Ethics and Assumptions in Schools and Life

Any ethical discourse that proceeds from the mouth of Christians must rest in submission to the Lordship of Christ in all areas of thought.  This statement is as much ethical as it is epistemological. Therefore, it is imperative that all ethics be couched in proper and coherent epistemological language.  The conclusions of one’s ethical inquiry will necessarily agree with one’s epistemology, and in fact, have to. It makes no sense for one to assume one position in order to arrive at another – this is a dishonest and mistaken way to think about worldviews. It is an unfortunate and I dare say sinful thing that higher education in all its levels, not to mention basic education, is robbed of epistemology and the proper place of ethics as a comprehensive worldview and in a logically coherent fashion. Instead, our school systems take for granted that 1. Knowledge is possible, 2. Neutrality is possible, and 3. That secularism is neutral and therefore desirable. In order to make room for cultural pluralism, our system of teaching has then become epistemologically plural. This is a correlation fallacy. To imply that just because there exist many cultures and then come to the conclusion that therefore there exists a viable epistemological plurality (that points to some abstract nebulous neutrality) is the result of erroneous thinking. Just because the devil wears 10 different suits does not mean that there exist 10 different devils. Even worse, epistemology is not taught even in high school, for to do so would expose the fallacy of neutrality for what it is. The system posits that it is reasonable for many differing points of view to be taught and then to declare all of them as equally viable choices so that it does not have to point to the obvious fact that morality is not relative and neither are facts. If the schools decided to place epistemology as some educational pursuit, then they will have to arrive at many differing forms of ethics simply because there exist different views on epistemology.  

                Let it be known that our schools are in fact teaching ethics both implicitly and explicitly. To tell a student that they ought to not cheat on their homework is by nature establishing a universal. But this is not just a means to an end (for a good and honest grade), it is an absolute. When a teacher asserts that homework ought to be done honestly, they are implying that it is a good thing to do homework honestly. Since this is, in fact, what they are implying, then they are also implying that (all variables equal) honesty is objective and universal, even if they do not word it in that exact way. We are hard pressed to think that any reasonable teacher would believe that the statement “homework ought to be done honestly” is a subjective construct that only applies to western culture. When they say this, the way they mean it is in an absolute way. Our language and intentions show this. It is an ethic. But why would a student feel bad if she is caught cheating and why would a teacher feel disappointed when this happens? If it is simply a little social construct that is subjective, then couldn’t the student affirm confidently and honestly that their culture is different enough so that homework shouldn’t really be done honestly but that the student will “do it when she pleases?” By the argumentation that morality is subjective, the student has that right. But let us assume for the sake of argument that the student is right to do this, and the teacher understands this and agrees to disagree with the student that “homework should not be done honestly, but it is a favor for the teacher when the student pleases.” Even if the teacher and student come to that agreement, this would still be a contradiction, since in reality there would be no point of agreement. Since morality is objective, you cannot agree to disagree on two contradictory universal “oughts.” Teachers simply do not think this way and neither do students, or else why would the feeling of disapproval by the teacher happen as well as the shame of the student when they are caught? (Even if they are not caught, the student will still know that it is wrong absolutely because they know, by the testimony of the Law of God in their consciences, that lying is a sin that they seek to suppress but they are not able to do this with totality. Let us take this a bit further. Let us assume that morality is subjective, but that the particular public school has a code of ethics that states: “In our school, morality is subjective and homework can be done dishonestly, but in other schools, this does not have to be the case. Therefore, Sally student is exonerated on this basis.” The problem with this is that the terms “honest” and “dishonest” are polar opposites. Polar opposites assume the laws of logic, and these laws must be universal or else our society would not be able to think let alone work.

                So where does epistemology fit into this ethical example I have given? The school’s epistemology not only would be some sort of empirical or rationalist construct, but it would be one that is sinfully rejecting the Lordship of Christ in education. This is what “subjective morality” results in. It results in an ethic that is sinful because of its epistemological starting point which is anti-Christian and therefore antagonistic to God’s revelation (The Scriptures.)

                In conclusions, I am convinced that teachers believe that homework ought to be done honestly, and that many of them believe that this is an objective truth. But the incoherence lies in that the only epistemology that has the preconditions for intelligibility in comprehensive ethics and human experience is Christian theism.  So if a teacher or school district does not believe this, then their hidden assumptions make manifest their incoherence and hatred of God and His truth. This can be demonstrated by a host of contradictions that they should be ashamed of. We, as Christians who seek to propagate the truth of the Bible must respectfully and lovingly address these ethical issues in our school systems in dialogue and debate.

In Christ and for His glory,

Felipe Diez III

Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

Why I Reject The "Well-Meant Offer"

I know this will certainly provoke the ire of the Reformed brothers on Facebook perhaps even cause them to frown upon me. While my Arminian brethren (Or those consistent with their beliefs but reject the label) may write me off. Either way my friends list may go down. Here also I must add a disclaimer in that all contributors to this blog may not hold my view.

Though I am studying  this matter further my position is that I deny what has come to be known as the "well-meant offer" of the Gospel. That is God, in some way, desires the salvation of all men both of those He elects and those He condemns. In other words God in eternity has decreed only to save some sinners in Christ out of His sheer love, mercy, grace and for His own good pleasure and glory. But for those He reprobates even though He determined within Himself not to save them but to leave them in His judgement, when the Gospel is proclaimed to them, He in some way really loves and desires to save them even though He has decreed their judgment.

Since I carry no theological weight I must defer to those that have it (even though they are frowned upon). For this I will cite David Engelsma:

The recourse of some to the "mystery" to solve the problem of the contradiction between the free offer and the Reformed doctrine of reprobation is both desperate and erroneous, Such like to speak of the paradox of God's two wills: His will to save and His will to not save the same man. For God to love and to hate the same man, to be gracious in the preaching of the Gospel towards and to harden the same man is sheer contradiction. The reality of the twofold will of God is quite different. It has to do with the fact that God at the same time decrees that a man shall not be saved (the will of God's decree) and commands that man repent and believe (the will of God's precept)...Replying to critics who objected that he taught  an atonement which failed to save all those for whom it was made, (Harold) Dekker showed them that this was no different from their teaching that God desired to save all but failed to do so, that is, universal atonement is really no different from the well-meant offer of the Gospel: "Why are my critics unwilling to recognize a paradox between a universal atonement and a limited redemption when this is so plainly taught in the Bible? Why are they unwilling to recognize a paradox of a redemptive love which does not always redeem when this is so clearly the presentation of Scripture? Do they suppose that such paradoxes as these are any greater or any more difficult to accept than the paradox which they affirm of a God who sincerely desires the salvation of all men and yet does not save them all?*

Of course I'm still studying these issues and am listening to both sides but so far have not been impressed with the advocates of the "well-meant offer."


17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. (Re 22:17).


Soli Deo Gloria!

*David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism &The Call of The Gospel ((Grand Rapids, MI.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994), p. 60, 62-63

Lazy Layperson Syndrome (Are you Infected?)

