Refuting Arguments Against Calvinism: Calvinism Hinders Evangelism

It has often been said, that taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion will lead to a hindrance of Evangelism.

The logic is as follows:

1) Calvinism teaches that God has an elect people
2) Calvinism teaches that those elect people WILL definitely come to God
3) Therefore, there is no point in preaching.

While both the first point (Romans 8:28-30;Ephesians 1:4;Matthew 24:31;Matthew 22:14, and second point (John 6:44;Romans 8:30;Acts 13:48), are obviously true, the deductive conclusion is false. It fails to account for the means that both the bible, and Reformed Theologians, have said is the way God has ordained for men to be saved, and that is-- by the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:15;Romans 1:16).

Not only is this not consistent with what Reformed Theologians have taught, it is also inconsistent with history. Men such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Davies, were all Calvinistic, yet, if we read their sermons, and look at history, we will see that they were evangelistic. Well known missionaries such as David Brainerd, John G. Paton, Henry Martyn, and William Carey, also believed in sovereign grace.

L.R Shelton, when speaking of one of the reasons Calvinism gives fire for Evangelism said this:

"First, we know that God has a people who will hear the Gospel and be saved, according to II Tim. 2:10. "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Isn't that wonderful! Every saved person wants to see God's people brought in. There is a fire and enthusiasm in your heart that you can't let go. The Apostle Paul was one of the truest Calvinist's, from the standpoint of doctrine, who ever lived. When he went forth to preach, he knew that God's elect would hear him; whether he was in prison, whether he was standing before kings or queens, whether he was out there facing a mob, or whether he was just there facing one or a few, he knew God's elect would hear him, and he could endure all things for the elect's sake. Contrary to the concept of Arminian's, in the heart of every true Calvinist there is a burning desire to see God's elect get saved."

Ergo, we can see that the charge that Calvinism hinders evangelism is false. On the contrary, it encourages evangelism!

-awretchsaved

Double Predestination?

Nothing can get an Arminian's (quasi Arminians too) blood boiling like predestination. But double predestination is sure to cause our Arminian brethren a heart attack! The doctrine of double predestination has evoked much anger and venom from many people. It has been falsely depicted and grossly presented by it's objectors. "It makes God to be the author and creator of evil", "It makes God to be an evil tyrant", "Only a cruel god would create someone just to damn them." Those are just some of the objections often presented.

They may even turn to the Prince of Preachers- Charles Spurgeon an ardent believer in unconditional election- to state or support their case. Spurgeon once preached:

Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly—it is the same thing—created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever.*

It does seem that Spurgeon held to single predestination. That is that God only predestines some people to salvation but did not predestine those whom to damn. There are a few things to point out here. One is that Spurgeon may be taking aim at hyper-Calvinists. Outside of the hyper-Calvinist (I'm using the historical definition not the Norman Geisler redefinition) camp I know of not one person who believes God "arbitrarily" creates people simply to damn them. Sinners are not damned simply because God wants to damn them. No, sinners are damned because of our rebellion against God. Both in our corporate sin in our federal head Adam and for personal sins that follow.

 The second is that when God decrees to damn sinners it must never be viewed apart from the fall (sin). In both the infralapsarian view and the supralapsarian view the fall is always in mind when reflecting on God's decree to damn those whom He withholds His saving grace from. R.C Sproul puts it in this way:

If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate's being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion...God's decree of reprobation, given in light of the fall, is a decree to justice, not injustice. In this view the biblical a priori that God is neither the cause nor the author of sin is safeguarded...The importance of viewing the decree of reprobation in light of the fall is seen in the on-going discussions between Reformed theologians concerning infra- and supra-lapsarianism. Both viewpoints include the fall in God's decree. Both view the decree of preterition in terms of divine permission. The real issue between the positions concerns the logical order of the decrees. In the supralapsarian view the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall. In the infralapsarian view the decree to permit the fall is logically prior to the decree to election and reprobation.

Simply put when God decrees to save some and reject others passing them over decreeing their damnation He is not doing so from a mass of innocent humans all deserving to be saved. Rather, the fall must always be kept in mind since God decreed the fall and in it all humanity is guilty of sin and deserving of God's just damnation. This is precisely why the words of Rom. 9:14-16 are so humbling and precious, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."


 Dr. Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology, is wise to define predestination in regards to man in light of the fall. He writes:

In passing from the discussion of the divine decree to that of predestination, we are still dealing with the same subject, but are passing from the general to the particular. The word “predestination” is not always used in the same sense. Sometimes it is employed simply as a synonym of the generic word “decree.” In other cases it serves to designate the purpose of God respecting all His moral creatures. Most frequently, however, it denotes “the counsel of God concerning fallen men, including the sovereign election of some and the righteous reprobation of the rest.” In the present discussion it is used primarily in the last sense, though not altogether to the exclusion of the second meaning (emphasis mine).*

Keep that in mind as we read his writing on election:

The purpose of election. The purpose of this eternal election is twofold: (1) The proximate purpose is the salvation of the elect. That man is chosen or elected unto salvation is clearly taught in the Word of God, Rom. 11:7–11; 2 Thess. 2:13. (2) The final aim is the glory of God. Even the salvation of men is subordinate to this. That the glory of God is the highest purpose of the electing grace is made very emphatic in Eph. 1:6, 12, 14. The social gospel of our day likes to stress the fact that man is elected unto service. In so far as this is intended as a denial of man’s election unto salvation and unto the glory of God, it plainly goes contrary to Scripture. Taken by itself, however, the idea that the elect are predestined unto service or good works is entirely Scriptural, Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 2:21; but this end is subservient to the ends already indicated.

And reprobation:

Reprobation may be defined as that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice...

The doctrine of reprobation naturally follows from the logic of the situation. The decree of election inevitably implies the decree of reprobation. If the all-wise God, possessed of infinite knowledge, has eternally purposed to save some, then He ipso facto also purposed not to save others. If He has chosen or elected some, then He has by that very fact also rejected others. Brunner warns against this argument, since the Bible does not in a single word teach a divine predestination unto rejection. But it seems to us that the Bible does not contradict but justifies the logic in question. Since the Bible is primarily a revelation of redemption, it naturally does not have as much to say about reprobation as about election. But what it says is quite sufficient, cf. Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7; Jude 4; 1 Pet. 2:8.*

This leads to a third point regarding the use of Spurgeon's quote. That is unless one is willing to adopt universalism or a modified Arminianism then one cannot hold to a consistent view of single predestination. A firm belief in unconditional election logically leads to double predestination as Dr. Berkhof points out in the above quote. Or better expounded on by Dr. Sproul:

Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: "Now tell me your theologywithout the dialectic, so I can understand it!" Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner's view of predestination the only way to avoid "double" predestination is with the use of "double-talk."
Thus, "single" predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination (emphasis mine).*

As for the illogical leap that double predestination must make God evil and the author of sin, I will turn to Dr. Martin Luther:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.*

Tis always good to use the minds of learned and godly men. For a better article on the subject by Dr. R.C. Sproul go here.


