase of John 3:16 for example: "For God so loved the world (there’s that infinite expanse of His love!) that He gave His one and only Son (Jesus coming to provide a better way) that whoever would believe in Him (this word “believe” could literally be translated “to place one’s confidence in, to place one’s trust in”) would not perish (here we are back to Ps. 103:4, “He redeems your life from the pit”, this word perish can be translated “to come to ruin”) but have eternal life (this is not eternal as in very long, but eternal as in John 17:3 (look it up))."  I suppose to one that is catering to the felt needs of people, this is the "good news" that is supposed to comfort them. The problem is that the paraphrase is very poor and misses the Lord's entire point, so much as to make it bad news. How so? Because the paraphrased version distorts the coming of Christ to be, not about salvation, but a "better way of life" and this doesn't provide any hope for one that is condemned under God's wrath (v.17, 36).

The idea of God giving His Son is not to provide a "better way" but the only way (John 14:6) to escape God's wrath. Christ makes that clear with the contrast to "perish" (the word the author of the paraphrase understands to mean "come to ruin") and He makes it even more certain in the following verse where he contrasts those condemned (note they are already condemned) with the purpose of Christ's coming to save, in v. 17; even later in the same chapter John makes it more explicit, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36). It is not a matter of a "better way living now." It's about salvation from God's righteous wrath and reconciliation to Him. Of course the Christian life will follow but, biblically speaking, it is never said to be a "better way of living." It is referred to as holiness, godliness, and righteousness (2 Tim. 2:22, 1 Pe. 1:13-16, Heb. 12:14, 1 Tim. 6:11). But, again, Christ's point in the Father giving Him is about salvation. That is plainly clear from the context of John 3 and further affirmed by the Lord elsewhere, "And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). The Lord came to give life, not make it "better."


Does the word "perish" in 3:16 mean "come to ruin?" That's possible but not likely. The word  "ἀπόληται" can mean many things: to perish, to destroy,  to bring to ruin, to put to death e.t.c. but it depends on the context, which will determine how the author intends to use the word. Given that the context of John 3 is unambiguous all the major translations of the bible, from Greek to English, have the word "perish" (as in eternal judgment) and not "come to ruin." I'm not aware of any translation that has "come to ruin." What does "come to ruin" even mean? It was never defined. How it was presented is that Jesus came to deliver us from depression, discouragement, sadness and a life of pity. If I lost my house and everything I own one can say that I have "come to ruin." But that is not even close to what the Lord meant! The contrast between "ἀπόληται" with "ζωὴν αἰώνιον" (eternal life) and condemnation with salvation (v. 16, 17) doesn't allow for the Emergent idea of "come to ruin" as an option. Of the possible meanings of "ἀπόληται" (which primarily means perish or destroy) why chose the one that is the furthest on the list in a concordance? It's because they have a preconceived notion about salvation, or in their world "a better way of living", that cannot have "perish" as the meaning for their theological construct to work. That's why they feel perfectly fine in redefining everything to suit their fancy- even sin gets redefined.

The patchwork theology surfaces when the paraphraser jumps to Ps. 103:4: "who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy" (with an emphasis on the first half of that verse) to validate his idea of "come to ruin." Yet, again, he never explains what it means to be redeemed from the pit. But the tone of his paraphrase leaves one to conclude that he thinks "pit" to mean the modern idea of life in the pits. You know being down and out- life's a real bummer. However, the "pit" is synonymous with the grave or death and carries the idea of judgment in the life to follow (Ps. 49:7-9). The Lord does not just have physical death in mind. He means eternal punishment when he uses the word "perish."

As for bringing in John 17:3 and eternal life- I digress. I did look it up and discussed it here. The biblical proclamation of the Gospel is not to "follow" Jesus' way of life as in mimicking the way He lived. As R.W. Glenn brilliantly states: "The example of Christ without the gospel of Christ will crush you." 