Dear friends,

I do not wish to be abrasive or obtuse when I assert here that laypersons have a particular responsibility and privilege to labor. At the same time, teachers in a particular subject ought to understand the limitations of laypeople (who may themselves be teachers) and strive to meet the needs of students and learners in such a way that a concept in question is understood to the fullest degree. In all subjects theological and philosophical, both parties are to strive to meet to produce a desired communication. But let me share for a bit what I consider to be a problem among laypeople that had led many to embrace apostate teaching. It’s called the “Lazy Layperson Syndrome.” (LLS)

While teachers must understand that many concepts and great truths can be difficult to grasp and that it may take many years of toil and insight by the learner to crystallize and establish a solid foundation of knowledge so that it can be expanded further under the Lordship of Christ, the layperson must also understand that he / she is not passive – that the mind takes molding and molding often hurts; yet a significant amount of satisfaction is gained when a concept is formed in the mind. Here is a little definition of the Lazy Layperson Syndrome:

LLS is a malady of general ambivalent sluggishness that some people unfortunately employ with regard to the things of God. It is like a leech that causes an otherwise capable person (without intellectual disabilities) to not want to work to understand a principle or proposition that is biblical or extra-biblical. The person with LLS is usually antagonistic to doctrine, especially to ones they perceive to be “unnecessary” or “divisive.” LLS is even promoted in churches, where the preacher chooses to dumb down information to such a degree that it loses its value. This syndrome causes pain in the eyes when old confessions of faith and catechisms are put before the sufferer and aching in the ears of those who hear words such as “propitiation,” “theology proper,” or even “substitutionary atonement.”

In reality, the great catechisms and confessions of faith were drawn to facilitate learning by laypeople. But LLS stops this connection in its tracks. All the layperson needs is to pick up a dictionary and a thesaurus and spend a few minutes of time in order to learn the usage of a concept and apply it in usage. Yes, this takes work, and it is God-honoring. The Trinity cannot be diluted in order for “ordinary laypeople” to understand. LLS readily invites heresy by causing the sufferer to mistakenly believe that “The Shack” is actually an “easier to understand” book about the trinity, or that T.D Jakes really has a “basic understanding” of the trinity and doesn’t really need all that “doctrinal hair-splitting” that the ancient “doctrine-obsessed” Athanasius and his “ilk” formulated. Emergent teachers themselves have made millions due to LLS via book sales and money proceeding from all forms of media. “We are just trying to make the difficult things easier,” they say, and people nod their heads in agreement and happily approve of such teachers as “heroes”, as if systematic theology was akin to “Calculus for dummies.”

Another symptom of LLS is denial. A sufferer will deny that they in fact possess this malady. They will believe that they are just a “regular person,” and that teachers should stoop down so incredibly low so as to spoon feed them the basics (or a diluted form of them?) so that little to no work is done by the sufferer. The person will then defend others with LLS and teachers that promote the disease. We can see it spreading in Christian bookstores as people purchase books, thinking that they will be taught the Bible. Yet when they hear real Bible theology and preaching, their LLS will kick in, and communication between teacher and student will not happen.

I am not asking that everyone understand every single sentence written by John Owen, but the standards in general are at an all-time low. Does God get glory from this?

Why are the standards being lowered? Is there a good reason for this? Is it biblical? An emphatic and ultra-qualified “no!” rings forth. I leave you, brethren, with this verse. The context may not be explicitly expressing my thesis, but I believe it to be a reasonable mention:

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Cor. 3: 1,2)

In Christ,

Felipe Diez III

Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

Weekly Dose of Lloyd-Jones

If our conception of Him is such that He can be admired and applauded by the non-Christian, we have a wrong view of Him. The effect of Jesus Christ upon His contemporaries was that many threw stones at Him. They hated Him; and finally, choosing a murderer instead of Him, they put Him to death. This is the effect Jesus Christ always has upon the world. But you see there are other ideas about Him. There are worldly people who tell us they admire Jesus Christ, but that is because they have never seen Him. If they saw Him, they would hate Him as His contemporaries did. He does not change; man does not change. So let us be careful that our ideas about Christ are such that the natural man cannot easily admire or applaud. That leads to the second conclusion. This Beatitude tests our ideas as to what the Christian is. The Christian is like his Lord, and this is what our Lord said about him. `Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you ! for so did their fathers to the false prophets' (Lk. Vi. 26). And yet is not our idea of what we call the perfect Christian nearly always that he is a nice, popular man who never offends anybody, and is so easy to get on with? But if this Beatitude is true, that is not the real Christian, because the real Christian is a man who is not praised by everybody. They did not praise our Lord, and they will never praise the man who is like Him. `Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!' That is what they did to the false prophets; they did not do that to Christ Himself. So I draw my next deduction. It concerns the natural, unregenerate man, and it is this. The natural mind, as Paul says, `is enmity against God'. Though he talks about God, he really hates God. And when the Son of God came on earth he hated and crucified Him. And that is the attitude of the world towards Him now.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Kindle Locations 1986-1998). Kindle Edition.

"You Talking To Me Willis?"

"Hyper-Calvinist!" How often have we heard this charge from Arminians launched against Calvinists that delight in the doctrines of grace. It has become the typical point of assault from many of our Arminian brothers that do not really know what Calvinism is; they seem to think that if they just tack the pejorative "hyper" onto Calvinism then everyone will flee from it. It would be interesting  to know what they actually think Calvinism is since they understand Calvinism to be "hyper-Calvinism?"

Then there are quasi Arminians that seem to understand the major role Calvinists have played in the history of the church for the Gospel's sake and want to lay claim to such heritage while rejecting the doctrines or re-defining them. Norm Geisler and his "moderate Calvinism" which is nothing more than Arminianism with a different jacket on. One cannot deny the grace of God in unconditional election and still be any kind of Calvinist! There is nothing moderate about it, since it is not Calvinism.

Then there are many Calvinists that are quick put that jacket ("hyper-Calvinist") on others Calvinists that may differ from them on issues like "common grace" (which I whole heartedly believe) and the "well-meant offer" (which I do not believe). I've heard Dr. David Engelsma, Dr. Herman Hoeksema, Dr. James White and Dr. John Gerstner, Robert Reymond all wrongly labeled "hyper- Calvinist" because they all reject the "well-meant offer."

I am not going to explain all those issues nor what real hyper-Calvinism is since this particular article is aimed at those that have some knowledge of these matters. My point is that while labels are a good thing let's be careful on knowing what the label means and that it correctly fits the people we are labeling. So much confusion can occur when wrong real labels are put on the wrong people.

At this moment I wish allow Dr. David Engelsma speak on the subject in dealing specifically with the nonsensical label of Calvinism with "hyper-Calvinism" from well noted Arminian John. R. Rice in his error and very confused slanderous book Predestined to Hell? No! Engelsma writes:

In most cases the charge "hyper-Calvinism" is nothing but a deceptive attack on Calvinism itself. Someone hates Calvinism or the uncompromising, consistent defense of Calvinism. Yet he hesitates to attack Calvinism openly and forthrightly. Therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on "hyper-Calvinism" and "hyper-Calvinists."

There is no need to refute Rice's arguments against Calvinism nor to expose his defense of Arminianism from Scripture, although a lover of the Reformed faith is sorely tempted to do this in order to lay bare the utter poverty of modern Arminianism. Rice blunders around in the Bible, as Luther said of Ersamus, the way a pig roots about in a sack of feed.

It serves our purpose to stress two things regarding the war cry "hyper-Calvinism" that become plain from such works as those of Rice. First the charge "hyper-Calvinism" masks an attack on Calvinism. Rice is an Arminian and a Pelgian. He admits to holding that every man's salvation depends on the choice of his own free will. This is Arminianism. He also maintains that men only potentially died in Adam and that the natural man who has nothing more than the testimony of God in creation may be saved  by this natural light. This is sheer Pelagianism.*

Be leery of the often tossed allegation of "hyper Calvinist" or "hyper Calvinism." Hyper Calvinism is certainly real and heretical but should never be tossed around lightly.