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?- Romans 9:19-24

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando


*Spurgeon's sermon on Rom. 9:13, "Jacob I have Loved but Esau I have Hated." 
*R.C. Sproul, Double Predestination
*Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (109). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.
*Ibid, p. (115)
*Ibid, p. (116)
*Ibid, p. (117–118)
* R.C. Sproul, Double Predestination
*Cited from R.C. Sproul, Double Predestination

Weekly Dose Of Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Since there is a Weekly Dose of Spurgeon I am inspired to start a weekly dose of Lloyd-Jones. Both men are two of the greatest preachers the Church has ever known. That and having my soul fed last Sunday leads me to post a weekly dose of Lloyd-Jones. He is known for two things: preaching and preaching the Gospel. Without further ado:

There was a very great preacher in the U.S.A. just over a hundred years ago, James Henry Thornwell. He was, possibly, the greatest theologian the Southern Presbyterian Church has ever produced; but he was also a great preacher and a most eloquent man. There are those who say that next to Samuel Davies he was the most eloquent preacher  the American continent has ever produced. This is how his biographer tries to give us some impression of what it was to see and hear Thornwell preaching. Notice that it confirms and illustrates my definition of true preaching as something to look at as well as to hear because the whole man is involved in the action. This is how he puts it:

 "What invented symbols could convey that kindling of the eye, those trembling and varied tones, the expressive attitude, the foreshadowing and typical gesture, the whole quivering frame which made up in him the complement of the finished author! The lightning's flash, the fleecy clouds embroidered on the sky, and the white crest of the ocean wave, surpass the painter's skill. It was indescribable."

That was his impression of the preaching of Thornwell. Then consider what Thornwell himself said about preaching, and about himself as a preacher.

"It is a great matter to understand what it is to be a preacher, and how preaching should be done. Effective sermons are the offspring of study, of discipline, and especially of the unction of the Holy Ghost. They are to combine the characteristic excellencies of every other species of composition intended for delivery, and ought to be pronounced not merely with the earnestness of faith but the constraining influence of Heaven-born charity. They should be seen to come from the heart, and from the as filled with the love of Christ and the love of souls. Depend upon it that there is but little preaching in the world, and it is a mystery of grace and of divine power that God's cause is not ruined in the world when we consider the qualifications of many of its professed ministers to preach it. My own performances  in this way fill my hear with disgust. I have never made, much less preached, a sermon in my life, and I am beginning to despair of ever being able to do it. May the Lord give you more knowledge and grace and singleness of purpose."    

There is nothing to add to that. Any man who has had some glimpse of what it is to preach will inevitably feel that he has never preached. But he will go on trying, hoping that by the grace of God one day he may truly preach.*

May the Lord raise up faithful preachers of His Word.
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Preaching and Preachers (Zondervan, 1971), pp.97-98.

The Church Did Not Burn Down

Yesterday I had the great joy of fellowshipping with some of my infant baptizing brothers. Every Thanksgiving I step out of the pulpit and take a vacation. Usually we celebrate it in California with my side of the family but this year circumstances wouldn't permit that. Instead we remained in Idaho and traveled two hours to Boise and spent it with my wife's side of the family.

Down the street from her parents house is Cloverdale United Reformed Church (part of the URCNA). Having never attended a 'Truly Reformed' church, this Reformed Baptist decided to fellowship with the saints there. Two amazing things happened (or in one case something didn't happen).

One is that the church did not burn down. It was not struck down with lighting because credobaptists worshiped the same Lord along with their paedobaptist brethren in the same local church. We did not burn the church down. Who would have thought that saints purchased by the blood of the Lamb from all tribes tongues and nations and people could congregate together in His name to testify that all praise, honor, glory and worship be unto Christ the King? What a novel idea. I mean what kind of sick display of 'ecumenism' could possibly bring such glory to the Lamb of God of whom it is written, “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”(Re 5:9–10)? Tongue planted firmly in cheek.

What made it even more astounding is that an infant baptism was actually performed during the service. I was thinking to myself  "don't do it", "don't do it." Just kidding. I was actually paying careful attention to the brief discourse given on baptism before the baptism and the words being spoken during the ceremony. Of course I would strongly disagree with the notion that infants are members of the covenant of grace by virtue of federal headship. But I would not be so foolish as to say that their case for paedobaptism is without any merit. I must admit that the brief ceremony was moving and I understand how they try to get from point A to point Z. Of course that is if point is correct in the first place. Again, I disagree (strongly) but I truly enjoyed the service.

Here I must echo the words of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

One thing I have looked for and longed for and desired. I can forgive a man for a bad sermon, I can forgive the preacher almost anything if he gives me a sense of God, if he gives me something for my soul, if he gives me the sense that, though he is inadequate himself, he is handling something which is very great and very glorious, if he gives me some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the gospel. If he does that I am his debtor, and I am profoundly grateful to him. Preaching is the most amazing, and the most thrilling activity that one can ever be engaged in, because of all that it holds out for all of us in the present, and because of the glorious endless possibilities in an eternal future.*

This leads me to the second amazing thing that happened. The pastor, as Lloyd Jones put it, gave me a sense of God he gave me "some dim glimpse of the majesty and the glory of God, the love of Christ my Saviour, and the magnificence of the gospel." I could have been upset like many Christians today that I was not personally greeted outside of the greeters at the front entrance. That I went largely ignored by the church body. Or that nobody personally went out of their way to make me 'feel welcome.' No, I wasn't there for that. I was there to worship the Lord Most High with my brethren. It wasn't about me. And that day I was in submission to that pastor. Let me say that again- I was in submission to the pastor. He was handling the Word of God faithfully and accurately. He was cutting it straight.

He was giving me a taste of the glory of Christ from 1 Corinthians 16:19-24 with an emphasis on v. 22- "If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!" He was passionate about proclaiming Gospel of Christ and equally passionate about warning people of the curse pronounced upon the heads of those that do not love Christ. He didn't paddy-cake the deliberate curse, given by the Apostle Paul who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, upon the heads of non believers- haters of Christ. At the same time he was moved by the proclaiming Christ as the wrath bearer of the Father in place of hell bound sinners. He was getting emotional and having to fight back those emotions when speaking of the saving work of Christ. He was pleading with people to long for the return of Christ or to repent and believe on His name. I, too was having to fight back tears. Not just because the preacher (he is a true preacher) was getting emotional but for the same reason that was stirring the emotions of the pastor- the Gospel of Christ.