"15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ 
19 “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance"(Ac 26:15–20). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His glory,
Fernando

The Waters Of Babylon

1 By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. Psalm 137

Though this verse is a lament for the temple of God where He dwelt (Zion), it is thoroughly sobering for any Christian to read. I would say even more so for the Christian than the Israelite... Gods dwelling place was in the temple for the Israelite, and put simply this particular person was feeling the emptiness of being away from the temple, Zion (the presence of God), held captive and feeling lost in the "foreign land" of Babylon.

I like to think of somewhere that I am totally comfortable. Like Christmas at my parents, or sitting on the couch on a winter night, fire going, coffee brewed, my wife asleep next to me, feeling completely at ease. We all have our places of comfort, places of passion, pleasure, hope, love, and happiness. Think of yours. Now think of being snatched away, and held captive in a place where there is no comfort, no place for passion, no pleasure, no hope, love, and no happiness. Some may say: "well I am not in such a place." We might want to think this through... Have you ever wept for Zion?

Back in the day when Israel was held captive by the Babylonians, God's dwelling place was in the temple, called Zion. Today the spirit of God dwells in us Christians, we are the temple. So let me ask again: have you ever wept for Zion? Have you ever sat at the waters of  Babylon held captive by sin and wept for Zion, the presence of Jesus with in you, for salvation?

Our lament as sinners should be similar to the next couple of verses.

2 upon the willows in the midst of it (the waters of Babylon) we hung our harps.
3 For there our captors demanded of us songs, and our tormentors mirth, saying "sing us one of the songs of Zion."

I think every person that calls them self a Christian ought to be able to relate to this sobering confession in a very personal way. If not then I fear that God has not yet truly struck the chord of repentance in that sinners heart. God has worked miracles in my life, and he is teaching me to obey and live by His Word. Constantly growing me through trials, He works in me a deep yearning for His Word. Admittedly this is a working progress, because like the rest of us, the sinner that I am doesn't want to repent from sin and turn to God, but be independent of God and love my sin. I thank God that He is in the business of crushing mans pride, and giving the gift of repentance on a daily basis. The more God tempers me to love Him through His word, the more I see my sinful state and the more I weep for Zion, salvation, Jesus, God... We are all sinners in need of repentance, we must turn from Babylon and long for Zion.

The reason I pound repentance like a drum is because repentance is a beautiful song that is pleasing to God. When repentance is truly sung, there will be weeping for Zion, a longing for Christ... We repent because God shows us the absurdity and filth of our sin, and then we desire him instead... As sinners against God we are not beside the clear blue waters, sunbathing in Babylon; we are drooped in death, and covered in the stench of sin before God. We must come to the place where we hate our sin, because as Christians, we see Jesus marred by it on the cross, and then risen from the dead because of our justification, guilt free before God. We repent because we are forgiven. We repent because Jesus bore our sin. Therefore we repent because the life of Christ is in us. It is truly a sanctifying process, being renewed to the image of Christ Jesus through repentance.

This next verse is one of those verses that God used to floor me...

4 How can we sing the Lords song in a foreign land?

If we are constantly still "in a land of sin", count on it, we are held captive in a miserable and tormenting land, even if we deny it. This Psalmist said, "by the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion." And so the cry of repentance should say: "By the waters of sin, there I sat down and wept, when I remembered Jesus..."

As Christians we have to say: "how can we sing the Lords song in a foreign land of sin, tormented by our captors, with no harp, no joy, no hope, no Jesus?" We can't... We all must sing the true song of repentance from sin, and then the deep true longing for redemption in Jesus will be clearly heard and given by God without measure, full of grace and truth. 

Lord, let us gather our harps of repentance from the trees of Babylon, so that we can finally sing Your song!

Yours in Christ
Chris Fincher

John Calvin- Pastor, Theologian, Tyrant? Part 2

If you haven't seen the first article I wrote on this matter- here it is.


Those who hate the doctrines of grace will go to great lengths to attempt to smear all that is labeled Reformed. Ad-hominems will be thrown, red herrings will be shot. A common attack is to portray John Calvin as the pope of Geneva. As if Calvin had this supreme authority in Geneva that was absolute. This is historically inaccurate.