Soli Deo Gloria!


* David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism & The Call of the Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994), p. 9-12

Only If I Read This Years Ago...

From the pen of Herman Hoeksema:

You go to church not to hear a "nice sermon," not to be entertained by splendid oratory, not to discover the opinion of a certain learned man on a subject, but to hear the Word of Christ addressed to you by Him. And that is a matter of life and death. For this is the essential thing in true preaching from mere lecturing: that Christ Himself speaks to you through the word of him  that officiates as a preacher. If Christ does not speak then there is no preaching. All the wisdom of the world , all the glittering oratory of a wonderfully fluent  and attractive speaker, all the sentimentalism of a modern revivalist, all the touching stories he may be able to tell, all his emotional begging and pleading, are in vain. What matters, as you and I listen to the preaching of the Word, is that we hear the voice of Jesus say,"come unto me, and rest"; that we hear Him call, "Repent and believe"; that we hear Him assure us, "Thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace." Unto this end preaching is a means.

...A preacher has no message of his own to deliver. He is an ambassador of Christ, and as an ambassador he must deliver the message with which he is charged by Him that sent him. One who occupies the place of a preacher and pretends to be a minister of the Word, but who disregards this mandate and delivers his own philosophy on various topics pertaining to this world, is a false prophet. The church that is unfaithful to her calling, and instead of preaching the pure Word of God according to the Scriptures, presses the pulpit into the service of the world and its humanistic philosophy, is an abomination to Jehovah. She is like the Jerusalem of old that killed the prophets.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Herman Hoeksema, Whosoever Will (Grandvill, MI: 2nd Edition Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2002), p. 91-92

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

There is, beyond any question, a very definite order in these Beatitudes. Our Lord does not place them in their respective positions haphazardly or accidentally; there is what we may describe as a spiritual logical sequence to be found here. This, of necessity, is the one which must come at the beginning for the good reason that there is no entry into the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, apart from it. There is no-one in the kingdom of God who is not poor in spirit. It is the fundamental characteristic of the Christian and of the citizen of the kingdom of heaven, and all the other characteristics are in a sense the result of this one. As we go on to expound it, we shall see that it really means an emptying, while the others are a manifestation of a fullness.

 We cannot be filled until we are first empty. You cannot fill with new wine a vessel which is partly filled already with old wine, until the old wine has been poured out. This, then, is one of those statements which remind us that there has to be a kind of emptying before there can be a filling. There are always these two sides to the gospel; there is a pulling down and a raising up. You remember the words of the ancient Simeon concerning our Lord and Saviour when he held Him as an Infant in his arms. He said, `this child is set for the fall and rising again of many.' The fall comes before the rising again. It is an essential part of the gospel that conviction must always precede conversion; the gospel of Christ condemns before it releases. Now that is obviously something which is fundamental. If you prefer me to put it in a more theological and doctrinal form, I would say that there is no more perfect statement of the doctrine of justification by faith only than this Beatitude: `Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs (and theirs only) is the kingdom of heaven.' Very well then, this is the foundation of everything else.*

Soli Deo Gloria!



Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Kindle Locations 539-551). Kindle Edition.

Very Wise Words From Dr. Carl Trueman

An interesting and related development has been the growing enthusiasm for “conversation” in recent years. Conversations are wonderful as small talk or as discussions to clarify respective positions (though “dialogue” may be a better term, perhaps). However, when conversation rather than content becomes what is truly important, something critical is lost. Thus, as theology becomes a “conversation,” traditional notions of truth face the danger of assuming less importance than mere aesthetics or modes of discourse. Indeed, doctrinal indifferentism can creep forward in a way that ends only with the sidelining or even repudiation of orthodoxy in any meaningful sense. Such a “conversational” approach to theology can find a welcome home within a movement where doctrinal boundaries are few, far between, and often equivocal. For many evangelicals, boundary drawing and theological enforcement have come to be seen as offensive and fundamentally unchristian...A movement that cannot or will not draw boundaries, or that allows the modern cultural fear of exclusion to set its theological agenda, is doomed to lose its doctrinal identity. Once it does, it will drift from whatever moorings it may have had in historic Christianity.*

Very wise and true words from Dr. Trueman.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Trueman, Carl (2011-01-01). The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Kindle Locations 260-280). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Edwards Pt. 2

A kind of love may arise from a false notion of God, that men have been educated in, or have some way imbibed; as though he were only goodness and mercy, and not revenging justice; or as though the exercises of his goodness were necessary, and not free and sovereign; or as though his goodness were dependent on what is in them, and as it were constrained by them. Men on such grounds as these, may love a God of their own forming in their imaginations, when they are far from loving such a God as reigns in heaven.

Those words were penned by Jonathan Edwards in 1746 and are still found true today. Too often the god that is often proclaimed from pulpits across the world is not the holy God of the heavens revealed in the Bible. The god of many today is nothing more than a man-made god who resembles man. He acts like a man, thinks like a man, judges like a man, loves like a man, caters to man like a man, fears man like a man, bows down to man like a man and on and on we can go. Men, specifically those that have the label "pastor," have trumped up such an image and stamped their fingerprints all over this "god"; have set him upon an imaginary throne, in an imaginary world with man right smack in the center. They have bowed to his idolatrous image and have tacked "God" onto this man-made creature and have expected all people to bow down in like manner.

If you have not noticed this article is highly polemical and if your are offended by this than you may wish to stop reading.

This "god" may even have the name "Jesus" or "Christ" stamped onto it. He is often presented as the most "loving" being. He offends no one, hurts no one, condemns no one, demands no submission, cares not to be feared; desires that his holiness to be synonymous with his "love." He died to set more of an example of "love" than anything else, he is uncertain of what he is going to with those that do not "follow" his example on earth of how to live a "good' and "abundant" life. He says in the bible that he will punish some but is conflicted and confused in himself because he is "love" and who is to say that in the end "love" may "win" and everyone enjoy his presence in bliss. He is a god that changes. He is no longer the monstrosity of the Old Testament that had nations and kings bow before him in fear and praise, confessing his greatness. No, no, no that was a different god, he has morphed into the god of the New Testament. He is not holy, holy, holy but "love," "love," "love."

This god has revealed himself in his word,- only the red letters (words of Jesus) of the bible and every other non -red letters that speak of his "love," "grace," and "compassion." Every other part can be rejected, ignored or subordinated to "love."

This god cares more about "relationships" than truth; truth being chiefly subjective and relative. This  god cares not if everyone does right in their own eyes. He tolerates just about everyone and every thing accept those that speak out against any that proclaim such a god.

As outlandish and silly as this seems the reality is that this is exactly the god that comes from many pulpits in America. It is a false god. Idolatry. A gross violation of the first four commandments. It is really worship of self.

Do not be fooled my friends. Such a god does not exist accept in the minds of blind men. Be warned that the triune God will judge all who bow down and proclaim the foreign god that claims His name. He is a jealous God- a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24. He. 12:28-29). He is holy, holy, holy! His is love. He mercies and is mos gracious; His ultimate love is found for all that are and will be in Christ. All spiritual blessings flow through Him and are received by those found in repentance and faith in Him. All outside of Christ will be consumed by the wrath of God. He is that holy, holy, holy!