The fact that he was rightly handling the Word and doing so with passion and that because he grasps the tremendous power of the Word of God. I was reminded of what Lloyd-Jones said:

What is preaching? Logic on fire! Eloquent reason! Are these contradictions? Of course not. Reason concerning this Truth  ought to be mightily eloquent , as you see it in the case of the Apostle Paul and others. It is theology on fire. And a theology which does not take fire, I maintain, is a defective theology; or at least the man's understanding of it is defective. Preaching is theology coming through a man who is on fire. A true understanding and experience of the Truth must lead to this. I say again that a man who can speak about these things dispassionately has no right whatsoever to be in a pulpit; and should never be allowed to enter one.*

I had a great time in my first experience at a 'Truly Reformed' church. My only regret is that I did not stay after the service for coffee and further fellowship. I was like a ninja- in and out. Unnoticed. I had to be. I feared that they were going to sniff out this "Anabaptist" and forcefully remove me from the premises. Just kidding. I had to leave quickly as my son was sick while mom was taking care of him and I needed to give mom a little relief.


And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And 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, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Re 5:7–10).


Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Preaching and Preachers (Zondervan, 1971), p.98.
*Ibid, p. 97

The Mind Of God

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:1-5

The Greek word for "Word" is Logos in these few verses and also in most occurrences throughout the gospel of John. Throughout ancient philosophy the term logos or Logos was considered as the following:

"For Aristotle, logos is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil."

"In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos") or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos. The Stoics also took all activity to imply a Logos, or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, to them, the Logos was anima mundi (see Plato quote below), a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato."

I love reading about the philosophy of the Logos from other religions and philosophy, because it reassures me that we are all looking for the same thing. Who am I, what is my purpose and who created me? A what cannot create. You would have to be a complete idiot (in my opinion, which may have no value to you at all, but thats ok) to believe that their is nothing more than muscles in our head giving the whole human race extreme intelligence and rationality/reason. Let's not confuse wisdom with intelligence... big difference. So to that extent I give these philosophers credit for following their a priori knowledge of God. Even though suppressed in unrighteousness, they do search or even consider some aspects of the divine Logos instead of foolishly ignoring the obvious existence of a Divine Will or Word.

"Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related." -Plato

"He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:2-5

It is truly amazing to me that all of the greatest thinkers of all time dealing with life, God, reason, etc... can all be summed up in the first five verses of John's gospel. He no doubt felt the weight of the endless philosophy of the time being passed from person to person throughout Greece and also in the markets etc... So I think he purposefully used this wording. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Most of the the ancient philosophers would agree with this as the basis for their thinking and philosophy.

The Christian view of he Logos can be explained this way: if you take all the wisdom, personal thinking, will to act, to be, to existence, the very being and rationality of God, all this to which cannot not be fully grasped- the eternal, holy, perfect wisdom, will, being, existence, and logic of God all summed up as the Logos in John 1. Then the answer to all philosophy through times past, who am I, what is my purpose and who created me?- John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among men..." John 1:17 "for the law was given through Moses; grace and TRUTH through Jesus Christ"... And then the perfect revelation from God is given in John 1:18 "no one has ever seen God, Jesus has explained him to us..." Jesus is the very wisdom of God; listen to him speak. This puts a new meaning to "all scripture is God-breathed..." This can only mean one thing. You are tapping in to the mind of God which is TRUTH which was given to us through Jesus, through men by the Holy Spirit. This is why "faith comes by hearing the Word of God..." It's exactly that... The divine Logos... The Word of God... Jesus... Through which one is brought to faith by the power of God's Word.

John 8:51 "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." - Jesus

Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Yours in Christ,
Chris Fincher

THANKSGIVING

John 3:14-21

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.  16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 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. 18 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. 19 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. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 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.”

We approach the holiday called Thanksgiving, and it seems more than appropriate that we should give thanks for what God has done in Jesus Christ our Lord for us, because He loved the world in just such a way that those who are believing will not perish but already possess that everlasting life that He promises to believers in these verses.

This particular portion of John chapter 3 has been the subject of much debate, but the debate has not been on what the Scripture states, very often; rather, it has been the manner in which certain of mankind would like it to say that has led to the debate.

Here, we see the MANNER in which God expresses His free grace to the world, and the OBJECTS of that free grace unto salvation and eternal life.

It is not a big fuzzy “God soooooooo loved the world” that is being said here, and the comparison to Moses, a type of Christ our Lord, lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, another type of our Lord, should be a  compelling illustration to us of what the rest of this passage truly means; never mind the grammar that is so compelling throughout the passage, just look at the type of the serpent in the wilderness:

Did those bitten by the fiery serpents in the wilderness live BEFORE the bronze serpent was raised by Moses?

Numbers 21:6: Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.

Evidently not – they died without a chance to repent. They died because they were against God, and the death they died is a type of that deadness of those who do not receive the free grace of God in Jesus Christ to become believers. These who were  bitten before the serpent was raised on the pole had no chance; they were judged, the verdict was guilty, and they were sentenced to death.

This reflects the spirit of antichrist, not as a person, but as persons among those who say they are of the congregation of God in Jesus Christ, have been baptized, professed Christ as their King, yet reflect the poisonous pride of the leaders of the Jewish people when Pontius Pilate asked if he should crucify their King (John 19:14-15). Antichrist, as used by the apostle John (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7), refers to that spirit in man which denies Christ Jesus our Lord as He came, and as He is now – it goes against Scripture, the revelation of God.

According to some, God is “unfair” not to “offer” His loving grace unto salvation to every person of all time, because they have formed an image of God that is like themselves (Romans 1:23a).

Following our passage through, in its simplicity, we see that those who come to the light do so because their deeds HAVE BEEN done in God, while those who do not come to the light do not because they are WICKED and HATE the light, and do not wish such to be exposed – it is exposed anyway, because the light of Christ that shines on all men is a revealing light – but they seek to hide that they will NOT have this KING, whom God has appointed Lord of all.

Was God unfair in not offering to those bitten by the serpents before Moses raised the bronze serpent on the pole salvation?

Hardly – He is the ONLY good God (Luke 18:19), and is the only One who IS good – men are not, by definition, considered good to God, for they are possessed of a nature that is infused with the venom of sin injected into the father of the race, Adam, in the garden, when he was bitten by the words of that snake, the devil, to choose to be like God.

But God has sovereignly decreed that there are those who will do good, and if He is the only One who is good, how is such possible, and how do we recognize them?

We recognize them because they not only hold to the presentation of God in Jesus Christ that permeates the Scriptures – God as sovereign over all at all times – but they joyfully come to the light, that their deeds may be seen to have been wrought in God.

Something has changed in the innermost nature of such people who come to the light, and that change is that their nature has been born again, from above, by the Spirit of God, and by Him alone, as outlined in verses 3-8 of this same chapter of John.

Are you a believing one?

Do you accept God as He has presented Himself throughout Scripture; as He presented Himself in our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:18; 14:8-9)?

Then this is indeed a time to be thankful and rejoice, for you have “seen the Father.”