They speak as if Calvin were the reason we ascribe to Reformed Theology and not holy writ. I've yet to understand this sort of argumentation. Yet, Calvin has been smeared, and accused of things that certainly aren't true.


Here is a prominent Christian historian (Owen Chadwick) on the matter:


"His first efforts to organize the Church were stopped by exile, from 1538-1541, for Geneva never wished to be organized altogether as Calvin preferred" (Pg. 83)


"In a measure the magistrates had already been forced to allow the right to excommunicate, as a condition of Calvin's return from exile. They sought to restrict it not only by these ambiguous addittions but by insisting that a civil magistrate preside at the consistory, baton in hand, as a sign that he was acting as a civil magistrate and not simply as a leader. Calvin at last succeeded in removing the baton 1561. The council always retained more control of the elections of the consistory than he wholly approved..." (Pg. 84-85)


" For Calvin was not the absolute ruler of Geneva pictured by legend and his enemies. There were many matters on which he could not achieve all that he wanted. He wanted the pastors to take the first steps in choosing the pastors, and the council insisted on being associated with the work of selection from the beginning. He wanted the pastors to be present when the council elected the elders, and succeeded in achieving this during his last few years, though the old practice was restored eight years after his death. He wanted the punishment of harlots to be severe, and it was never so severe as he thought proper." (Pg. 87)


" He was not popular. He was the kind of man who has only disciples or opponents; it was impossible to be neutral about him. He was known and beloved by a few intimates." (Pg.88)


There is some sort of intellectual honesty that you expect from fellow Christians. I expect distortion of truth from those who suppress the knowledge of God, but I have yet to get use to this from those who profess Christ as Lord.


Source: Here is the book


In Christ, Awretchsaved

Dealing With Favorite Emergent Proof Texts: John 17:3

"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3).

When dealing with the Emergent crowd, it will be a very short period of time before John 17:3 is brought in to the argument. I have found it to be their favorite proof text and it is put forth  as the only element of eternal life. They wish to avoid mentioning eternal judgment as the opposite of having eternal life. For them eternal life does not include deliverance from God's judgment. Thus, they quickly point to John 17:3 and say, "See eternal life means to have an interactive relationship with God." Now of course this verse does emphasize eternal life as being relational. No doubt about that. But is that all? What of the person that does not possess this eternal life? Does the lord mention anything else about eternal life and those who do not receive it? Yes he does. Back in John 3 he contrasts eternal life with suffering God's judgment and he does so again in John 5. 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God"  (Jn 3:16–18). 

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (Jn 5:21–24).

So the concept of eternal life means that one has passed from a condemned enemy of God, to a pardoned and loved child of God. We go from having enmity with God our judge, to having a loving, relational, intimate fellowship with God our Savior. They want to teach the latter without teaching the former, if not outright denying it. They camp out in john 17:3 and a handful of other verses but cannot account for the whole counsel of God. And if they venture to the passages that speak of perishing they re-define it to mean "to come to ruin" (whatever that means?); all this to fit their own unbiblical theological construct.

Having dealt with that issue, the high-priestly prayer of our Lord is for the glory of God in the person's of the Father and Son in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Christ, for His those that the Father has given Him. Stated differently- the glory of God, in the union of Christ, with the elect. Obviously,  God's glory is the ultimate theme V. 1, 4, 5, 10, 22, and 24. 

How is God glorified? In Himself (v. 5). God, by nature, is glorious. But how does he glorify Himself in a world that has rebelled against Him? Chiefly through the perfect obedience and sacrificial death of His Son, which is the foundation or basis for the union of believers with Him (v. 4-5, 10-11). 

The Lord's prayer for us also includes: keeping us (v.8-12), our complete fulfillment of our joy (v.13), protection fromm the evil one (v.15), for our sanctification in the truth of God's Word (v.17-19), for the love of God to be demonstrated for His people, to the rest of the world, in the Christ Jesus. Oh, how He loves us!