We would be wise to observe the wisdom of Jonathan Edwards:

 Again, self-love may be the foundation of an affection in men towards God, through a great insensibility of their state with regard to God, and for want of conviction of conscience to make them sensible how dreadfully they have provoked God to anger; they have no sense of the heinousness of sin, as against God, and of the infinite and terrible opposition of the holy nature of God against it: and so, having formed in their minds such a God as suits them, and thinking God to be such a one as themselves, who favors and agrees with them, they may like him very well, and feel a sort of love to him, when they are far from loving the true God. And men's affections may be much moved towards God, from self-love, by some remarkable outward benefits received from God; as it was with Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, and the children of Israel at the Red Sea.*

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured (Heb 13:7–13).


The God of the Old Testament is the same of the New Testament.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Edwards, Jonathan (2009-06-09). Religious Affections - Enhanced Version (p. 94). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

*Ibid, p. 95

Three Evidences of Regeneration

A major theme of 1 John is the difference between true believers and false believers. John writes to his readers so that they will be able to identify any false teachers who come to town, and seeing the contrast between the false teachers and the truth, his readers will also gain assurance that they are true believers. John's warnings about false teachers can be seen in passages such as 1 John 2:18-27 ("I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you") and 1 John 4:1-6 ("By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error"). John contrasts between light and darkness, truth and error, righteousness and sin, and applies these contrasts to his readers: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).

The difference between the false believers and the true believers is described in several different ways by John, one of them being a contrast between those who have been born of God and those who have not been born of God. Just as in John's day, there are many who claim to be children of God who are not, many who claim to be believers who are not. Not all who claim to speak in the name of Christ do so with his approval, and not all who make a profession of faith are possessors of faith.

Our first evidence of regeneration is found in 1 John 2:29: "everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him." There are those who practice righteousness and those who practice unrighteousness. All of us by nature practice unrighteousness, and it is only by the grace of God in regeneration that anybody practices righteousness. Those who have been born of God certainly don't practice righteousness perfectly (see 1 John 1:5-2:1), but we are repentant for our sins and have a God-given desire to do what is right, a desire that shows itself in acts of righteousness.

Our second evidence of regeneration is found in 1 John 4:7: "whoever loves has been born of God." The specific love that John is writing about in this epistle is the love that believers have for one another. According to 1 John 3:17-18, this love is not just a matter of words but a matter of actions. A professing believer who has no interest in serving other believers is lacking evidence of regeneration. On the other hand, a professing believer who loves the brethren with acts of service shows evidence of righteousness.

Our third evidence of regeneration is found in 1 John 5:1: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." In chapter 4, John warned against those who claim faith in Christ yet deny his full humanity (an early Christian heresy called Docetism that had its roots in Gnosticism). Elsewhere in the New Testament, other apostles warn against corruptions of the gospel, warning against the danger of believing a false gospel. When God regenerates sinners, he gives them the gift of faith, and they consequently believe in Christ and his gospel - the true gospel.

What do these evidences of regeneration mean for the commonly held idea that regeneration is a result of faith? Some people teach that if we believe in Christ, then we will be born again. But can that view be held in light of these passages? All of them speak of present actions of people ("everyone who practices righteousness," "whoever loves," and "everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ") and a past action by God ("has been born of him" and "has been born of God"). If we want to turn 5:1 around and make faith a cause of regeneration, would we want to also go to 2:29 and 4:7 and make practicing righteousness and loving as causes of regeneration? The grammar is consistent for all three: regeneration precedes faith just as regeneration precedes good works.

These evidences of regeneration are also an important antidote to another commonly held idea that says that one may be born again but not have any good works. On the contrary, John teaches that those who are born of God practice righteousness and love the brethren. Regeneration is an effectual work of God. It produces both faith and good works, to the glory of God. Knowing this, we are aided in discerning true believers from false believers, and when we see the effects of regeneration in our own lives, our assurance is increased.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

We must always guard against the terrible danger of believing the doctrines concerning God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit without having a simple faith in the Three blessed Persons. The great doctrines are in Scripture, and it is essential that we should know them. I cannot put too much emphasis upon the value of such knowledge. But the devil comes and tries to press us to the point at which we are only interested in the doctrines and have lost the Persons, and we are left with nothing but a body of theoretical truth. In that condition we virtually turn Christian doctrine into a body of philosophy, and our relationship to divine Persons may be entirely dormant. This is, of course, another manifestation of that lack of balance which we were considering earlier, the danger of becoming increasingly intellectual and theoretical, the danger of becoming entirely objective, so that we approach all this great and glorious truth in the same way as we would approach any other truth or teaching.*

"...But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Ti 1:12).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1976). The Christian Warfare : An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 13 (178). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.

No My Arminian Brethren The Real Monstrosity Is...

Obviously I'm really pushing this book. Here's why:

Let’s begin by considering the logic of the doctrine. Some claim that definite atonement is a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic. In reality, both Arminianism and Calvinism are self-consistent logical systems.

 If human beings are capable of responding to God’s grace on their own, and if election means only God’s acceptance of those He foresees will turn to Him, then the only atonement that is necessary is one that permits God to forgive those who so respond (Arminianism). But if, on the other hand, fallen human beings are in bondage to their sinful nature, incapable of understanding spiritual things, submitting to God’s Law, or doing anything pleasing to Him; and if election is truly a matter of God’s unconditional choice—if, in short, God has given a people to His Son—then we would expect an atonement that actually saves the lost (Calvinism). From the point of view of a Calvinistic understanding of the Scriptures, it is the Arminian atonement that seems a monstrosity, because it promises fallen men and women no power to raise them from their spiritual death. If a woman were lying at the bottom of a deep well, with no strength to climb out, it would not comfort her much to hear somebody at the top shouting, “Good news! There is nothing to prevent me giving you a hand once you get to the top!” From the Calvinist perspective, the help offered by an Arminian atonement is worthless.

 The Calvinist atonement, in contrast, is one that actually saves the lost. Jesus’ death satisfied the claims of divine justice against the sins of the elect and purchased for them all that is required for their salvation: effectual calling, faith, justification, sanctification, and eventual glorification with Christ in heaven. All these blessings of salvation flow to them from the Cross. Christ has paid for their sins. He has descended to the very bottom of the well on their behalf, and He will by no means fail to rescue them. “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39).

 From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will now have to suffer for those same sins in hell.*

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them (Jn 17:6–10 emphasis mine).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Clotfelter, David (2004-10-01). Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy (p. 164-165). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Let's Do This...Again- Calvinism Vs. Arminianism

Does it really matter you ask? It most certainly does. Of course not in the matter of one's standing in Christ. That is to say that both Calvinists and Arminians are Christians (of course there are unsaved Calvinists just as there are unsaved Arminians). We are brothers and sisters in Christ and that is why this converstaion or debate really matters. In the spirit of brotherly love we owe it to one another to discuss these soteriological issues (the study of salvation) because it relates to our sanctification. It matters for our growth in Christ and for His glory. We both cannot be right and whoever is wrong has some serious corrections to make in their theology.

I normally do not like to identify myself as a Calvinist. Not because I am embarrassed of the title or because it makes me look like I'm "following a man." But chiefly because it is so misunderstood from my Arminian brethren. I spend more time correcting the false views presented concerning my position. I recently had a two hour conversation with an Arminian brother that took me to task because he said Calvinists believe that man does not a have a will. After twenty minutes of his attacking a conclusion built off of a faulty premise, I finally interrupted and let him know that I believe man has a will. He looked confused so I explained to him that man has a will but that Calvinists hold that it is in bondage to sin and will remain in bondage unless the grace of God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, breathes life into Him so that He can repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

He then asked if the Holy Spirit works in everyone this way. I responded "no" with reference to Romans 9:13 and he then proceeded to resume taking me to task for saying man has no will. What a mass of confusion! It was obvious that in his theology, as with most Arminians, that "free-will" is the hinge on which the relationship between God and man hangs. And to deny libertarian "free-will" is, in their theological framework, synonymous with saying man has no will. The view is that the Holy Spirit "enlightens" everyone equally and it is up to the individual to exercise their "free-will" to receive or reject Christ ("prevenient grace").