However, if you do not see God as He has presented Himself throughout all of Scripture, remember, He delights in steadfast love, justice and righteousness (Jeremiah 9:24), and He is the One who appeared to Moses and the patriarchs as Almighty God, I AM that I AM, and this One is Jesus Christ, making the Father known in the Old Testament even as He makes Him known in the New Testament in a more intimate, compelling manner, yet no less sovereign over all He surveys and has created.

He sees your innermost being – nothing is hidden from Him (Hebrews 4:12-13); therefore, fall before Him, worship Him, and bow down before Him, admitting He is over all, God. Give Him your homage and obeisance without questioning that He delights in everything He is, and demands and commands us to delight in Him in this very manner, and do not try to render an unbalanced view of Him that puts one attribute of Him over another, but accept Him as He is, then you will find what true thanksgiving is about.

To the glory of God alone - Bill Hier

Talk With A Buddhist

I had the opportunity to talk to a Buddhist the other day at work. I must say that it was a first. Luckily I had formerly studied some aspects of Buddhism a couple years ago. This guy was cool and was very informed on the subject and humbly enlightened me to parts I was ignorant to. We were drinking tea and discussing theology and religion. I was right in my comfort zone, but I didn't want to make our conversations pointless. I wanted to test his thinking just as he was a very intelligent guy was going to test what I knew. As I said all this was done at peace and was a very pleasant talk. So I asked him to give me a quick break down on what Buddhism is, and pretty much it's about being enlightened. Enlightened to and with others and knowledge in general. Overcoming angst and pain and learning that you have a choice. For some reason he wasn't very clear on what or who God was from his perspective. So I thought that was were I would gain the most ground in our conversation. I told him that I understood his view, that being enlightened to knowledge and even some aspects of God, however minimal and ambiguous that may be, is a very important part of life in general. I told him I thought more importantly though was being enlightened to God, his revelation, and then that would be the highest state of enlightenment that could exist. He agreed. From his perspective being enlightened was as if we were tapping into, for lack of a better word, "one with the universeness", and it was as if God is us, but not us and also the same thing in and throughout everything. I purposefully made that last sentence confusing. Read it again and that was what I understood the man to be telling me. Quite hard to talk to a man that isn't solid in his thinking and somewhat of a skeptic.

We got to talking about God and his existence, creation, the eternality of God etc... He told me that no one had ever been God and man at the same time. He said, Christianity doesn't teach that does it, and I said well yes that exactly what it teaches. Jesus was fully man and fully God. That was when I laid the teaching of John 1 on him. Everything was made through Jesus, and Jesus is the light that lights Every man. Jesus is God and God is Jesus and nothing exist without him (Jesus). And I heavily emphasized John 1:18, "Jesus has explained God to us", and that Scripture is Gods word. I told him that God has spoken and it's very important we gain enlightenment from his Word. We have nothing apart from him, Christian and non-Christian alike, our understanding, innate understand of God, which we naturally suppress in unrighteousness. And then I told him of our sin and depravity and need of salvation, which all was completed in Jesus on the cross. So I got to lay the gospel out to him.

All in all it was a good talk and I look forward to another one with him just thought I'd post some highlights of our conversation.

Yours in Christ,
Chris Fincher

Jesus Is Not Like Ghandi

That Jesus is not like Ghandi is almost a sacrilegious thing to say since the two are not even comparable. One is the Creator, God incarnate, sovereign, and Savior. The other is the creation, human, a sinner perishing apart from the savior for his rejection of Christ. Yet when Jesus is often proclaimed nowadays He is preached in such a way that He is taught to be much like Ghandi. For some a difference is that Jesus meant for His words to be practiced (as if Ghandi didn't).

"Just follow Jesus" in His life example and all is well. Jesus taught us morality and love and all must pursue this for the greater good of humanity. After all "no one puts lamp under a basket" so goes the sentiment. The idea seems to be that to "follow Jesus" simply means to live His example.

There is one fundamental problem- an unbeliever can't. There is something in the natural human make up that with out the saving grace of God is bent on sin. Have you ever observed a leopard change it's own spots? Is not that what God says about the sinner through the prophet Jeremiah? He asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Je 13:23).  Is not that consistent with "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Ro 3:10–12)? Which is consistent with John 8:34 and is consistent with Ephesian 2:1-3. How come those that present Jesus as example never preach or teach on these passages and how they relate to "come follow me?" The call to follow Christ was not given in a vacuum.

The problem of man is not that he needs reform. Not even a little more morality will suffice. Man's problem is that he is sinner "dead in his trespasses and sins." He is a rebel an enemy of God, a breaker of His law; destined to be consumed by His just wrath unless God mercifully, graciously and lovingly intervenes (1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:1-11, Jn. 3:36, Ro. 3:5-6; 4:15, Rev. 6:12-17; 16:1-11 ). It is at this point that we hear the beautiful words of John the Baptist when speaking of Christ- "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29)! And why the Apostle Paul can say- "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Co 2:1–2). And again- "But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world(Ga 6:13–14).


Sinful man needs life, forgiveness and the righteousness of Christ ( John 10:10; 17:1-3, Mk. 2:5-11, Act. 2:38, Heb. 4:22, Phil. 3:8-11, ). That is why the precious Gospel of Christ is of eternal importance. It gives rest for the soul while the moral example of Jesus causes much grief and stress for the sinner trying to follow His example but failing to keep it. His conscience is tormented day and night, as Martin Luther's was, in trying to make the law his hope of salvation. As Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said it:

Such was the teaching of the theological school called Modernism or Liberalism which came in about the middle of the last century in this country. Its theme was ‘the Jesus of history’. They took out miracles, indeed the entire supernatural element, and the substitutionary atonement. What is Jesus? ‘Ah,’ they said, ‘Jesus is the greatest religious teacher the world has ever known. Listen to His teaching, emulate His example, follow Him; and if you do so you will be a good Christian. Do not bother about doctrines, they are not important; it is Jesus’ teaching that matters.’

So Christianity has been reduced to a moral and an ethical code and teaching. That leads inevitably to failure and to disaster, for it leaves the whole business to us as individuals. I have got to admire the teaching, next I am required to accept it, and then I have to proceed to put it into practice. It is left entirely to me. ‘Ah but,’ they say, ‘look to the example of Jesus.’ Example of Jesus? I know of nothing that is so discouraging as the example of Jesus! As I look at His moral stature, at His absolute perfection, as I see Him walking through this world without sin, I feel that I am already condemned and hopeless. Imitation of Christ? It is the greatest nonsense that has ever been uttered! Imitation of Christ? I who cannot satisfy myself and my own demands, and other people still less—am I to imitate Christ? The saints make me feel ashamed of myself. I read of men like George Whitefield and others, and I feel that I have not yet started. And yet I am told to take this ethical teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, this idealistic social teaching, and to put this into practice! ‘It is so marvellous,’ they say, ‘it will stimulate you; look at Him and follow Him! (emphasis mine)'*

 It is important to note that  Lloyd-Jones was responding to the presentation of Jesus' example without the proclamation of Christ's penal substitutionary death in the Gospel.

Isn't that what many modern Jesus as example advocates do today? They neglect the cross of Christ. They treat it very minimal while emphasizing the example of Christ. Sure they may even affirm the miraculous but they certainly deny or avoid the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners. Could it be that they avoid preaching the cross of Christ because that would mean they have to talk about sin, judgment, God's wrath along with forgiveness, life (abundant) and salvation? Or perhaps the cross is little spoken of by them because they deny those things and therefore not that significant in terms of salvation (what exactly in their view are we saved from anyway) but more in relation to His example of self-denial for the greater good of humanity?

How about Mark 4:21? Simply put it tells us what Christians look like and that we are not to shack up somewhere in isolation but that our fruit should be public for the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors. What it is not telling us is that our works are the basis of our salvation. In other words Christ is stating what Christians ought to look like not how one becomes a Christian. He already made clear how one follows Him and becomes a Christian back in Mark 1:15 when He says, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Both repentance and faith are life long, not onetime, acts.

No, my friends, Jesus is not like Ghandi. Nor is Ghandi like Jesus. In fact contrary to Rob Bell, Ghandi, is as Jonathan Edwards so biblically put it, a sinner in the hands of an angry God. That is why Christ bluntly stated "No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13:5).

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.  And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” 

(Lk 13:1–5). 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1976). The Christian Warfare : An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 13 (33). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.   

What Else Is Wrong With (N.T.) Wright?

A few posts ago I mentioned somethings that are dangerous from the beliefs and teachings of N.T. Wright. There is more. He seems to shy away from the belief in the infallibility of Scripture or he is reluctant to affirm it. To be fair he does believe it is authoritative but that creates a dilemma for him. If we should not describe the Holy Writ as infallible or inerrant then on what basis can it be said to be the Word of God and authoritative? Why should I or anyone else take anything he says seriously on his views of justification, judgment or the kingdom if he says they come from Scripture but then refuses to affirm that the Bible is inerrant?

Jamin Hubner at aomin.org does a good job of exposing Wright's hesitancy of using "infallible" or "inerrant" when describing the Bible. Here is a quote:

Debates about whether God's Word contains lies is a distraction from the "real point"? Doesn't the truthfulness of God's Word kind of determine what it's "there for"? I mean, if the Bible contains all kinds of lies and falsehoods, it's probably not there to instruct the Christian. I mean, shouldn't Christian living be based upon truth?

 Wright's comment is so common in today's world of mainstream evangelical thought that it's almost repulsive. We're not talking about label wars and a "debate about words." We're talking about whether God's Word is a reflection of God Himself. If it's not, then why do we call it God's Word? If it is, then it must be true in everything that it communicates.

If God is lying to people then I'd like to know (because then I probably wouldn't be a Christian). If Adam and Eve are fictional characters, that would be good to know (because then Luke's genealogies and Paul's theology is completely unreliable). And if Jesus' resurrection was only symbolic and spiritual, and not historical, I would also like to know.

What I want to know is how the Bible can enable God's people to do anything honoring to God when we ignore the debate over whether what the Bible says is true. How is a Christian "enable[d]" when he witnesses to a person who wants to know if the resurrection is really a historical event and whether the story of Paul in Acts really took place? It kind of puts a damper on the proclamation of the gospel when people are saying "Adam and Eve didn't really exist, everything in Genesis is a myth - and the gospels continually contradict themselves" and we have no idea how to respond. What does NT Wright suggest we do, just smile and say "well, I'm not here to debate over these qualities of Scripture, I'm just hear to tell you what's in the Word"?

And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pe 1:19–21).

Go over and read the whole article found here. Good stuff.
Soli Deo Goria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Let's Talk Church

Before I go out and play in the snow (shoveling it) I just wanted to post a quote from Dr. Michael Horton on the commission of the Church:

Similarly, in our corporate calling as the church, we are always responding to a state of affairs that God has spoken into being rather than creating that reality ourselves. The church’s mission is grounded in God’s mission, which he fulfilled objectively in his Son and whose subjective effects he is bringing about in the world through his Spirit. Because the Father sent the Son and then the Spirit, we are sent into all the world with his gospel. So being mission-driven is really the same as being gospel-driven. As believers and as churches, we are motivated by the mission of the Triune God, as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit save us and send us with that saving message to our neighbors.

 All of our spiritual blessings are found in Christ, not in our individual or collective decisions, experiences, efforts, or ambitions. We confess our faith in “one holy, catholic and apostolic church” not because we can see it nor because of any vain confidence that we can build it. Our unity is based on the fact that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Despite all appearances to the contrary, we believe that this church is catholic, because it is not a communion of friends I chose for myself but a family that God has chosen from all of eternity in his Son. We believe that this church is also holy, not because of its empirical piety but because God has made Jesus Christ our wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). And finally, the church is apostolic not because we can identify living apostles in the world today but because it proclaims the apostolic doctrine in the power of the Spirit.

 Far from eliminating our own responsibility, this Good News concerning God’s work in Christ is what liberates and propels the church out into the world. Only because it is in Christ is there an assembly of sinners drawn from every people and language that has been transferred from the kingdom of death to the kingdom of everlasting life.*

 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—  one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all (Eph 4:4–6). 
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Horton, Michael (2011-04-01). Gospel Commission, The (pp. 24-25). Baker Books. Kindle Edition.

THE SABBATH

In Matthew Henry’s commentary on The Whole Bible, we read these words:

Whatever supports religion tends to establish the civil interests of a land. (Jeremiah 17:19-27, subsection III, eSword module).

Though this is far from all that Matthew Henry expounds upon in this particular section of the book of Jeremiah, it holds an inherent truth that has been realized throughout generations of those who seek the Lord in truth and spirit.

It is a well known fact, in church history, that the magisterial arm of civil government was considered as a part of the church, though such was never the case in the church of Jesus Christ in the New Testament; however, that we do our civil duties as to God and not as to man; as pleasing God, and not as men-pleasers, is always a part of worshipping Him in spirit and truth, and even more so, on the day set aside by Him for the express purpose of thinking of, speaking of, and doing those things which pertain to His glorious holiness, and not the cares and concerns of our daily lives by our own mandate.

Where, then, is this line drawn; where is it that we stop that which is decisively not of service to, and worship of, the One True God, on this day?

Shall we do that work which provides for us, by His provision, on this day?

Shall we go to the store to buy as we have need, on this day?

Shall we indulge in entertainments which are decisively not of the worship of God in spirit and truth on this day?

These are questions which have been in dispute among those who call themselves by the name of the Lord throughout the history of the church, and continue unabated to this day.

To these things we may refer to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, regarding Chapter XXI., subsection  VIII:

VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

And of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, Chapter 22, subsection 7:

7 As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God’s appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. (Exod. 20:8; 1Co 16:1-2; Act 20:7; Rev 1:10).

Recognizing, then, that various of many men of God have considered these things, and after due prayerful deliberation, have constructed these commentaries we call Confessions of Faith, as also with the various Creeds and Catechisms of the orthodox church, regardless of whatever faults these various men may or did have and partake of, we should at least be given to as strong a contemplation of these things as they were, if not more so (though we could have mentioned other Confessions and Creeds and Catechisms which support such as these two quoted have mentioned, these are considered enough).

This article is not to give men who profess themselves of God and Christ our Lord the opportunity to argue the position; rather, it is to give them the opportunity of seeing how it has been so in the church from not only the Reformation, but before, as it is mentioned in the Holy Scripture (let the reader search the Scripture on these matters), from before that time the church had become infected with various devices of men and worship of men and objects unrelated to the Lord’s Day, and which, by His grace, we recovered such true worship of the Lord our God; therefore, this, instead of being a complete treatment of these matters, is to give pause to reflect, to meditate, to study of that which is spoken of, which, put simply, is this: Keep the Lord’s Day Holy, as unto Him, and Him alone.

Regardless of how each man might understand these things at this time, this is an invitation to understand exactly what many men of old, and many now alive, understand, concerning these things, and to ask what it is that we do in regard to such understanding.

There are those who say the Sabbath is everyday in the Lord Jesus Christ; well and good. Keep every day holy unto the Lord as He instituted and continued the Sabbath.

There are those who say that the Sabbath was abolished in the death of Christ; I dare say we shall find more of the world and man’s imaginations than the holiness of God and worship of our Lord in such a case.

As for this writer, I am convinced of the Scripture that there is a day when we stop pursuit of all things but those prayers, worship, and activities which bend the mind and body to God alone. Let every man be convinced in His own mind of such, and if there are any who think different, let them learn of God (Philippians 3:15-16).

To God's glory alone - Bill Hier

Refuting Arminian Arguments: On God's Foreknowledge

"God looks down the corridors of time, saw who would choose Him based on their free-will, and chose only those who would choose Him"


This a very common argument coming from our Arminian brothers. And it would be true, if we were maybe using Webster's dictionary in order to derive what the word "foreknowledge" means. But we are called to be theologians, and theologians derive what theological words mean from SCRIPTURE. Is this not also the fault of the Arminian when it comes to the word "world"? A presumption that world means every single person alive, when clearly that is not the case (e.g, John 3:17, John 17:9, John 7:4). We ought to let scripture speak for itself, and place aside our comfortable traditions, that get us accepted to the tables and meetings of men. According to our Ariminan brethren, foreknowledge simply means God has knowledge of what free creatures will do (How God knows for certain what they will do, if they are free, is a question they still have to answer). Certainly He does have such knowledge, since He decreed the future as such. But when Scripture uses the word foreknowledge, it means more than cognition.


Foreknowledge in the Old-Testament 


There is no use of the word foreknowledge in the O.T. But what we do have is to "know". Again, jumping to our presuppositions, we would assume that to know just means to acknowledge or have knowledge of, but this is not the way the word is used in scripture. To know (as with foreknowledge), denotes God's intimate love with His people, in a saving sense.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, " I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord"- (Gen 4:1, ESV)

The Lord said to Moses, " I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name." - (Exodus 33:17, NASB)

You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day I knew you- (Deuteronomy 9:24 NASB)

For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish (Psalm 1:6 NASB)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations- (Jeremiah 1:5 NASB)

You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities- (Amos 3:2 NASB)


Foreknowledge in the New-Testament


The word to know is also used in the in N.T- the same way as the old. Here are some examples, and then we'll look at the term Foreknowledge:


" Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'- (Matthew 7:23 NASB)

I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know me, - (John 10:14 NASB)

But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him- (1 Cor 8:3 NASB)

..The Lord knows those who are His..(2 Timothy 2:19 NASB)

It is obvious by the verses above, that to know (or when it says God knew), means more than simple cognition. Rather, it implies by its usage, that to know denotes to love, to regard with favor, or to appoint. Further, when we look at verses such as Acts 2:23, Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:2 it is people that are foreknown, not what they will do. To further complicate the problem- If God looks down the corridors of time, He would not "foresee" people believing in Him. Why? Because no one believes in God apart from God's work (of electing, quickening, etc). And what if God looked down the corridors of time and elected those who would choose Him? Well, what would be the point of election? Why would God elect those whom He knows will already elect Him? What's the point? The reality of that matter is that God predestines those whom He foreknows. And this foreknowledge is not based on some foreseen faith in individuals; it is based on the good pleasure of God (Ephesians 1:9).

Your salvation is like a chain that extends back into eternity and forward into eternity. It is an unbreakable chain. Wherever you look on this chain, you find links of iron forged by God himself. - John Piper

In Christ, Awretchsaved

N.T. Wright And The Emergent Crowd

N.T. is certainly a tricky fellow. He has just enough credibility as a biblical scholar to take him seriously. On the other hand, in my opinion, the man is not a credible theologian. He has good things to say on Christ and the historical resurrection. Yet, the theology he develops from that is dangerous. I think Doug Wilson says it best concerning N.T. Wright, "One of the worst of the lot in this regard is N.T. Wright who cannot come within ten feet of a timeless truth without getting out his old cricket bat and taking a swing or two."


We see it with Wright's view of justification. That it is not soteriological (not about salvation) but ecclesiological (church membership). In simple terms justification is not about salvation by grace through faith. In his mind it is not about "getting in." It is about "table fellowship" between Jew and Gentile and faith is "the badge of covenant membership." He believes that the church has misunderstood Paul during the Reformation. It wasn't until  E.P. Sanders, James G.D. Dunn and himself recovered "What Saint Paul Really Said" in regards to justification. Quite an arrogant thing to say in my opinion. Here is an area where Bishop Wright comes within ten feet of a core biblical truth (justification) and brings out his old cricket bat and hacks away.

I believe this is why some in the Federal Vision (Doug Wilson is excluded here) like Wright's novel understanding of justification. Others such as the Emergent folks love him even more. If justification is not salvific then it can be put on the back burner. Evangelism (as far as the verbal proclamation of the Gospel is concerned) is not a priority- "Kingdom living" is or that the Christians duty is "building for the kingdom." Another way to say it is our works are the emphasis of "building for the kingdom." Wright's confusing understanding of justification coupled with his misunderstanding of God's kingdom is a theological recipe for disaster. Hence, his two understandings of the kingdom and justification are heavy upon our works. He has stated that our justification is on the basis of our works. Admittedly he does not exclude the work of Christ but yet he finds a way to smuggle in our own works.

These two things, with a few others, are why the Emergent crowd will embrace N.T. Wright. They loathe the doctrine of justification by faith alone and highly emphasize our works in the matter of "kingdom living."

Now, no Christian in their right mind would deny the importance of good works. Simply put, if there is no good fruit there is a rotten root. Yet what passes for fruit in much in Emergent theology  is really not good fruit. For it divorces the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ from their works. They aim to do things, it seems to me, to make Christianity palatable to the natural man.

The bond between Wright and the Emergent crowd (more from the Emergent side than Wright's) gets even stronger when it comes to the issue of heaven and hell. For the Emergent people hell is here on earth when we fail to believe in Jesus for whatever reason, with salvation (deliverance from the wrath of God and reconciliation to God) being the most unacceptable in their minds, and do things God's way. One way it has been put by one person is, "Repent and stop thinking bad things about yourself. God doesn't want you to think that away." Hell, to them, is here and now apart from Jesus.

Couple that with Wright's denial of an eternal conscious torment, hell primarily being about losing the image of God in our humanity. And you have a marriage meant for heaven (pun intended) and probably not from Wright's perspective. Here is how he puts it (you can find the full interview with Trevin Wax here):

So, I’ve struggled to take seriously the whole “heaven coming to earth” theme as the great wonderful renewal. But at the same time, I’ve struggled to take seriously what the Bible says about the possibility and the actuality of final loss for those who persist in rebellion against the gospel. Romans 2 says it all. For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury, tribulation, distress… Paul is talking about those who are persisting in saying “no” to God, at whatever level that is, (and there are different ways of saying no to God).

 It dawned on me several years ago that when somebody says “no” to God and refuses to worship the God in whose image they are made, saying “I’m not going to worship that God,” then what happens to their humanness is that it progressively ceases to bear the image of God. You become like what you worship. You reflect the one you worship. It’s one of the great truths of spirituality.

 So my way of describing it is that once this life is over, people who have decided not to worship God cease to bear God’s image. The thought of an ex-human being is something that some people find shocking and horrifying. In a sense, it is shocking and horrifying. Think about people we know! I’m sure most people, unless we live in very enclosed worlds, must know some people (if we truly hold to a theology of hell) who are going there! That should give us pause. That should cause us to pray for them and to weep over them. So I don’t say this with any relish at all.

My description is neither an annihilationist view nor an eternal conscious torment view, because it seems to me that to cease to be image-bearing is actually to reduce the scale of what’s going on. This is a creature which will be a memory, a sad memory, an abiding ex-humanness. That is something that the biblical language of hell may be pointing to. But I don’t want to be dogmatic on this. This is merely a way to go to try to hold on to the two things that the Bible is saying. 1. The reality of loss for some and 2. the absoluteness of God’s victory over the whole creation.

 What you don’t want to end up with is the picture that some theologies have of a wonderful, glorious countryside with a concentration camp in the middle with people being tortured. I think the 19th century rightly reacted against that image, and I don’t think there’s any way back to that except perhaps by closing our hearts to the sort of pity and love which we are told is at the heart of God himself.

The false caricature aside (something Wright and the Emergent crowd are notorious for) the last paragraph tickles the hearts and ears of Rob Bell and company. They are looking for credible scholars to throw their lot in with.

Now Wright has, rightly, been accused of an overly-realized eschatology (an emphasis of the age to come being about here and now). For him heaven is here and now. By this time the Emergents are shouting for joy and jumping up and down. They too have an over-realized eschatology. Their emphasis is on here and now thinking social justice is helping build the kingdom of God. They accuse most of Christendom of having a view of heaven as being some ethereal place with us being spirits floating around on clouds playing harps. Granted there are indeed many Christians which have an impartial or naive view of heaven. But none that I know of who believe what Wright and the Emergents accuse us of.

Perhaps now we can see why they would use Wright. No mention of judgment or God's wrath in the Gospel, an over emphasis on works (social justice), minimizing justification (from a false view of it), an over-realized eshatology having heaven and hell about being here and now- right now and now they have someone they believe to be theologically credible in the academic realm.

I have not critiqued their views here. I will simply direct the readers attention to this review of Wright's book Surprised By Hope by Dr. Tom Schreiner. Here is a quote:

All this is to say that the call for Christians to evangelize remains more pressing than any call to work in the political sphere, even though all our work in this world is significant. Wright emphasizes that the good news of the gospel is that Jesus is Lord, but, as John Piper has pointed out, this isn't good news if you're still a rebel against God; its terrifying news. The New Testament is permeated with the message that we must turn from our sins and put our faith in Christ. Wright does not disagree with the need to do so, but he seems to be most excited about our work in the political and social sphere (emphasis mine).

Two books that I recommend relating to the discussed issues: What is the Mission of the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. You can find it here. The other book is Heaven is a place on Earth by Michael Wittmer. Found here.

 N.T. Wright has some good stuff to say, in particular to the historical resurrection of Christ, among a few other things. But he also has some really bad stuff to say that I believe far outweighs the good. But what do I know I am only a "reductionist?" As for the faulty accusations of the orthodox position of heaven. We say "amen" when we read:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pe 3:10–14).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

It Is Dangerous To Presume Upon God

And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God (2 Sa 6:5–7).

Uzzah's seemingly innocent and well- intentioned act had a disastrous outcome. He was killed by God for presuming upon Him. Uzzah's act of reaching out his hand to stabilize the ark of God was, indeed, a very noble one. His intentions were good. He certainly did not want to see the ark crash to the ground. Therefore he presumed upon God that it was acceptable to violate His command (Num. 4:14) since the situation allowed for it.

That presumption cost him his life. It kindled the Lord's anger who then took Uzzah's life. What's the big deal? Wasn't it a good thing for Uzzah to help the Lord by preventing His ark from falling to the ground? It seems such a trivial thing for such grave consequences.This of course would be the argumentation from much of contemporary Christianity. It even seems that David momentarily had that attitude (as many of us do today) for he became angry with the Lord for taking Uzzah's life (v.8).

Of course when we take that attitude it is because we are not viewing things in their proper perspective. We are looking more upon the seemingly innocent actions of Uzzah rather than upon the holiness of God. God is a holy God. "Holy, Holy Holy" cry the seraphim. This same holiness of the thrice holy God moved Isaiah to cry out "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” 

A failure to always view God in light of His holiness is a reason why Uzzah presumed upon God with his actions but also why many Christians today do the same also. Especially in worship services, evangelism, preaching, discipleship and so on. We presume upon God. We tend to think as long as we are sincere and our motives and intentions are well meaning then it must be acceptable to God. We may even tack on that "it is for His glory." But we really ought to learn from the biblical examples as we are told to do in 1 Corinthians 10:11. The examples of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-4) and Uzzah should serve as instruction for us not presume upon God. The severity of the outcome of their actions should remind us just how holy, holy, holy the Lord Almighty is. They should serve as a warning from presuming upon God in our worship practices, methodologies and allowances.

We must ever be examining our traditions in light of the Lord as revealed in His Word. We all have traditions and as Dr. James White often says, "He who says he has no traditions is the most enslaved to them." But how many people will examine their traditions according to the Bible? It is a very serious thing to consider how many of our traditions stem from presumption. Altar calls, the sinners prayer just to name a couple. There are fewer things nowadays that spark the ire of people more than tampering with their traditions. Whether these be doctrine or practices. How times have we heard "We've been doing this for (insert large number) years" or "I've been studying the Bible for (insert large number) years." Have you ever pondered that you have been doings things wrong for (insert large number) years? Or that you may have studied the Bible wrongly for (insert large number) years? Is not that an arrogant thing to say? Is not that a form of presuming upon God? In fact that form of presumption is really saying that since I or my church has been doing it this way for however many years, then it surely must be right?

I pointed out earlier that even David became upset with God for taking Uzzah's life. Yet the text also says that David was "afraid of the LORD" (v. 9). Though he momentarily became upset with the Lord, David was reminded of the holiness of God. Yes, David feared the Lord. He saw the Lord consume Uzzah and trembled before the Lord Most High. The fear of God stems from knowing the holiness of God. A failure to view God in his holiness is to fail to fear Him and leads to much presumption. Presuming upon God, my friends, has serious consequences.


Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Re 14:6–7).
Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

Approaching God In Worship

A very tragic incident takes place in Leviticus 10:1-4. We read:

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’ ” And Aaron held his peace.

This account of Nadab and Abihu conveys a very important principal. That is that God is a holy God and cannot be approached and worshiped in any way a person so desires. The Lord Himself issues the commandments of how His creatures are to come before Him. As noble and sincere as our own desires to do things and classify them as "worship" they will not stand if not commissioned by God . For man did not command nor institute worship. God did. In modern times, for such a serious thing to happen to Abihu and Nadab would be lamented. After all- the sentiment goes- they were just two men "worshiping" God how they were so moved to do so. They were sincere and honest in lighting that fire before the Lord. Who are we or anyone else to tell them that they could not worship God in such a manner?

The answer to such assertions,sentiments and objections is God. Note what the passage says. It reads that Nadab and Abihu did not do something God commanded them not to do but that they did something which was not commanded by God. Simply put, they took it upon themselves to approach God in their own terms. I believe they were sincere and they may have had the best intentions in mind. I see no evidence in the text to indicate other wise. However, our best intentions and sincerest desires do not determine how we approach God and how He receives worship. Approaching God in worship is no small thing. It is not something we can treat flippantly or irreverently. It is not a matter of worship Him in whatever ever way that pleases you. Perhaps it is the wrong question to ask who are we to say that a person cannot worship God in such a such way? Maybe we should be asking ourselves, in light of what passes for worship in modern times, who are we to tell God how we are going to worship Him and what He is to accept- because we are sincere in doing it?

I never thought that I would hear singing God Bless America, the National Anthem or the Star Spangled Banner or even applauding special singing in church service classified as as "worship." What a grievous thing! To take a time where we are commanded by God (the Sabbath say) to set aside for corporate worship of Him and use it to honor people is, to me, a very dangerous and grievous thing to do. And the practice is not justified because our motives are sincere (we could be sincerely wrong just like Nadab and Abihu) or that we mention the name of God once or twice in a song.

Neither does it follow that just because we are in Christ and that he paid our debt in full that God has somehow made Himself less holy in approaching Him. Sure we no longer need, priests and continual high priests. We have access to His Majesty ourselves. This only means that we should be that much more reverent and in awe as we come before Him. Take Moses for example. He approached God without a priest or high priest and yet he was still told:

  “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.(Ex 3:5–6).

Worship in modern times has become far too subjective. It has become about how individuals feel and are moved subjectively. It has become about our personal self-expressions of worship. Yet worship has always been objective with subjectivity involved but not determined by it. We are emotive people. That much is clear and yet God is the one being worshiped. God has the supremacy not our subjectivity. Worship is about Him and His Word determines how worship is to be. Our self-expressions are subordinate to the Word of God. They are indeed inferior.

It seems many people have a tradition of practice they wish to defend and they do so in many ways. One is to appeal to the Word of God by asserting that the practice itself is not explicitly forbidden by Scripture. I think that is a very wrong way to argue. One can have a fun time with that argumentation. How about shouting in service? Or loud wailing when moved by a song or sermon? None of these are explicitly forbidden in the Bible. Nothing says "Thou shall not shout" or "Thou shall not wail."

That is why is the authors of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in chapter twenty two, article one write:

The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the HolyScriptures (emphasis mine).*

And the Heidelberg Catechism says:

Question 96. What does God require in the second command?

 Answer. That we in nowise represent God by images, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.*

And from his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Urinus expounds:

Two things are comprehended in this commandment: the commandment itself, and an exhortation to obedience. The end, or design of this commandment is, that the true God, who in the first precept commanded that he alone should be worshipped, be worshipped under a proper form, or with such worship as it is right and proper that intelligent creatures should pay unto him—such as is pleasing to him, and not with such worship as that which is according to the imagination and device of man: Or, we may say that the design of this commandment is, that the worship of God as prescribed be preserved pure and uncorrupted, and not be violated by any form of superstitious worship. The true worship of God is, therefore, here enjoyed, and a rule at the same time given, that we sacredly and conscientiously keep ourselves within the bounds which God has prescribed, and that we do not add anything to that worship which has been divinely instituted, or corrupt it in any part, even the most unimportant; which the Scriptures also expressly enjoin in many other places. The true worship of God now consists in every internal or external work commanded by God, done in faith, which rests fully assured that both the person and work please God, for the mediator’s sake, and with the design that we may glorify God thereby. To worship God truly, is to worship him in the manner which he himself has prescribed in his word.*

Great effort was exerted to prevent worship from being defined from subjectivity. It is my contention that many of today's churches have a very improper understanding of worship. I think Dr. James White says it aptly:

The fact that each writer in this work has taken time to enunciate his understanding of the proper form of church government speaks to the shared commitment to the truth that Christ is the Lord of the church and hence has the right-no, the duty- to order the church under his lordship so as o bring glory and honor to God. While this may seem a given, in today's ecclesiastical climate, it is a truth that needs to be stated forcefully. Many people in today's church believe form, mission, and worship of the church are pliable, undefined entities that are best determined on the basis of survey's and pragmatic "results." The idea that there is a divine blueprint, a heaven -sent mandate regarding the form of the church is not so widespread as today as it was not so very long ago. And the idea that God's worship is circumscribed by his own revealed will, and that we are not free to simply do "what feels good" and call it worship, is even less popular.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Ursinus, Z., & Williard, G. W. (1888). The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (517). Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Company.
*Ibid
*Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman, Perspectives on Church Government (Nashville, TN: B&H , 2004), p. 257