The Lord's prayer in John 17:3 is for believers. It is not for unbelievers something Christ says explicitly in v.9:  "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." So it is not fair for them to use this as the primary emphasis of their "evangelism." Although eternal life is taught in this prayer it does not explicitly talk about how one receives this eternal life. It is implicit (v8) but we must go elsewhere to see the call to repentance and faith in Christ, to receive the gift of eternal life.

John 17:3 has a context. But the Emergent people love to ignore context and isolate certain passages in order to maintain their humanism. I do not see them dealing and explaining, from the surrounding verses in John 17, the idea that God elects some to have a relationship with Him and rejects others (V.2, 6-10) nor do I see them teach that Christians will he hated by the world, not loved or liked, for Christ's sake (v. 14). It is fairly clear that they have one agenda in mind- to promote their own cause at whatever cost. 

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Ti 2:15). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando

Debate On!

Starting tomorrow, the debate, delayed from last Monday, will begin.

See my facebook status update for information. This is the link to the debate page:

This is the link to my page where the update should be - somewhere (so many feeds to the page). Seems to be working...



In His grace, all glory to God - Bill

John 3:1-8 - Introduction

Having recently finished teaching through this chapter, it seemed good to me to share that which came from that study with my brethren. This introductory material will be followed by the study of the rest of the chapter, until we get to the end.

John 3:1-8: Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” ESV

Now we are coming to one of the key passages that speaks of God’s work in bringing to life that which was dead – the spirit of man, which is so radically corrupt, that it must be brought low, and even to a co-crucifixion in the death of He who created it, as to His humanity (Romans 6:1-14; Galatians 2:20-21; Colossians 2:11-12; 3:1-3). Having read these passages, it should be needless to say that we have died, but we cannot stop there, for out of death to that which was dead, comes the life that lives unto God.

I said, in the study of John 1:12-13, that I consider those verses to be an introduction to these verses of chapter 3, and so I do – though the exposition of those verses completely established the truth that God must give us the gift of being His children, which is another way to say eternal life, here, we have the truth of the work of the Spirit in that salvation, and that it is a new birth, or birth from above (for so the passage regarding the new birth may be translated, which in itself is very telling, as the new birth is both new, and from above), cannot be doubted, so we look to that which the text states very plainly about how this birth of that which was dead was accomplished, as God gives us to understand it, after a few more introductory notes.

In saying that which was dead was put to death by being baptized into the death Christ suffered on the cross, and buried with Him in that, a truth of the nature of man, before the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, becomes clear: when we say that the nature of man is radically corrupt, we are not speaking of it as being inactive – indeed, it is active every moment of every day, suppressing the truth about God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18), so this marks that which relates to activity towards the true worship of God (John 4:23-24); this seeking of God is an active thing, and is not to be taken as if it were anything else, for those God seeks, He finds, according to His decree from before the beginning of the world or time (Ephesians 1:1-11; 2 Timothy 1:9-11; Titus 1:1-3). Being spiritually dead, while compared to being, literally, a corpse (Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13), does not mean that man cannot act in a manner that is “alive” – that is, that a man cannot make choices, cannot do things, for he is yet animated by the very God he despises, though he protest that he believes, yet not according to the truth of God; though he says there is no God, thereby declaring himself a liar in the statement of the negative (for there must be something he makes this statement about for it to be a meaningful statement).

No, being a “corpse,” spiritually, means that there is no activity of the spirit of man which strives towards pleasing His Maker according to that spirit and truth which we cited above – there is no fear of God before His eyes, He will not seek God (Romans 3:10-12; 18). This is spiritual death: the human spirit has not the ability to seek God, nor the desire, or inclination, and remains an enemy of God – when we are told that “You will find Me, when you seek for Me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13), such must be understood in the harmonious context of all of Scripture (Ezekiel 36:22-32) – here, in this chapter of John, we will find that such seeking with all one’s heart is impossible, unless that heart be a new one, given by God, regenerated by the Spirit of God, as well as other absolute statements about how salvation comes about, and how a man cannot initiate it by the movement of his dead-in-sin will – God continually frustrates the efforts of those who will not consider these great statements of Scripture which show His sovereignty in all the work of salvation, from beginning to end, and this insults those who want to believe that they have some control over the working of the almighty God of all.