 Of course they will deny that "free-will" is central to their theology. They maintain that Christ is central. Here we have no disagreement. But when pressed we see that "free-will" is indeed vital to their understanding of how Christ redeems man in the application of His work. Does He of His own sovereignty, love, mercy and grace redeem those that the Father sent Him for- choosing them out of His own love and for His own purpose and glory, for his own pleasure and out of His own will ( Jn. 17:1-10) or does the Father simply look down time and see who is going to respond to Him and then send Christ for everyone with the understanding that all who choose Him will be His elect? The former is the Calvinist position while the latter is the Arminian. And it makes a great difference which position you take. One side clearly gives man some credit for his own salvation.

How so you ask? If, as the Arminian contends, the Holy Spirit enlightens everyone the same so that anyone whom wishes to exercise their "free-will" to believe- what is the basis for why one person receives Christ and another rejects Him. Was one smarter? More "moral?" Spiritually sensitive? What makes them differ? The Arminian cannot point to God, specifically the Holy Spirit, because He allegedly (according to them) has given the same kind of "prevenient grace" to everyone. So the difference cannot be said, from the Arminian, to be with God but with man. This, however, flies in complete contradiction to numerous biblical passages but specifically with:

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:4–9 emphasis mine). 

For the Arminian view point to work, "free-will" (in some sense and however they wish to get fancy in describing it) is central to man's salvation. Some are bold and honest enough to admit it but others not so much. And all one needs to do in order to see this is taken them to passages like John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" and John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day;" watch how they smuggle in the idea of man's choice or "free-will" when those passages are utterly devoid of any mention of it. The emphasis is not on man's "choosing" but on God's choice. In the first passage all that the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ. There is no "but only if they receive Him." No, they will receive Him because the Father has given them to the Son. So if the Arminian view point is correct- that the Holy Spirit enlightens everyone and draws everyone- then all people will be saved. Of course thankfully they will be grossly inconsistent in their hermeneutic and repudiate any Universalism since it is nowhere found in Scripture. But for them to get around passages like John 6:37 and 6:44 they must insert a "but" with some argument for man's choosing or rejecting ("free-will").

The same thing applies to John 6:44. The same him that is drawn by the Father in the first part of the verse is the same him in the last part of the verse who will raised on the last day. If the Father draws everyone as the Arminian argues, then everyone will be raised at the last day and that, again, is Universalism. Praise the Lord that they will be inconsistent and reject any form of it.

David Clotfelter states it even better:

The Bible says that “Salvation comes from the LORD” (Jonah 2:9 NIV), but Arminianism, even if unwittingly, says, “Salvation is partly from the Lord and partly from the exercise of human freedom.” The Bible says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8–9), but Arminianism says, “It is chiefly by grace that we have been saved, but not entirely; and we may very appropriately assume credit for the faith through which we receive salvation since it is an act of our own free will.”

 Again, I do not claim that Arminians actually make such statements, but neither do I see how they can logically avoid them. If God’s choice of me rests ultimately upon His foreknowledge of my choice of Him, then it is just and right for me to take credit for my salvation and to view myself as in some way superior to the person who makes a decision not to believe. Maybe I am smarter than my friends who haven’t believed, or maybe I am more virtuous; one way or the other, it is by my own freedom that I differ from those others, and it would be false modesty to refuse to boast. Yet what Christian wants to boast in this way? Arminianism may square with ordinary human notions of justice, but it doesn’t square with the Christian understanding of divine grace.*

Furthermore, it is hard to see that divine election really means anything at all on Arminian principles, which makes it difficult to understand why the New Testament devotes so much attention to it. If “God chose us” really just means “God foresaw that we would choose him,” then why should the Bible even bother to speak of God’s choosing?

 Let me illustrate the point with two texts of Scripture. First, look at 1 Corinthians 1:26–31:

 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

 At least on the face of it, this passage is about God’s exercise of His prerogative to choose whom He will. He has deliberately chosen people who may be considered weak or foolish in order to shame those who are strong, so that no one may boast before Him. Therefore, the Christians in Corinth should recognize that it is by God’s grace that they are in Christ, and they should boast only in Him. On this reading, the passage sets up a relationship of opposition between God’s election on the one hand and human boasting on the other. The Corinthians must not boast, not only because the initiative in their election lay with God, but also because their election is, if anything, a sign of their lowliness and weakness.

 If Arminianism is correct, however, and God simply chooses those who choose Him, then it seems that we have to radically reinterpret the passage. In this case, what Paul is really saying is that the weak and foolish chose God (as He of course foreknew they would), while the wise and strong did not. Though apparently about God’s prerogative to choose whom He will, the passage actually is a discussion of human choices. But if this is so, then what is the point of the discussion? And how does the reference to God’s choosing counteract the tendency of the Corinthians to boast? A Corinthian Christian might, I suppose, say something like this: “Well, perhaps my decision to believe in Christ is in one sense a sign of my ‘weakness’ or ‘foolishness,’ but in another and much deeper sense it is evidence of my superiority. The ‘wise’ ones of the world may look down on me, but I have chosen the better path and have thereby shown that it is they who are the fools.” But this leaves the Christian boasting in himself, which is the very thing Paul is trying to avoid! Surely the Calvinist understanding of the passage is the more logical one.*

Yes my friends this is a discussion worth having. God's greater glory and our growth in Him is at stake!

If you have ten minutes or so give this video your time.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Clotfelter, David (2004-10-01). Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy (p. 116-18). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

God's Gift of Books

"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers... so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." (Ephesians 4:11, 14)

Somebody recently told me about an interesting thing his Bible study was doing. While studying a certain topic in the Bible, nobody would read any books on the topic other than the Bible. Is that a good idea? Should all Christian books other than the Bible be shunned as an obstruction to the "pure" Bible study method of "the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and me"? Or has God given other Christian books to his church for a purpose?

In 1 Corinthians 12-14, Paul discusses the importance of spiritual gifts in the church. The Corinthian church misunderstood the gifts, marginalizing some and exalting others. Paul, however, spoke about how "to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." Everyone has a spiritual gift, and those spiritual gifts are given for the benefit and edification of those in the church. Each gift and each particular gifted person is important, as Paul's extended metaphor regarding the church being like a body teaches us (1 Corinthians 12:12-28). If we neglect a gift, the body of Christ will not function as it should.

One particular gift that can be marginalized or under-utilized is the gift of teaching. Ephesians 4:11-14 speaks of pastors and teachers as a gift from Christ to his church. Verse 14 portrays the awful consequence of our situation without teachers: "children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful scheming." But thankfully, God has not chosen to just save us and leave us in relative ignorance, knowing only the gospel but never learning anything more. He gives us teachers so that we may know him more and learn to live in a manner that brings glory to him.

Another passage that gives us more insight into God's gift of teachers is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here, Paul writes to Timothy, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." Now, one may think that Paul doesn't have the teaching of others in mind here, and that his words may be paraphrased as "profitable for teaching oneself, for reproving oneself, for correcting oneself, and for training oneself in righteousness." But there are two points in the context that argue strongly against that view. Firstly, the pastoral epistles speak often about teaching others (see 1 Timothy 4:11, 2 Timothy 2:2, and Titus 2:15 for example). There is nothing in the context to suggest that a different kind of teaching is meant here. And secondly, the "man of God" is an Old Testament name for a prophet, a spokesperson for God (Joshua 14:6, 1 Samuel 2:27, 1 Kings 12:22, etc.). Its only other occurrence in the New Testament is in Paul's first epistle to Timothy. For the "man of God," the teacher that God has given to his church, his tool is "all Scripture," and his task is teaching others, reproving others, correcting others, and training others in righteousness.

An undue emphasis on the act of teaching while neglecting the proper content of that teaching, "all Scripture," can result in a personality cult, the worship of a particular teacher instead of the God revealed in Scripture. But teaching is certainly not something that can be disposed of in order to avoid this error. When the members of the Corinthian church formed divisions based on their favorite teacher (whether it was Peter, Paul, or Apollos), Paul did not instruct them to ignore teachers. Rather, he taught that the teachers are nothing more than servants of God in the building of his temple, the cultivation of his field (1 Corinthians 3:5-9).

In the closing of his second general epistle, Peter presents an additional reason that we need teachers: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Why do we need teachers when we already have the Scriptures? Why don't teachers just pass out Bibles and read directly from them? Why don't we all just sit down with our Bibles and attempt to reconstruct all systematic theology on our own? Because there are some things in the Scriptures that are "hard to understand." Even at the time of the writing of Paul's letters, some parts were hard to understand... how much more so now!

If we understand correctly, then, that God has given teachers to his church for a purpose, how then does this help us understand the role of books?

Teachers speak both through the written word and the spoken word. On one hand, we can see that God values the spoken word, as he continually gives his church living teachers to teach them with the spoken word. On the other hand, we can also see from the examples of the Scriptures themselves that God values the written word too, as his most important teaching - the God-breathed Scriptures - exists entirely in the form of the written word. Teachers from previous generations who have gone to be with the Lord can still edify the church through their writings, giving the present-day church the opportunity to learn, as it were, at the feet of men God has blessed over the past two millennia. Modern authors, too, have a role in addressing topics about which there is presently a lack of understanding or even much error being taught (as in the "easy-believism" so rampant in the church today).

Today, we see "seeker-friendly" churches that minimize teaching in their services, with expository sermons replaced with short talks consisting of storytelling and good advice followed by a skit, and we rightly criticize them for neglecting the gift of teaching. But if our only exposure to Biblical teaching is what we hear Sunday morning, then we're not really doing much better. In books, we have an inexhaustible supply of teaching at our disposal. If we need to understand the historical and cultural setting of the book of Ezra, there is a book in the church library that will teach us that. If we need to understand how the question of Christ's deity has been phrased and disputed throughout church history, there is another book that will teach us that. When we come across a passage in the Bible that is "hard to understand," we can borrow a couple commentaries from a friend and look up another one online in order to learn from godly men who have wrestled with that passage already. And if we are looking for help in the application of Scriptural principles in a particular area such as finances, we can buy a book that will teach us that.

A word of caution is necessary here. We shouldn't just go out and read any "Christian" book we can get our hands on. The books, like the teachers they come from, range from good to bad. Some are excellent edifying works that open our eyes to the wondrous truths of God's word, such as the holiness or the sovereign grace of God. Unfortunately, many of today's "Christian bestsellers" don't fall into this category, as they're virtually empty of theological content. Some are even outright heretical, denying essential Christian truths such as justification through faith alone or the exhaustive foreknowledge of God. When selecting books to read, we should exercise discernment just as we are called to with teachers in the New Testament (see 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22, 1 Timothy 6:3-4, for example). In 2 John we are called to not have anything to do with a teacher who denies the coming of the Jesus Christ in the flesh (the heresy of docetism). This would certainly also include not supporting or promoting the writings of such a false teacher.

In God's design, we will never learn all there is to know about him and his Word while living out our earthly lives. We will always need teachers, and God has been pleased to give his church teachers who have written their teaching in books. And he has given us teachers who use Scripture to teach us, reprove us, correct us, and train us in righteousness so that we may no longer be children spiritually, swept away by every other false doctrine that comes our way. We face severe consequences if we fail to use the gift of teaching, and specifically, that teaching in books. May we never neglect God's gift of books to the detriment of the body of Christ.

What Have We Done To Preaching?

I do not speak here as an expert on the subject. I do not claim to be a decent preacher, either. I am quite grateful that my congregation comes back each Sunday morning to worship the Lord through the proclamation of His word despite my inadequacies. The Lord is really gracious.

Yet I need not be an expert with authority on the matter in order to observe and mention that we have really soiled preaching. In many different areas. The content, form and from the listeners -what to expect. Almost everything that comes from a pulpit or pastor has "sermon" or "preaching" tacked onto it. Anything from very well theologically informed academic lectures to self-help pep rallies devoid of any substantive biblical content. We simply proclaim any message from pastors (or others) as "preaching." Congregants have long been accustomed to sitting through some of these (I know, I know people may say the same about me) lectures and pep rallies that when, by chance, they do come across preaching they are not quite sure what is going on. Their first thought may be "who is this clown yelling at me?" 


I've often wondered how many today could endure sitting under the preaching of the Puritans? Or the Reformers? Even the early Church Fathers? How about the Apostles? As we read through Paul's letters it is obvious that he is not simply giving any cerebral message devoid of any passion. In fact he can get so passionate and worked up that he has been accused by grammarians of being improper at times. He sometimes  does not quite complete his thoughts before he is onto his next point. It is quite obvious that none of his preaching was self-help lectures. One simply needs to read Galatians and Romans to observe how theological and doctrinal he can get.

We have drifted far off course. I think one of the real dangers is that we have too many academic seminary lectures coming from pulpits. Those messages would be fantastic for the classroom, just not for the pulpit. This may be from a reaction to the un-biblical non- doctrinal preaching that is found in churches throughout the world. We have become content with pastors that can not only spell propitiation but also expound it. Oh we rightly salivate when we see that. The problem arises when that is accomplished in dry and purely academic language. Instead of preaching that includes the doctrine of propitiation we are now getting lectures on it.

On the other had others that are not qualified to preach have been extended the pulpit and not only do they not like doctrine and theology they lament about the "evils" of it from the pulpit! They are more concerned with entertaining the people sitting before them so that they will come back each Sunday perhaps with friends. They want to be spoken well of; so the people are being doctrinally un-informed and expect all messages from the pulpit to be like that.

I recall the first time I heard preaching. It contained both doctrinal truth and was conveyed with much passion. The "man of God" was obviously pierced and moved by the Word of God; it drew him to behold the greatness of Christ which it was evident from the way he was preaching from the Bible. He even used "big words" but was sure to break it down for the common man. It was not a well doctrinally informed dry lecture. Nor was it a doctrine-less message aimed at making me feel good. No, no, my friends, it was more like a man who had been moved by the greatness of God.