So, here we have Nicodemus, a man of authority of the highest religious authority in Israel (more on this in the coming verses), coming to Jesus by night to have a discussion with Him. We remember those who do their deeds in the darkness do so at night (as indeed we will learn again in this very chapter), and this is because they are of the darkness that does not overcome or comprehend the light – in this sense, we can say that Nicodemus came under cover of darkness, or night, so as not to be known by those He taught, or His contemporaries in the Sanhedrin.

Yet that he did come to Jesus speaks of that which I believe we will later learn of this leading teacher of the Jews – as I said before, so I will say again: there is that which is of God’s election which keeps those whom He will regenerate (according to His divine counsel from before the world began), coming back to inquire of these things, to think of these things, to wonder about these things – as I also stated, this is the work of God, which we cannot see prior to salvation, for He promises no such vision of the marks of His election to us, but commands us to go, preach, teach, make disciples; still, what we find here is in the written record of that which reflects the life of our Lord and Savior, and will be revisited in a much later chapter, so the indication is of God in His Scriptures, not of man judging whether another has visible signs of redemption showing, as some who are heretics have believed.

Proclaiming the unmatchable excellence of the glory of God to all - Bill Hier

Bob Dewaay On The Emergent Church

Here are some quotes form Bob Dewaay's great book on the Emergent Church (the title is perfect): The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity

"But theirs is a theology of "hope". They evidently believe that Peter was dead wrong when he predicted the demise of the earth in a future conflagration of God's judgment. They rather believe that God is re-creating the world now with our help. So the mission has to be defined in terms of making the world a better place for all. Brian Mclaren is a Christian, he says, because he believes God is saving the world, and that means "planet earth and all of life in it." In a backward chain of reasoning, the pagan world determines their practice; their practice determines their theology; and their theology is one of hope because they decided it is the one they like best because it states that the world has a universally bright future with no pending, cataclysmic jugment." (Location 554 0f 3207 Kindle Edition)


"According to Mclaren's reading of the gospel's, the church got it wrong. It historically understood that it was supposed to preach the gospel, which would rescue people from God's wrath against their sin through application of the blood atonement. But finally-after all these years- Jesus' message is understood by a select few who are better readers than those who have gone on before. They have discovered that Jesus never intended that we warn people about how to escape future judgment and how to receive the gift of eternal life so they will join Him when they die. He never intended for us to think that we needed Him to do something for us in order to avoid going to hell. He actually was hoping we would go to work to help God fulfill His dreams of a better world." (Location 569 of 3207 Kindle Edition)


"Mclaren's hopeful theology is the only thing, in my opinion, that separates the rest of The Secret Message of Jesus from the old-fashioned social gospel of theological liberalism. As I have read his book I found the social gospel on nearly every page. When people practice the social gospel (working to make the world a better place by promoting and practicing ideas common to both theological and political liberalism) they supposedly help God's  "dreams" come true. This idea of helping God solve the world's problems has been promoted by various streams of liberalism for more than s century." (Location 584 of 3207 Kindle Edition)


" As I continue to read the literature being published by the leaders of the Emergent Church it becomes clear to me why they have so much disdain for systematic theology. What we just saw in comparing Mclaren's teaching on God's "dreams" and Biblical material about God's sovereign decrees (see Is. 46:9-10, Eph. 1:11, Ps. 119:89-91,; Ps. 115:3) is a good case in point. If Mclaren were forced to be "systematic" in his use of Scripture he would be required to deal with passages like those I cited. But he does not. He tells us how he reads the gospels and what he has gleaned, but he sees no need to give account for any other material in the Bible even though other passages contradict to his own teachings. That is how he is able to sustain his social gospel-by neglect of the whole counsel of God." (Location 607 of 3207 Kindle Edition)


"The way Emergents read the the church's mission means that the reader determines the meaning;the biblical authors do not.What they have determined is that one need not be a Christian to participate;salvation has nothing to do with avoiding future judgment or goin to heaven;holistically saving planet earth is essential;changing society as a whole is essential;the church has not gotten the mission right in 2,000 years or even understood what it was;and that the Emergent Church is the best hope that,finally,God will be able to have His dreams fulfilled." (Location 667 and 676 of 3207 Kindle Edition)

"We have a choice: We can follow the mission that Jesus gave the church as understood by the Apostles who gave us the New Testament, or we can become "missional" and find a more appealing mission by consulting  other religions and our own "missional" community's sensibilities. The one is very clear and has been normative for 2,000 years. The other is confused, fuzzy and unclear and was recently discovered by some innovative men. If we choose the latter we also are choosing to that Jesus' warnings about hell are false. That is a most dangerous choice to make." (Location 736 of 3207 Kindle Edition) 


The Emergent folks love to hover around their select passages (Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 24:14, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 9:1-6, Matthew 4:17, John 3:16, Mark 2:5, Luke 7:48, Mark 2:28, John 12:47 and John 17:1-3 being their favorite). Note how they hover in the Gospels. But they distort those passages making them completely nonsensical and dislike Paul because he contradicts their man centered theology.


 "For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified." (Ac 20:27–32) Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Legacy Of The Lost; The Heresy of Charles Grandison Finney

In the annals of modern church history – and by this I mean the late 17^th to the later 18^th Centuries – there has been no greater heretic than Charles Grandison Finney.

This LINK will provide the reader with the opportunity to not only view a unbiased, fair look at Finney’s duplicitous methods of obtaining to the ministry of a Presbyterian church he not only disagree with strongly, but using the language of the lawyer who would get his client off with any trick, outright lied to obtain his ordination.

It is a sad fact that not only has the damage that Finney did in his own lifetime not been repaired, but that his works – washed a bit more clean through modern editing, though not without the obvious heresy that permeated His lifetime of ministry – still available on many pastoral bookshelves, have yielded the present climate of love and unity at all costs, most especially among non-denominational churches, but also of many independent splinters from long established denominations.

In fact, it is fair to say that the current climate of humanistic relativism that is sweeping the visible (though not the invisible) churches that go by various names, all saying they are followers of Christ, can be traced back to the humanistic legal language and philosophies of this man: Some are an active rebellion to the impossible perfectionism this heretic spoke of, while others continue to follow his heinous legalism.

This man denied the most basic tenets of Protestantism, bringing his followers back into the type of bondage that Rome imposes on those who hold to their dogmas.

He denied the vicarious atonement of Christ, whereby Christ’s sins were imputed to His people and His righteousness to them (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:30-31; 2 Corinthians 5:21), thus making it necessary for a sinner to have a “righteousness greater than the Pharisees,” which righteousness even the apostle Paul, and all others of the New Testament, never claimed (cf. Philippians 3:9). He thus laid a house on sand which can never stand against the tide of God’s wrath on judgment day.

I could go on, but the article above, with the links it contains at the bottom of the article, and this LINK to Finney’s unabridged 1851 edition of His Systematic Theology (without the modern day white-washing of editors trying to tone down the heretical errors so prevalent in it), provide detailed information that every professing Christian who truly loves God our Father, knowing His Son, our Lord, did for us what we could never do for ourselves, should consider a MUST READ. (It would be better named A Manifesto of Man's Sovereignty Over God.)

The heritage of this heretic lives on in far too many churches, not the least of which is the non-denominational denomination that is widespread throughout the world, touting various versions of this heresy, or counters to it that have lapsed into antinomianism in reaction to this perfection-by-man’s effort to attain right standing with God, which, of course, God tells us is impossible for man, but not for God.

To say that the current climate of ignorance of what the Scriptures truly teach, and the antipathy of those who, quite simply, do not care, is due, in large part, to this man’s legacy, is an understatement of the greatest proportion.

May God have mercy on the visible church, the covenant vehicle He has set up, which has gone after as many idols of the imagination as ever the Israelites did in carving and fashioning such from wood and metal (cf. Isaiah 44:10-20; Romans 1:18-32).

Those last verses lay out the folly and the results of those who have become their own greatest idol: Man, who at the height of his folly, thinks the same lie as in the Garden of Eden: “I shall be like God.”

God have mercy on the visible church in America, and those nations we have imported this idolatrous garbage of Pelagian self-worship too, as well, and all the false gospels that are, in one way or another, a part of the legacy of this Wolf in Sheep’s clothing who can only devour those taken in by the variety of false, damning gospels that have been spawned as a result (Galatians 1:8-9).

By His Grace To God’s Glory Alone – Bill Hier

Theology And Real Life?

To some this is a contradictory statement. Theology is the study of God, and if everything exist because of God, through God and in God, then to say that theology isn't real life is indeed contradictory.

What is real life? Real life is waking up in the morning and not wanting to go to work. Real life is feeling the warm sun on your back on a cool morning, a good cup of coffee, and then feeling a deep appreciation that you even have a job. Real life is what we all know it to be- real life- struggle, pain, love, happiness, etc... It doesn't need much explaining. Question is how do we mesh the grand theology of God and real life together? The key is not separating them. Jesus is our mediator. God became man, died in our place, and rose from the dead because of our justification... Therefore we must submit to Jesus (God) in order to properly "hold" to a proper theology- an effectual and sanctifying theology...

I was a former universalist. Simply put I took arminianism to it’s logical conclusion. If Jesus died for the sin of the whole world then the whole world would be saved. To say otherwise would be blasphemous. So since coming to reformed theology, particular atonement was no stumbling block for me, I welcomed it with open arms... Since Jesus died for “all” (people from every tribe, nation and tongue), He would indeed redeem those whom He came to save. This was one of the most enlightening times of my life... No doubt. In this beatiful doctrine of particular atonement, I had never seen Jesus so highly lifted up before. I thank my boys two paragraphs down for that...

My dad introduced me to reformed theology after He stumbled upon a video from Pastor Jim Mclarty from salvationbygrace.org entitled What Did Jesus Accomplish On The Cross. My dad was also a universalist at the time, but little did he know, he was about to be reformed. It was not soon after, that he confronted me with the doctrine of God's sovereignty. I did not take this doctrine in as easily as the doctrine of limited atonement. I fought it and fought it, until I found no way around it. God is God I am not. God is Good I am not. God is holy, I am a sinner. I deserve nothing, to God be the glory alone. Who am I to think I can do something? I am dead in sin, Jesus is alive in righteousness. It was when I took the theology of the bible in that I truly submitted my self to God. And to this day I consider myself (in the most derogatory term) a Calvinist :) For all those haters out there, Calvinist is just another word for biblical... J/k, but seriously :)

So with piles of sermons and books from McArthur, Mohler, Piper, Sproul, Driscol, Chandler, Chan, Harris, Mahaney, Clark, White, Spurgeon, Edwards, Luther, Calvin, among others, and about 4 years later... I have officially jumped in way over my head.

I have spent years inside a books and sermons on a theology that has been preserved by God through these godly men of old and recent, that have impacted my way of thinking and life forever... But how do we take this theology to the market place, community, and our culture, and even more, making it truly effective in our own lives?

This is what I have come to understand. You can’t tell “personal doctrine” to some one, you have to tell them the gospel. You can’t bank your whole thought process on a chapter in the Bondage of the Will without first submitting your life to Christ first; ultimately when you tell someone about it, you will be telling them of a “personal doctrine” and not Jesus, even if it’s about Jesus. Though people can be saved by God through my pride or ignorance, this is just about my own sanity while delving in such rich doctrine from these men and the bible.

So to say it short: we need to know doctrine to know the gospel, and we need the gospel to keep our minds in check from prideful knowledge. But the good new is... If you study reformed theology long enough, your bound to become somewhat of a genius... What else could happen? Your studying the real and only theology... Your studying God. Submit to the gospel, tell the gospel, the doctrine will work it’s way in...

"In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." John 1:1

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." Titus 1:9

"... so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine..." 1Tim 1:3

"so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God." Col 1:10

"...the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." Col 3:10

Yours in Christ,
Chris Fincher