J.I. Packer has some very helpful insights:

When I say, as frequently as I catch myself doing, that preaching is caught more than it is taught, it is partly of my own discoveries during that period that I am thinking. I do not, of course,  mean that I regard Dr. Lloyd-Jones as the only preacher I have ever heard do it right; over the past generation I have been privileged to hear many real preachers really preaching. I am only saying that it was Dr. Lloyd-Jones's ministry that under God gave me my standards in this matter. And standards are needed, for not all preaching is good preaching by any means. I suppose that over the years I have heard as much bad preaching as the next man and probably done as much myself as any clergyman you would like to name. Nonetheless, having observed how preaching is conceived in Scripture, and having experienced preaching of a very high order, I continue to believe in preaching and maintain that there is no substitute for it, and no power or stature  or sustained vision  or close fellowship  with God in the church without it.*

Third, low expectations are self-fulfilling. Most modern hearers have never been taught to expect much from  sermons, and their habit is to relax at sermon time and wait to see if anything that the speaker says will interest them- "grab them," as they might put it. Today's congregations and today's preachers seem to be mostly at one in neither expecting that God will come to meet His people in the preaching, and so it is no wonder that this does not happen. Just as it takes two to tango, so ordinarily it takes both  an expectant congregation and a preacher who knows what he is about to make an authentic preaching occasion.* 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Samuel T. Logan Jr., The Preacher and Preaching: Reviving the Art (Phillipburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2011), p.2


* Ibid, pp. 4-5 

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Jonathan Edwards

On  July 8, 1741 Jonathan Edwards preached what has become his most famous sermon- Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Of course such a message would not sit well in many churches today. Might as well do as Dr. James White says, and hang a sign outside of your building with these words: "this church is part of the church shrinkage movement.'

Any sermon similar to that would not go over well in most congregations today. Immediate charges of "hell-fire and brimstone," "fundamentalists," "mean spirited," "coercion," "unloving," "spiteful" would come forth. The sentiment is that that is the God of the Old Testament while the God of the New Testament is much nicer and "loving."

But one can certainly read in the Old Testament how loving God is; the issue there reveals that love is not God's most revealed attribute. His holiness is. God's greatest desire is for His own glory both in judgment and salvation. Like wise in the New Testament we find people like Ananias and Saphira whose lives were taken directly by God for lying to Him (Ac. 5:1-6). Or one need simply to read all the warnings about hell from Christ. Even a superficial reading of the book of Revelation testifies that the God of the Old Testament is immutable and therefore the same God in the New. We come across passages like this:

Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Re 6:15–17).

 Does not the above passage sound similar to this one found in Ezekiel 28:22-23:

Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against you, O Sidon, and I will manifest my glory in your midst. And they shall know that I am the LORD when I execute judgments in her and manifest my holiness in her; for I will send pestilence into her, and blood into her streets; and the slain shall fall in her midst, by the sword that is against her on every side. Then they will know that I am the LORD.

Is there a very real reason for this consistency? Absolutely! It comes from what God says about Himself though His Word- "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:7–8).

One of the most troubling things is that, today, many Christians cannot give an account for this. Many seem to not even care about God's holiness revealed in the Old Testament. They would rather sit in John 3:16 (even though His holiness is found there in the damnation of those that reject Christ) or similar passages that speak of God's love and mercy. They implicitly and unknowingly present two different god's. One of the Old and one of the New, while they seem to be embarrassed and make apologies for the God of the Old Testament. It is very saddening and un-biblical.

There is only one God in three distinct and eternal persons- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New. The second person of the triune God- Christ Jesus- took upon Himself humanity and completely satisfied and glorified the Father by providing and securing the redemption of all those whom that Father has given to Him ( Jn. 17:1-26).

Of course Jonathan Edwards was very well aware that God was revealing how infinitely holy, holy, holy He is in the Old Testament (and in the New). That all the judgment found there is to testify that God is perfect in every way and abhors all sin. People need to fear Him. Sinners need to look upon Him in submission and awe; in fear and trembling. Those Old Testament saints were looking  forward to the promise of the coming Messiah. In the New Testament we see God Himself breaking into His creation to restore redeem His people. We see the climatic point in history where Christ took the full judgment and wrath of the Father on the cross for all that flee to Him in repentance and faith. His resurrection secures our justification. Sin and death defeated by the King! All those acts of judgement in the Old Testament which were to direct our attention to the holiness and justice of God were but a glimpse of the fury of God in eternity yet for those in Christ it was poured upon Him in full. What love, oh what love!

Edwards's sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a masterpiece. Ironically he was far more prone to preach on the "sweetness of Christ" than on the coming judgment of God. But since this sermon was so powerful (because it is true) it stands out from among his normal preaching. The key for Edwards, which we've been trying to point out, is that to really grasp the "sweetness of Christ" and His love, mercy and grace it must all be viewed thought the scope of His holiness. If you are in Christ read his words with the cross of Christ in mind; in sheer amazement gratitude and praise for Him. If your are not in Christ read these words knowing that this is your current condition. This is where you are now. Laugh, delude yourself that it is all a joke but it is the sheer truth of where you stand in God's hands:

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow on moment from being made drunk with your blood... The God that holds you over the put of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed  to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you were suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

Oh that we would here more of this kind of preaching. That unrepentant sinners would be stripped bare of any self-confidence and self-righteousness and call upon the name of Christ to be saved. That people of Christ would fall down in worship and reverence for God in gratitude for the cross of Christ. That we would say along with the Apostle Paul, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith”(Ro 1:16–17).

Do not tell me that Jonathan Edwards knew nothing of the love of God. This very sermon is a testament to the fact that he did. His knew first and foremost that God is holy, holy, holy. He wanted unrepentant sinners to be convicted of their utter sinfulness that they are under the wrath of God and therefore in need of Christ. In short he was lovingly driving them to Christ. One does not flee from something to someone (Christ) unless they first see the danger that they are in. Hence the importance of that sermon.

Sadly many mock Jonathan Edwards and that sermon. Dr. James White writes:

Without a context such words can be used to make Edwards look like a maddened character from a Poe novel, and this is surely the purpose of many today as they seek to make any kind  of preaching of God's judgment on sin a sick novelty of past, unenlightened generations. But this is to distort grossly the truth about Edwards and all who, like him, preached the judgment of God with trembling heart and soul. A fair reading of Edwards's works shows him a mild and compassionate, often dwelling upon the "sweetness of Christ." He is taken in with God's love, His grace and mercy. Yet Edwards was a man of the Word. He knew what must be preached again today: God's love shines with its full and proper glory only when it is seen in its biblical context-against the backdrop of God's holiness and hatred of sin.*

It is true- This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Ac 4:10–12). 

Recommended reading: Sinners in the Hands of a Good God by David Clotfelter and The God Who Justifies by James White.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


* James White, The God Who Justifies (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), p. 46

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

In attacking the minds of Christians the devil employs another method which is similar to the one already mentioned, yet essentially different. It is possible for a believer who has avoided the danger of introducing philosophy and imposing it upon the Bible, and who sincerely recognizes the Bible as his sole authority, and desires to submit himself wholeheartedly to its evident meaning—it is still possible for such a man to go astray by becoming purely theoretical in his attitude towards this precious knowledge. It can happen to all, but I emphasize again that it is the particular danger of those who have keen minds, and who desire to understand and to grow in knowledge. The devil knowing us as he does, always suits the particular form of temptation to our exact mentality. At this point I am not referring to people who do not read the Scriptures, or indeed little else, and who say, ‘I am interested in nothing but my experience’. The devil does not trouble such people in this way, but to those who truly long to grow and develop, he comes and says, ‘Of course, you are quite right; what you need, and what everyone else needs, is more and more of this knowledge’. But he presses the thought so far that in the end they get into a condition in which their whole relationship to truth is purely theoretical and academic. And this involves the terrible danger of becoming more concerned about, and more interested in, our intellectual knowledge of Christian truth than in our knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and if the devil with all his wiles can beguile us into this condition he is more than satisfied. In other words, it is the failure to realize that the ultimate end of all knowledge is to bring us to a knowledge of the Person Himself. We are not to stop at knowledge concerning Him, precious though that is, and vital.*





*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1976). The Christian Warfare : An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10 to 13 (177–178). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.

What They Are Saying About Lloyd-Jones

I just received my copy of Preaching & Preachers 40th Anniversary Edition. The blessing about this edition is that it contains several essays from several recent preachers: Bryan Chapell, Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, Ligon Duncan, Timothy Keller and John Piper. They all write about how they've been impacted by this book even when they disagree with the Welshman.

I have selected two essays to quote from. John Piper and Kevin DeYoung. I'll start with Piper:

In July 1959, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his wife, Bethan, were on vacation in Wales. They attended a little chapel for a Sunday morning prayer meeting, and Lloyd-Jones asked them, "Would you like me to give a word this morning?" The people hesitated because it was his vacation and they didn't want to presume upon his energy. But his wife said, "Let him, preaching is his life." It was a true statement*

Kevin DeYoung:

There are two audiences that most need to read this book: those who are considering the preaching ministry and those who are tired of it. I can't lay this down as an absolute rule, but in general I would say that if you are not gripped by Lloyd-Jones passion for preaching, then you should really think whether you are called to preach. Again, I admit some may not take to this opinionated Welshman like I have , But I still think it's a good rule of thumb: if Preaching and Preachers does not ignite a fire in your heart for the romance and glory of preaching, then preaching is probably not for you. There's no shame in that, but it's better to see that sooner rather than later.

If a young man is considering the ministry and he loves theology and Greek and Hebrew but says "meh" to this book, I wonder if he has the requisite enthusiasm for the chief task of pastoral ministry (I'm thinking here of those pastors whose main responsibility it is to preach). If, however, your heart soars with each chapter and anecdote, make an effort to see if the church confirms what you sense in yourself.*

I have many, many, many books on the subject of preaching, both old and modern but none that I have read (and I have read quite a few) top Preaching and Preachers. Although Spurgeons Lectures To My Students comes in a close second. My concern with much of today's books on preaching is that the focus lies far too much on form and structure. If you have read the Doctor he calls that almost an abomination and harlotry.

Whether you have been preaching for years, or just starting, or pondering this is a must read. You can find your copy here.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*D. Martryn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching &Preachers 40th Anniversary Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), p. 153

* Ibid, p. 198

    

  

Thoughts On The Love Of God And Ezekiel

If all you look for in the Bible is "love" definitely do not read Ezekiel. You might actually come away with understanding that God is holy and not to be trifled with. What stands out in the book of Ezekiel is the holiness of God. How utterly righteous and just the triune God is. Or another way of saying it is the glory of God in judgment.

All too often we read the Bible looking for "me." Looking to hear how much God dotes on people. The Bible is not about "me" it is about God. It is a testimony about Christ Jesus. It is in the words of Dr. Jim Hamilton, "God's glory in salvation through judgment." That God incarnate lived a perfect sinless life, keeping the commands and laws of God but bearing the punishment of sinners upon the cross because their sins were imputed to Him; rising from the grave on the third defeating sin and death; ascending to His throne securing the salvation of His people and to restore all things.

Of course that is the essence of God's love. We should delight, rejoice and praise the living God for such a splendid undeserving love. But that is not all we should be concerned with. We should be standing in reverence, fear and awe at the holiness of God. When He acts in anger and judgment towards any that would defile and profane His name through sin. Through breaking His laws and violating His commands without any consideration for His glory and fearing His name.

Everyone, it seems these days, cares only about the love of God and cares nothing for His holiness, justice and glory. How many Christians are even aware that the book of Ezekiel only mentions the word "love" three times (according to Logos Bible Software in the ESV)? The first time is in 16:8 followed by 16:37 and finally 23:17. Yet only one passage is in reference to God's love for Israel and that implicitly (16:8). Now compare that with how frequently Ezekiel speaks of God spending and pouring out His wrath. 30 (twice in v. 13:13) times the wrath of God is mentioned. Let's not speak of the words "fury," "anger," and "judgment."

Perhaps what stands out the most is not that it takes sixteen chapters for the love of God to appear but what comes before it (and after)! Let's take a look:

Now I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you, and judge you according to your ways, and I will punish you for all your abominations. And my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. I will punish you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst. Then you will know that I am the LORD, who strikes (Eze 7:7–9).

Then he said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations that they commit here, that they should fill the land with violence and provoke me still further to anger? Behold, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore I will act in wrath. My eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. And though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them”(Eze 8:17–18).

“Or if I bring a sword upon that land and say, Let a sword pass through the land, and I cut off from it man and beast, though these three men were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they alone would be delivered. “Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out my wrath upon it with blood, to cut off from it man and beast, even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness (Eze 14:17–20). 

“Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the LORD—that I have spoken in my jealousy—when I spend my fury upon them. Moreover, I will make you a desolation and an object of reproach among the nations all around you and in the sight of all who pass by. You shall be a reproach and a taunt, a warning and a horror, to the nations all around you, when I execute judgments on you in anger and fury, and with furious rebukes—I am the LORD; I have spoken— when I send against you the deadly arrows of famine, arrows for destruction, which I will send to destroy you, and when I bring more and more famine upon you and break your supply of bread. I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will rob you of your children. Pestilence and blood shall pass through you, and I will bring the sword upon you. I am the LORD; I have spoken” (Eze 5:13–17).

These are just some passages that deal with God's wrath and fury and they come before the one mention of His love. Of course that is not to say one cannot see the implication that God loves His people because He certainly spared the repentant. Just imagine for a second that you were a part of the people that God did indeed set His love upon and spared. You still had to witness the fearsome wrath of God being poured out upon their friends and families and the pagan nations surrounding them; their first thought was not "God loves me." No, it was more likely, "holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!"


Yes there was that fear, awe, reverence at the holy wrath of God. This of course moved them to worship Him in fear and trembling yet rejoice in this great love of God that He had for them so they were not consumed by such great fury. Rather they received His blessings both temporal and in the future coming of Messiah, Christ the Lord- their only means of salvation.

When we look back and read such fear instilling passages of the great justice of God, our thoughts should immediately turn to the cross of Christ. For there we see as God declares in Ezekiel, "Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the LORD—that I have spoken in my jealousy—when I spend my fury upon them" (Eze 5:13) that that fury and anger of His was poured, in full, on Christ at the cross for all in Him. Where Paul declares:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Ro 3:21–26). 

And if by some chance preachers are bold enough to preach through Ezekiel and an unbeliever happens to be sitting in the pews (there is always a very good chance of that) they should be filled with fear, terror and trembling at the greatness of God. They should immediately hang their head, beat their chest and cry out for mercy ( Lk. 8:10-14). In repentance and faith they should make a mad-dash to the cross of Christ. For "everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Ac. 2:21).


What we are seeing in much of contemporary Christianity is that many pastors think the sinners (if they are bold enough to admit that) biggest problem is that they "feel unloved." Nothing could be further from the truth. The non-Christians greatest problem is that he is an enemy of God. In defiance of the Almighty, under His condemnation and awaiting to consumed by that same great wrath of God for all of eternity. That fury which we see in Ezekiel is but a glimpse it. They need to hear of it so that may truly see "how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Ro 10:15). Yes indeed "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ "(Ro 10:17). 


Ezekiel is the revelation of God's holiness, justice and righteousness. In it we find how much He does extend His mercy, grace and love to those whom He wills. It is for His own glory and praise. As He often proclaims, "so that we may know the He is the Lord." Oh it makes it all that much more beautiful and precious. Got it? Get it? Good.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando