Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

The starting point, the fundamental thing, is that Christianity is about Jesus. “I’ve written to you already about Him,” said Luke in effect, “and I’m going to tell you more about Him.” Christianity is not a teaching—it is a person. It is not merely a moral outlook that is to be applied in the realm of politics. You start with a historical person. Luke was a pure historian. He was giving an account of events and of facts.

The Lord Jesus Christ was the theme of the preaching of the early church. He is the theme of the Gospel of Luke. He is the theme of the Acts of the Apostles. This is the tragic thing that has been forgotten at the present time. “What we need,” people say, “is the application of His teaching.” But it is not. What you need is to know Him and to come into a relationship with Him. You do not start with His teaching—you start with Him. This is the message: “All that Jesus began both to do and teach.” Our Lord Himself said to his disciples, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me” (Acts 1:8). He was sending these men out to preach. He said, “You are not simply going to preach My teaching. You are going to preach about Me.”

As you read the book of Acts, you will find that our Lord’s disciples always preached “Jesus, and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). They went to people and told them about this person. This was the whole of their teaching. You never find them starting with the political or social situations. They said, “Listen, we have something to tell you about a person whose name is Jesus.”

And what did the disciples say about Him? The facts are all-important. In the Gospel Luke gave facts, and here in Acts he gives them again. But he does not stop at that; he is equally concerned about the meaning, the significance, of these facts. And he expounds that. He writes not only about all that Jesus did, but also all that He taught. The two must always go together—our Lord’s acts and His teaching.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (10–11). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

It Needs To Be Said

Justin Peters took the words right out of my mouth:

Some fifty or so years ago a trend began to emerge among many evangelical pulpits. Preachers slowly but surely began to abandon the preaching of God’s holiness and wrath as the primary means to lead sinners to repentance and faith in Christ. The preaching of wrath and coming judgment fell out of favor because it was seen as too harsh and unfriendly. Preachers became increasingly reticent to offend the sensibilities of their congregants. They wanted their churches and denominations to grow and prosper and telling people that they were sinners who had offended an angry God and in peril of eternal punishment was not seen as conducive to those goals. So, many pulpits began to offer a kinder, gentler gospel: Come to Jesus because He will give you a better life; He will fill the “God-shaped” hole in your heart; Know Jesus, know peace – no Jesus, no peace; God will give you prosperity and healing; God will give you a purpose driven life; God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Of course, this was done to varying degrees by varying churches and denominations. Some softened more than others to be sure. However, over the years and decades, the trend continued. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water slowly heating up to the boiling point, most people did not notice and few raised objections. Generations have now been raised under soft preaching. Generations of parents in Christian homes have outsourced their responsibility to teach their children the Bible to Sunday School teachers and youth ministers. Now, however, the water is boiling. Most professing Christians today are stunningly ignorant of basic Christian doctrine and are biblically illiterate. Most do not know what they really believe and have even less idea of why they believe it. Most are incapable of giving a reason for the hope that, they say, is within them (1 Peter 3:15). Some faithful preachers and laymen have been sounding the alarm but the point of no return may well have already been reached. The softening of the Gospel has led inexorably to theological and doctrinal compromise. The seeds which have been sown in the last half-century are now reaping a harvest of biblically ignorant, theologically confused, uncommitted and unconcerned masses with a post-modern worldview...

The problem of false conversion is the theological elephant sitting in the living room of evangelical Christianity. Many are aware of the problem but few have the courage to address it in a meaningful way. It is an immense problem that is getting worse. Weak preaching produces false converts who seek out more doctrinally weak churches (if they seek out churches at all) which must continue to soften the Gospel to attract more false converts. It is a vicious cycle which shows no signs of being broken. That is the bad news. The good news, though, is that some are sounding the alarm. Some do care. There is and always will be a remnant of faithful preachers who rightly divide the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15) for God’s faithful remnant who desire it and will not settle for anything less. The power to right the ship is available – it always has been. The power of God is the Gospel. As bleak as the plight of today’s church may seem, there are rays of hope. There seems to be underfoot a move of God to awaken His people from their spiritual slumber. There seems to be a growing number of young people who are being awakened to the dangers of false conversion and who take doctrine seriously.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Vincent and Lori Williams (2012-02-01). Falsified: The Danger of False Conversion (Kindle Locations 138-148). WestBowPress. Kindle Edition.

Calvin Answers The Accusation(s)

We've all heard it before, "Calvin killed Servetus!," "Calvin forced the death of Servetus!," "Calvin wanted Servetus dead and had him killed!" These cries that are still echoed today are nothing new. Calvin himself had to address the rumors and slander of his name while he was alive.

To be sure Calvin was no friend of Servetus. He did not tolerate the heresy and perversion of Christ's name from the man. Of course Calvin was patient and personally kind to Servetus, going so far as to visit him in prison and trying to convince the man to repent of his errors; even warning him not to come to Geneva where he was wanted.

Of course all that goes unmentioned by those that lay blame of Servetus's death not with himself but on Calvin.

Calvin's dealing with Servetus is a great example of being gentle with opponents (attempting to meet with Servetus, visiting him in prison, warning him) "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Ti. 2:24-26) and being poignant and severe in proportion to the false teaching, "Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh" (Phil. 3:2); "Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you" (Gal. 2:4-5).


Here are Calvin's own words in response to the false teaching of Servetus and the accusation that he wanted him put to death. Calvin does not mention Servetus by name, as he does others in his refutation of other men, but as I was reading I wondered if he was indeed referring to Servetus and so I searched the footnotes which say that it is. I underlined the portion I wish to emphasize.

  The Pastors of the Church of Christ, at Geneva, pray, that God would grant to those most excellent Men, their supreme Lords, and to the Syndics, and Senate of Geneva, a just and holy administration of the State; and all happy prosperity and success.

THE same motive which impelled us to write this Book, most excellent SIRS, constrained us also to DEDICATE it to YOU; that it might go forth under your name and auspices.—THE FREE ELECTION OF GOD, by which He adopts unto himself whom He will, out of the lost generation of men, has been hitherto publicly declared by us, in this city, with all reverence, sobriety, and sincerity; and has been peacefully received by the people. But now, Satan, the father of all strifes, has subtlely introduced by means of a certain worthless person, a wide spreading error; and has attempted to root out our doctrine, which is drawn from the pure Word of God, and to shake the faith of the people. But since this hungry hunter after vain glory wishes to gain notoriety out of the very flames of the temple of God;—lest he should catch that reward of his unholy audacity, for which he has laid his nets; let his name be buried under our silence; while we leave it purposely unmentioned.

But since the trouble which this vain mortal endeavoured to cause us, reaches unto you also, it is but just that you should partake the blessed fruit which God brings out of it. And as we have ever found you strenuous and hearty defenders of our holy cause, we have felt it to be our duty to testify, with all our ability, our gratitude. The performance of this our duty will also plainly shew, what that doctrine is, which you have protected by your favour and authority. And although it becomes neither the rulers of the State, nor the ministers of Christ, to be too anxious about rumours and tumults; and though all insidious revilings (which are generally lost, by degrees, in the noise which they make) should be despised, both by rulers and ministers of Christ, with fortitude and an exalted mind; yet, it is of the utmost importance, that the great reality of the matter concerned, should ever be kept in the hands, and (as engraven on public tablets) before the eyes, of all; that the plain statement of it may condemn and stop the false tongues of the foolish, the vain, or the wicked; and may, at the same time, repress the frivolous whispers of the people in general.

There was spread abroad, in many places, a rumour, that this vain person was severely bound in prison: whereas, he was perfectly free, and flying about the city openly, every day. And with what malignity some virulent ones imagined and stated, that we wished him to be put to death, you are yourselves our best witnesses.* To refute such calumnies, until they shall have vanished, by contempt and tranquil magnanimity, is the becoming duty of gravity and prudence.

On the other hand, however, lest some unstable ones should be moved; of whom serious care must be taken;—to set forth plainly, before all, the real state of the case and cause at issue, is no less expedient, than a solemn duty, on our part. For iniquity, unless it be resolutely met, makes its creeping way (as saith Paul) “like a canker.” (2 Tim. 2:17.) Now, this DEFENCE, which we offer to all the godly, will, we hope, be a strong and effectual remedy, to those who are healable; and will serve also as a wholesome antidote to the sound and the whole. And the subject itself is one to which the children of God should devote their most studious attention; that they become not ignorant of their heavenly birth and origin. For some fools, because the Gospel is called “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” would blot out, under this pretext, the election of God; whereas, it ought to have entered into the minds of such, to think, from whence faith comes! Now, the Scripture everywhere proclaimeth aloud, that God giveth to his Son those, who were ever his; that He calleth those whom He hath chosen; and that those whom He hath adopted for sons, He begetteth by his Spirit; and finally, that the men whom He hath taught within, and to whom his “arm is revealed,” believe! Wherefore, whosoever shall hold faith to be the earnest and pledge of adoption, will assuredly confess, that it flows from Divine election, as its eternal source. And yet, the knowledge of salvation is not to be sought, from the secret counsel of God.—Life is set before us, in Christ: who not only makes himself known, but presents himself to our enjoyment, in the Gospel. Into this mirror, let the eye of our faith ever fixedly look. Nor let it ever desire to penetrate where access to its sight is not given.

Since this is the right way, let the children of God walk therein, lest by winging their flight higher than is lawful, they plunge themselves into a labyrinth deeper than they would wish to find themselves in. But as there is none other gate of the kingdom of heaven than faith in Christ, as contained in the promises of the Gospel openly set before us; so it must be the greatest ignorance not to acknowledge that the eyes of our minds are opened of God Himself, for He chose us unto faith in Christ before we were conceived in the womb. And yet, that the object of this impure and abandoned one was not only to blot out all knowledge of God’s election from the minds of men, but to overturn His power also, is clearly manifest from those mad dreams of his, which ye possess in your public records, written with his own hand; wherein he asserts that faith does not depend on election, but that rather election stands in faith, and that none remain in blindness on account of the in-born corruption of nature, seeing that all men are rightly enlightened of God; and that we do a great injustice to God when we declare that those are passed by of Him whom He deigns not to illumine by His Spirit.

This worthless being also maintains that all men, generally and equally, are “drawn” of God; and that there is no difference, except where resistance begins it; and that when God promises that He will make “hearts of flesh” out of “hearts of stone,” nothing else is meant than the making us capable of receiving the grace of God; and that this capability, or the being made capable, extends without distinction to the whole human race, whereas the Scripture most clearly affirms that this is the peculiar privilege of the Church of God.

As to the Providence of God, by which the world is ruled, this ought ever to be confessed and held fast by all the godly: that there is no reason why men should make God a sharer in their sins, or in any way involve Him with themselves in a participation of their fault. But since the Scripture teaches that the reprobate are also instruments of the wrath of God, by some of whom He instructs the faithful unto patience, and on others of whom, as His enemies, He inflicts the punishments they deserve; this profane trifler contends that no act of God is just, but that for which there lies a plain reason before our eyes. Thus, doing away with all difference between remote and proximate and immediate causes, he will not allow the severe afflictions laid on Job to be considered the work of God, lest He should be made equally guilty with the devil, and the Chaldean and Sabean plunderers (emphasis mine).*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Calvin, J., & Cole, H. H. (2009). Calvin's Calvinism: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God (1–5). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Thoughts On The Love Of God And His Other Attributes

Much of the confusion about God, in all His attributes, stems not from any lack of clarity on God's part in His self- revelation of His written Word. Nor do I believe it is because we do not have enough knowledge of God either. I simply think it is a result of ignorance and laziness. I do not say that to belittle anyone nor to be "mean spirited" but to be poignant. Some times the truth hurts no matter how it is put. As the Apostle Paul said to the Galatians "Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Ga 4:16)."

Let me explain what I mean by ignorance and laziness. There are believers out there that are well informed of the Word of God. They can quote to you passage after passage from memory and even direct you to where certain verses are. But they seem to be ignorant of how all these passages fit together theologically. To put it a different way, many Christians can quote to a person, believer or unbeliever, about the love of God in passages like John 3:16 and Romans 8:35-39 and Psalm 136. At the same time they can be ignorant of (whether deliberately or not I do not know) passages say God does not "hate the sin but love the sinner" but that He in fact hates the soul who does wickedness. The idea that God hates the wicked is not some theologians "fundamentalism" getting carried away. It is God's self-revelation in His written Word "The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence "(Ps 11:5). Now why is it that a verse like this is not only not memorized but it seems that numerous Christians are not even aware of it? We'll answer that momentarily. But when such verses are presented to Christians whether from an antagonistic atheist attempting to discredit the love and goodness of God or a liberal professing Christian that rejects much of the Bible, Christians cannot give a Christ glorying answer that doesn't contradict Scripture nor make apologies for God and water down Scriptural truth(s). Many will not even further study or  "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (2 Ti 2:15). They are quite content to fall back on John 3:16 as if that explains away Ps. 11:5 or trumps it.

Oftentimes when I mention things like this I often get objections like "But that is an isolated example" or "that's an overstatement!" Here's my challenge- ask the average pew sitter who makes people blind, deaf or mute. Many will stumble for an answer similar to something like "God allowed it." But, again, the antagonistic atheist that is familiar with the Bible will (correctly) point out Ex. 4:11 "Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?," and say something to the effect "The Bible, which you believe in, says that your God made them that way and what kind of  loving, kind, righteous or just God would do that? That is not a god but a monster!" At this point many a believer will be tripped up and implicitly through their answers make apologies for God and resort to the "allowed" cliche.

So why are such passages like Ps. 11:5 and Ex. 4:11 not memorized but brushed away and avoided? Well, partly because many pastors will not preach on them for fear of offending people and emptying their churches but also because Christians have long let the secular world define for them what good, righteous, justice, love, kindness and grace mean. They have allowed the world to determine what is acceptable about God and what isn't. And those difficult passages do not fit in with what many perceive to be the "goodness," or "love" of God. That coupled with ignorance of many difficult passages of God's revelation about Himself and you have a mass of confusion that hinders that proclamation of God's greatness, along with a lopsided worship of only a distorted view of His love.

Christ does not need our approval of who He is and how He acts in His created world. He demands our worship, praise, adoration, submission and love. If He receives it not then He is angry and will punish His enemies. Without my help see if you can spot both the justice of Christ and His love, mercy and grace in this passage- "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him" (Ps 2:12)?


Here are some final thoughts from John Wenham in his book The Enigma Of Evil: Can We Believe In The Goodness Of God?:

The intention is to show that, in his attempts to understand the ways of God, the Christian must eschew easy answers- in particular those answers which dismiss the uncomfortable features of the Bible. We must look at reality-look at it hard- till at last we realize that there is no way out; till we realize that we are children, that we are fools, that we are at heart conceited, stiff-necked rebels, who will get everything wrong, unless we are prepared to give up telling God what he should be like and what he should do; till we realize that we can know only what God is pleased to tell us. We must listen and try to understand.

God and his revelation need no defence. Apologetics, in so far as it is valid, consists of two things: clearing away of misunderstandings of the revelation and showing the weaknesses of alternatives to it.  

...It becomes clear now that our initial questioning of God's goodness arose from an imperfect idea of goodness. It was altogether too shallow a concept to match up to the terrors and glories and compassion of the God who is. Instead of allowing the Bible to mould our notion of goodness, we let our false standard of goodness become a standard whereby to criticize the Bible. In doing so we lost the purity of our doctrine of God, and blunted the razor-edge of theism. We lost something of that awe and fear of the Lord which is the beginning of true wisdom and worship, and which is the necessary prelude to a realization of the depth's of God's love.*

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it (Job 38:1–5)?"


Soli Deo Gloria!

* John W. Wenham, The Enigma Of Evil: Can We Believe In The Goodness of God? (Grand Rapids, MI.; Zondervan, 1985), pp. 10, 180

The Holiness Of God In Worship

I just received this book Worship in the Presence of God and have been reading it in bits and pieces. I turned to the chapter on worship and preaching; immediately came across  this quote:

When God is loved only for His love-necessary as noble as that is in itself-, the time will come when the 'why's' will rise up in one's heart. Divine providences, which tend to push all men to the breaking point at one time or another (Jam. 1:2), will precipitate cries such as "Why, oh God? Do you not love me anymore?"

Such cries, however tempting, are indicative of a man- centered attitude and preclude worship, which is God-centered. The 'why's' to God will silence the worship by definition. To love God centrally for His holiness is to escape that trap. In light of the awesome purity of God, man sees himself in his ruined state (Is. 6:5), which admittedly deserve eternal damnation. In the face of any providence of God, even the kind that seemingly presses the last drop of blood out of an individual, the response of anyone who acknowledges his ruined state as his own fault and damnation as his just desert will never be 'Why?' but rather 'Why Not?'. This response, and this response alone, which can not be produced except through a vision of God in His holiness, will pave the way for worship that seeks God (John 4:23) and with which He is satisfied.

In fact, love for God in His holiness always goes hand in hand with a desire for holiness before God. That ultimately will produce thankfulness, not just in spite of or in the circumstances, but because of the circumstances. After all, everything in the lives of those who love God aims at their 'good,' that is, their transformation into the image of Christ, their sanctification (Rom. 8:28-29). Never do 'bad' things happen to good people. To complain that something bad is happening  to 'me' is to imply 'I' am a bad person. For God's people there are literally no stumbling blocks to worship. Everything fosters it!* 

Soli Deo Gloria!

*Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, Worship in the Presence of God (Fellsmere, FL.; Reformation Media Press, 2006), p. 158

  

BUT WHERE WILL THEY GO?

There are many who preach the Gospel, whether they are of the persuasion that God is sovereign over all things or whether they believe He has left them to respond to a presupposed “prevenient” grace, who, when they preach the Gospel, do so as the free offer of the gospel. In this respect, the preaching is the same, for we are taught that the Gospel is to be offered to all, irrespective of those it is preached to, as we are taught in the Great Commission and many other Scripture passages, such as 2 Corinthians 5, for instance.

Please do not misunderstand: This is not “the well intended offer” which Pastor Fernando so strongly and rightly comes against – in short, we recognize there is nothing well intended for a sinner who has not been, and never will be, born again by God’s sovereign Grace in and through Christ Jesus our Lord, by His Holy Spirit - not eternally, in any case.

The sovereign choice of God is the basis of free grace, not the overriding choice of a will yet dead in trespasses and sins, so that those who stand justified and sanctified before the sovereign God of Scripture will have no room for boasting – indeed, it is our contention that even those so justified and sanctified would, without the grace of God which is entirely effectual, are yet so sinful that, without that all-encompassing grace, yet be sentenced to hell eternally.

This does not mean we are to pursue sin that grace may abound, as Paul so emphatically states in Romans 6, but that, recognizing that unmerited value of our Lord taking our sins as His elect, and God imputing the righteousness of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we are to recognize that “…the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:11-14).

No, the free offer of the Gospel is doing that which we are commanded to do by our God and Savior, along with the rest of His grace-given commandments; however, the Christian who has responded to this gospel, having been born again according to the electing and transforming grace of God in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ through the agency of His Holy Spirit, must face this particular commandment as that which encapsulates all the commandments; that is, the voice of the one who gives the gospel relies on the Holy Spirit for the results, not just of the preaching of the gospel to all, or even the result of one being born again or not by the Spirit of Grace, but of a life that will testify to that Gospel so preached.

However, it does not end here, for once God has called His own to Himself, there is the matter of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is for that purpose that the church of Jesus Christ was established by Him through the apostles.

It may be compared to giving a man in the middle of a vast desert who is dying water, and food, then showing him the way out of the desert – although all finite analogies break down when speaking of spiritual things, this is the best we can use to compare the gospel given to a man, then pointing him to a good, Bible believing New Testament church that is as local to him, and as true to that Gospel He has been given, as possible.

It is a simple, yet much neglected matter, and has resulted in many a person receiving the Gospel of Grace yet never being given the local church location whereby he may grow in the Christian grace by which he has been saved.

It is all very well to say that God is sovereign, and will lead the person to the proper church, but this hardly fits the New Testament paradigm, or model – people were never left without a local church to fellowship in the light of Christ with like-minded believers in that which we are to learn how to walk in this grace by the faith which we received to repent unto eternal life, yet we fear this is much the case these days, and the church is so much the poorer for this fact.

Therefore, when you share the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ with anyone and everyone to whom the Lord is pleased to use you to do such, it is well to be prepared to point them to a local church whereby they may grow in that grace by which they were saved.

There are many lists on the Internet, these days, of such local churches, and we dare say there are many local churches to which one would greatly hesitate to send one to who confessed Christ Jesus as their Lord. Discrimination in doctrine should not only be one’s leading in this, as God wills sovereignly wills (and He does, make no mistake), but the love which saved them should compel them as much as it did the apostle Paul, who founded so many churches, and cared for them all, as an apostle was to do.

Consequently, to care for the sinner who has been saved necessitates that we be ready to point them to the nearest established, like-minded local church, and not leave them with that endless supply of sovereign grace with no place for it to flow from them to other members of the body of Christ Jesus, our Lord: We would not leave the man in the middle of the desert, after all, and simply find it sufficient that he would neither starve or perish from lack of water – we would show him where the  nearest town or city was, that he might find his way back to the life of civilization.

How much more important is it that a saved sinner find his way into the union that started and continues through the Head of the church – through being included in a covenant community whereby he may grow in that fellowship that is the citizenship in the eternal kingdom of God?

So, when you preach the Gospel by which you were saved to others, for all the Spirit of God appoints to respond, remember to consider the fact that the covenant community of the saints is not merely an addition to the gospel, but part and parcel of that life more abundant that all who are Christ’s are to apprehend and experience and grow in now, as well as in the age to come.

Peace and Grace - Bill

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

The next moral attribute of God that the Bible emphasises is the righteousness or the justice of God. Now this follows, of course, inescapably, from the holiness of God. What is righteousness? Well, it is holiness manifested in God’s dealings with us. I think that is as good a definition as you can get. Or, you can look at it like this: it is that quality in God which always reveals God as doing that which is right. It is that in God which makes Him incapable of doing anything which is wrong. Righteousness and justice are the carrying out of God’s holiness and the expression of it in the government of the world.

There are many ways in which this conception can be analysed and a good one is this: righteousness is the demonstration of God’s legislative holiness. God gives His laws in order to impose upon us His righteous demands. He legislates for us. Justice, on the other hand, is God’s judicial holiness, by which, of course, He exacts penalties from those who have been guilty of breaking His law, those who have been guilty of sin.

A further definition still is that the righteousness of God is God’s love of holiness, and the justice of God is God’s abomination of sin. And I think that that is the definition that most commends itself.

Now the righteousness and the justice of God, of course, are revealed almost everywhere in the Scriptures. The wrath of God is taught in both the Old and New Testaments. Our Lord Himself taught it; one of the cardinal doctrines of the whole Bible is that God has a hatred of sin which He expresses in His wrath. If anyone does not believe, says John, then ‘the wrath of God abideth on him’ (John 3:36). We are all by nature, says Paul, ‘the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3).

But God’s righteousness and justice are not only manifested in His wrath. He reveals these same qualities in forgiving us our sins: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9). Having prepared the way of forgiveness, if we conform to it, the justice of God comes in, and by His Justice God forgives us. And God prepared the way of forgiveness by providing propitiation for our sins—and this is the most remarkable thing of all. The classic statement of that is in the epistle to the Romans: ‘Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God’ (Rom. 3:25). It was God’s justice, coupled with His love, His mercy and His compassion, that provided the offering and the sacrifice—the propitiation—that was necessary.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (72–73). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Preach It!

I must give thanks to Jeff Peterson of The Light Hearted Calvinist for this quote (and directing my attention to such a great book) of William Still:

It is to feed sheep on such truth that men are called to churches and congregations, whatever they may think they are called to do. If you think that you are called to keep a largely worldly organisation, miscalled a church, going, with infinitesimal doses of innocuous sub-Christian drugs or stimulants, then the only help I can give you is to advise you to give up the hope of the ministry and go and be a street scavenger; a far healthier and more godly job, keeping the streets tidy, than cluttering the church with a lot of worldly claptrap in the delusion that you are doing a job for God. The pastor is called to feed the sheep, even if the sheep do not want to be fed. He is certainly not to become an entertainer of goats. Let goats entertain goats, and let them do it out in goatland. You will certainly not turn goats into sheep by pandering to their goatishness. Do we really believe that the Word of God, by His Spirit, changes, as well as maddens men? If we do, to be evangelists and pastors, feeders of sheep, we must be men of the Word of God...Courage is the greatest lack today. If all men in the ministry acted upon what they know we would have a far better ministry. Yet, the ignorance is colossal. Your ignorance of the Word may be colossal. And what can we do to help that in one sermon? I have little hope of anyone learning categorically, decisively, from me unless he or she is prepared to sit consistently, almost exclusively, for years under the ministry of the Word of God: thereafter, he or she will spend their whole life digesting it. This is what I wrote recently about spiritual ‘vagrants’ amongst the students who drop into our church:

 I despair of some who come to our church and who read our literature, because what they hear and read is only one item of their spiritual diet. Indeed, they eat very little of anything but like children play with their food. That is why they are so thin. They juggle with it as if it were something to sell, not eat, and are not very sure which item is the best-selling line.

 The advice to them was: Eat it, eat it whole. All or nothing. For it is only ‘all or nothing’ devourers of the Word of God who will ever be or do anything for God.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Still, William (2010-05-01). Work of the Pastor (Kindle Locations 227-257). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

Proofs, Evidences, and Apologetics

Proofs, Evidences, and Apologetics


Felipe Diez III
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

I am an interesting hybrid of a Clarkian and Van-Tillian presuppositionalist both in my philosophy and apologetics, so what you are about to read may sound familiar on both of those ends. It is quite accurate to assert that the clarification of terms in any philosophical discourse is of utmost importance in order to successfully produce sound and cogent argumentation. It is also of great interest to thinkers of all stripes and types to properly define and delineate the terms they use so that fluency and understanding could be achieved. My thesis for this blog post is that in Apologetics and philosophy, it is imperative that we learn how to use the words “proofs” and “evidences” so that they properly convey the infrastructure of our Christian worldview and express the outflow of it consistently. Now, let me produce a dictionary set of definitions for “proof.” As a noun:

1. Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. Anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4. The establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

This is a very general use of the word “proof.” Most apologists seem to use it this way, and when I see article or video titles such as “proof that God exists” or “evidences for the existence of God,” there is a bittersweet taste in my mouth. But why? After all, the dictionary seems to be basically comprehensive. There is a caveat that must be examined. In the history of philosophy, these very definitions have been debated ad nauseam even up to this day. Many Christian apologetics websites and books will simply list some proofs or evidences and stop at that without defining terms and stipulating methodologies in order to place these terms in their rightful place. Although the faiths of many have been strengthened by means of intellect through these means, I find it naïve at best and foolish at worst to simply assume that a non-believer will accept these evidences on the same terms as the Christian has accepted it, as if there is some sort of epistemic neutrality where knowledge can be exchanged between opposing parties. Even some of the foremost Christian apologists have buried this issue under the rug if they ever thought of its philosophical implications (which are usually very practical). I will make a bold assertion. Evidences alone cannot prove anything. Nothing? Yes, nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing can be proven by any amount of evidences if the worldview behind them is unable to account for them, and if Christians are unwilling to take the epistemic route, then an astute non-believer may very well dispose of the evidences if they can muster up philosophical arguments against the use of evidences. I admit that most people cannot do this. The man-on-the-street is generally untrained and unaware of theories of knowledge (epistemology) and / or the question: Is knowledge possible? And if so, how do we know what we claim to know? Is there a warrant or justified reason to believe anything? And if so, is it arbitrary? Should we believe something without evidence?

In a simple blog post, I cannot even summarize answers to these questions, but I will give a short answer to some. It cannot be justifiably denied that knowledge is possible, or else I would not know that I do not know something. In other words, the simple statement “knowledge is impossible” is immediately refuted by the fact that in order to say this, I would have to know something about knowledge. In a more practical sense, this philosophy is unlivable since if my home is broken into, I would not sit there and glibly philosophize “I do not know what a home is.” Such absolute skepticism is self-refuting. But the question still stands: Can we prove anything? Not if our epistemology is empirical or rational, or some outlandish mix of the two. If we use our five senses as a foundation for any sort of knowledge, then we would have to prove the existence of these foundations. But let us then suppose that we have proven the proofs of our foundations, then we would have to prove the proofs that we have given to prove our foundations, ad infinitum. That rendered enlightenment foundationalism useless. Now, nothing was able to be used as a foundation, even the Bible, if one asserted that a foundation was indubitable (unquestionable), in the sense that a foundation could be proven to be true (pay special attention to the phrase “proven to be true"). It is as simple as that. Foundations cannot be proven to be true, so why would Christian Theism be any different than rationalism, empiricism, coherentism, or any other “ism?” This is a very well-reasoned argument advanced by the Scottish Philosopher Thomas Reid and has been adopted by many philosophers since the enlightenment turned to darkness. Unfortunately, Reid had no more answers to give, and succumbed to a “common sense” metaphysics that left more questions unanswered than anything else. Hume, who closed the final lid on the coffin of enlightenment Idealism put forth a similar argument, although he never became presuppositional at all, and only slightly admitted that certain axioms (self-evident truths) needed to be believed in order to be able to think, although a part of me is inclined to believe that even Hume did not trust in axioms. If these two philosophers were alive today, they would baffle many Christian apologists in their evidential endeavors. I speak of traditional apologists as well, with all due respect to their persons. In other words, many of the amateur ones seem to use the word “proofs” or “evidences” in a primitive  untested way. If by this, they claim that one can be “certain” that these evidences actually exist metaphysically, then they are claiming too much, and a skeptic may be able to leave them in the dust. Fortunately, most skeptics are men-on-the-street, and are unable to formulate any good argument against Christianity even if the Christian apologist with whom they converse is ill-informed. (Not that there are good arguments against Christianity anyway).

Let me repeat my thesis. Evidences alone are unable to prove anything, and self-destruct at their outset. In evidential apologetics, if one begins by saying “there is design in the world worthy of an intelligent designer,” one has proven nothing at all metaphysically (in reality). A skeptic can then say “how can you prove that anything exists at all?” Silence! This same question can be then asked of the skeptic, so both sides end up in a stalemate. This is why we must define what we mean by proofs. In traditional apologetics, one may put forth the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. But what is this proving? It has taken its starting point for granted. If one begins by using reason as an axiom (self-evident truth), even if one is not a foundationalist, has one proven anything? Not at all. With reason as an axiomatic epistemology, as in the case of sense experience, there are many arguments that can be used to destroy one’s epistemological starting point even before a classical or evidential argument is put forth in a debate. Reason itself (intuition) cannot account for the existence of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God in real life, since it is saying absolutely nothing about real life, only arguing based on reason. Just as “all bachelors are unmarried males” only suggests a logical postulate and says nothing about whether Tom is a bachelor and is searching for a mate. In other words, if reason is used as an axiom to judge other forms of truths, that very axiom tells us nothing about the real world. The enlightenment rationalists who put forth classical arguments, and even the medieval philosophers before them were not really thinking epistemologically, but were taking their arguments for granted, as if the believer and the non-believer understood the same facts in the same exact way. Cornelius Van-Til was very correct in stating that one can only ascertain a fact (in our case, an evidence) by using the naturally biased machinery that is our epistemology. A non-believer does not understand the moon or the stars in the same way that a Christian does, since the Christian naturally presupposes that these things were created by Christ Himself and the non-believer does not. Metaphysical neutrality is impossible, and there is no metaphysical, ethical, or epistemological point of contact between a believer and a non-believer. The only “point of contact” per-se, is that both people are created in the image of God. Both know YHWH but are in different terms with YHWH. This changes absolutely everything. So again, I assert that the traditional and evidential apologist is not very clear on what epistemological machinery they are using to understand the existence of their arguments, and for the most part never define their epistemology in dialogue or debate. If the Christian is assuming reason or sense experience or both to set forth evidences or any kind of classical argument, they refute themselves. Not only this, but the anti-theist also refutes himself. Both sides are refuted even before they begin arguing. Reason and sense experience are self-refuting epistemologies, and this can be demonstrated philosophically (logically).

So then, what is proof? I am rightly pressed to give a working definition, but it must be made known that my presuppositions are Biblical. They are the Bible itself, where Christian theism resides. That is my epistemology. It is my axiom, and from there I ascertain everything else. But is this not foundationalism? Do I then have to give proofs for the Bible? Not at all. If the Bible is my presupposition, which for the Christian is the case either implicitly or in my case explicitly, then one must assume their positions. One cannot prove them. A presupposition or assumption is not a proof, per se. It is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Contrary epistemologies are simply false, and this can be demonstrated by the data we find in the Bible. (I will not address the charge of circular-reasoning in this blog post). What I will do is give my definition of what constitutes a proof or evidence.

A proof or piece of evidence is a secondary assumption. It is something we assume to be true justifiably by virtue of our presupposition (properly basic belief) which we must also assume to be true by its own authority and because of the impossibility of the contrary. So our primary assumption (presupposition) is what determines our secondary assumptions (evidences). I know that I am a male person because my epistemology (The Bible) gives me the justifiable proof (secondary assumption) that there exist males and females. Since the Bible is infallible, I can trust that there is evidence that I am a male person. This is an evidence and a proof flowing forth from my epistemology, but even these proofs are not certain. They are assumed to be true reasonably. I am not saying I am skeptical of whether I am a male, what I am saying is that I can be certain that I am because I assume it to be so (this cannot be proven infallibly) because my epistemology (The infallible Bible) demonstrates to me that it is so. I have reasonably deduced my male-ness from my epistemological position. Still, this is a secondary assumption that flows forth from my primary assumption (The Bible as axiomatic or presuppositional). This is what I mean by “evidence” and “proof.” Together, our primary, secondary, and subsequent assumptions make up what we call a worldview. My worldview is Christian Theism, which can intelligibly account for evidences that are demonstrated to be consistent with it.

God Does Not Change: He Is Loving And Vengeful

 Not only did God institute the lex talionis in the law code of Israel, but "it was a law which was, in fact, based upon the very nature of God. Yahweh, although a God of love, is also a God of retribution who deals with his creature's trespasses against his holiness on the basis of his retributive justice. This is seen most clearly and poignantly in the necessity for the Cross. And it is the Cross that both bridges and binds the two testaments. Since it is a grounding assertion that the nature of God does not change (cf. Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8), the principle of divine justice based on that nature, as encased in the judicial lex talionis, must remain fundamentally constant.'' So, too, the implication lingers that the appeal to this principle may still find its legitimate place.*

Soli Deo Gloria!


*John N. Day. Crying for Justice: What the Psalms Teach Us About Mercy and Vengeance in an Age of Terrorism (Kindle Locations 607-612). Kindle Edition.

How Often We Forget

Indeed, when examining the patterns of God, Christ, and God's people in the Scriptures, this dual response toward enmity emerges-the one reaction characteristic of the divine and Christian life, and the other exhibited in extreme instances.

 The pattern of God's actions in Scripture is characterized by long-suffering grace. But then comes the point of judgment. The inhabitants of Canaan experienced this extended grace followed by decisive judgment when, after four hundred years, their "iniquity became complete" (cf. Gen. 15:16). Likewise, the Israelites of the Exodus, after repeated rebellion and unbelief, were finally barred from the Promised Land (cf. Num. 14).225 The generation of the Exile found out what life was like when, after two hundred years of God's patience, his hand of grace was released and justice was given her due (cf. Hosea).'" There is long-suffering to God's grace, but there is also judgment. Note the balance between the two in that supreme revelation of the character of God in Exodus 34:6-7.

The pattern of Christ is also that of repeated grace, but then comes the point of judgment.''-" In the closing chapters of the Bible, both God and Christ are revealed as the Divine Avenger (Rev. 6:9-17; 18:21-19:2; 19:11-16). After the grapes are trampled in the bloody winepress of God's wrath (Rev. 14:19-20),29 the saints in heaven sing the "Song of Moses" and the "Song of the Lamb" (Rev. 15:3-4)."' The same Christ who said, "Love your enemies," will return one day in vengeance to destroy the recalcitrant.

 So also the pattern of God's people is to be that of repeated grace. But there may also come a point in time when judgment must be called for (i.e., the voicing of imprecations), and the righteous will delight to see it accomplished (e.g., Ps. 58:10-11; Rev. 18:20).*

I'm so thankful for the cross of Christ. Soli Deo Gloria!


*John N. Day. Crying for Justice: What the Psalms Teach Us About Mercy and Vengeance in an Age of Terrorism (Kindle Locations 75-85). Kindle Edition.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

If you want to understand Christianity, do not shut your Bible—open it, read it! Read the books of Moses, the prophets, the Psalms; they all point to Him. Study your Bible. It is ignorance that blinds men and women of this generation and keeps them outside of Christ. So do not have a hurried service at nine o’clock so you can go out and play golf and bathe in the sea—listen for your life! Here is the only message of hope for you.

Then our Lord went on telling His disciples the meaning of His coming. Luke writes: “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:45–47). There is his own explanation of why He came and why He did all He did. It is the only way anybody can be saved. Every one of us is born in sin. We are born under the wrath of God. We do not know Him, and we are evil by nature. Our greatest need is to be reconciled to God, to have our sins forgiven, to know God as our Father, to be blessed by Him, and to start as a child of God. And Jesus came in order that men and women might know this. This is His message—not that we improve the world but that you and I be redeemed. You may set out with your political program. You may say, “Now, if we can get this onto the statute book this year, then that, then the other …” But you may be dead before tomorrow morning and be in eternity facing God and the judgment.

How can this message be made known? The answer is this: Jesus. In effect He said to the disciples, “I’m going to send you out to preach, and I want you to tell people that repentance and remission of sins is only possible in My name. Preach it among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. I do not care what color, class, or creed people are. The human race is one; humanity is one in sin, one under the wrath of God, one in its destiny in hell. And there is only one Savior. Tell them about Me, and be witnesses to Me.”

Soli Deo Gloria!


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (14–15). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Conversing With A Dispensationalist

The following is a conversation I had with a Dispensationalist on Twitter. The conversation began after I tweeted a quote by Charles Spurgeon. 


Enjoy. =)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by Spurgeon: "'If the natural men has free will to believe the gospel, then why does he need grace?' - Spurgeon"


Dispensationalist: To answer Charlie: man needs grace to be saved, but he believes the gospel by exercising the faith ever man is given

My response: Every man is given faith? So, why do some place their faith in Christ and not others? What do we owe that to?

Dispensationalist: Yes every man is given a measure of faith: Rom 12:3 & Hab. 2:4 & Heb. 11. I will remind you that OT faith is not the same as NT faith. There are 2 faith's in play in this age while only 1 was in play prior to Acts 2. everybody in Heb. 11 exercised faith, yet NONE of them exercised faith in the Lord Jesus Christ: because they had no idea who Jesus Christ was.

Men choose or reject Christ in their own free will. The one's that reject Christ do so because they reject the light that God gives ever man that comes into the world - Jn. 1:9 & Rom. 1:19-21

(In order to avoid confusion- I will now highlight his writing in Red when I respond, and when he responds, my writing shall be in Blue) 

My Response: You are absolutely right about everything you said, IF you are looking at scripture through Dispensational glasses. Here are some things you are wrong about:

You said: Yes every man is given a measure of faith: Rom 12:3 & Hab. 2:4 & Heb. 11. 

First, Romans 12:3 is about the church- verse four and five gives that away when it says:

4 " For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

5 "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."- KJV

Hebrews 11 speaks on the faith of God's people. It says nothing about all men being given a measure of faith. 

Hab 2:4 says that "the just shall live by Faith". How does this support your assertion that all men are given a measure of faith? It doesn't. 

You said: I will remind you that OT faith is not the same as NT faith. There are 2 faith's in play in this age while only 1 was in play prior to Acts 2.

Response: Says who?


You said: "everybody in Heb. 11 exercised faith, yet NONE of them exercised faith in the Lord Jesus Christ: because they had no idea who Jesus Christ was."
Wrong. Jesus says it himself in the following verses. 

John 8:56-58: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he SAW IT, and was glad." 57 Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (caps mine)

Further, the gospel was preached to Abraham:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.- Galatians 3:8

More proof:

3For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. - Romans 4:3-8

Abraham knew who Jesus was. Perhaps not by name, but he knew the coming Messiah. Salvation has always been by grace through faith alone. Romans 3 says that no one will be declared righteous by observing the law. The promise was made early on in Genesis 3:15. There would be a coming Messiah who would save people from their sins. Their hope- the saints in Hebrews 11- was in the work of that coming Messiah. Not in any merits of their own. 

You said: Men choose or reject Christ in their own free will. The one's that reject Christ do so because they reject the light that God gives ever man that comes into the world - Jn. 1:9 & Rom. 1:19-21.How does that make any sense? If I told you, Peter doesn't choose to wear the red shirt, because he rejects the shirt, that doesn't say much, does it? The question is WHY do they reject Christ? Well, they reject Christ because men love the darkness because their deeds were evil (that is what John 3:19 says). That says something about their nature. It is because men innately hate God that they reject Him. 

Dispensationalist's Second Response: 

Sorry i missed your initial response.

You are correct that I rightly divide the bible: otherwise I would gardening naked, building an ark, and taking animal sacrifices to a temple in Jerusalem doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Rom 12:3 is about the church: if you follow the context beginning in verse 1 of that chapter all the way through it is about members of the body and their conduct. So it is talking about the church in that it is speaking about the individual members of his body.

You said: Hab 2:4 says that "the just shall live by Faith". How does this support your assertion that all men are given a measure of faith? It doesn't. 

You must not be reading from the AV: Hab. 2:4 reads :"the just shall live by >>>his<<< faith." In the OT, men had their own faith and their own righteousness (which is why you will find people mentioned as being righteous in the OT such as John the Baptist's parents): that is how they were to live. So all those people in Heb. 11 exercised their own faith which is different than the faith you and I have. The OT saint's faith must be exhibited by works (which is why in Heb. 11 you read "by faith somebody did something": see also James 2) and those faith and works must be kept unto the end of their life (Ezek 3:20-21, Ezek 18:20-24) In the NT there are 2 kinds of faith: my faith and the faith of the Son of God. the reason a born again Christian has eternal security is because we are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ (Gal 2:20) and since his faith cannot and did not fail we are sealed unto the day of redemption (Eph 4:30) awaiting the redemption of the body (Rom 8:23). This transition from OT faith to NT faith is what Paul is referring to in Rom 1:17 when he says "from faith (OT) to faith (NT). God's righteousness after Calvary is found in Christ: and you get that righteousness imputed to you upon belief of Paul's gospel and sanctification of the Spirit. OT righteousness is found in obeying the commands of the law to the end which would be an outworking of your faith (Phil. 3:9 & Lk. 1:6)

You said: You said: "everybody in Heb. 11 exercised faith, yet NONE of them exercised faith in the Lord Jesus Christ: because they had no idea who Jesus Christ was."

Wrong. Jesus says it himself in the following verses.

John 8:56-58: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he SAW IT, and was glad." 57 Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (caps mine)

Further, the gospel was preached to Abraham:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.- Galatians 3:8"

Again the error here is one of right division: what did Abraham see in Gen. 22? Also read carefully from John's gospel: it does not say "Abraham saw me and knew my name" it says Abraham saw "his day." Keep in mind: Jesus is speaking to the Jews. So what day is he talking about? The day of the Lord. The key phrases to heed in Gen 22:4-5 are: "third day" and "come again to you." How are Abraham and Isaac going to come again if Abraham is expecting to sacrifice his son? Your assumption (as well as many Baptists that teach the heresy that everybody was always saved the same way) is that God showed Abraham a vision of Jesus on the cross; or something like that. Christ's day is the day he reigns on David's throne (which Abraham doesn't know about either) and that day will happen with a national resurrection of Israel on the third day (Hos. 6:2). What Abraham saw was a type of resurrection of his seed ie Israel. Furthermore: the Gospel that was preached unto Abraham was not Paul's gospel as Paul's gospel was revealed to Paul and not before that (Gal. 1:11-12). If gospel preached to Abraham is the gospel of Gen 12:1-3 which contains the promise of a seed and land: not the death, burial, and resurrection. Also remember there are 7 gospels in scripture; 4 major ones in the NT: Kingdom or Heaven, Kingdom of God, Grace of God, Everlasting. These are not all the same. If you think they are all the same you will be confused.

Abraham may have known about a coming messiah (since Eve knew this back in Gen. 3), but certainly not by name and certainly not with the depth of revelation later revealed. Abraham was long dead before anyone knew about 12 tribes, Israel, a king from Judah, a kingdom, a virgin birth, 2 comings of Christ, etc. this is why even today Jews have such a problem: when you read the OT the 1st & 2nd coming are often mentioned side by side as if they were simultaneous events. When the Messiah showed up they were looking for someone to deliver them from the Romans not someone to die on the cross. This is why Paul's mystery of the one body is nowhere to be found in Daniel's 70 weeks. As further proof, remember the disciples: how many times did Christ tell them point blank about his passion? Yet they didn't get it. Why? The answer is found in Lk. 9:45 & 18:34: the key phrase "hid from them." So if you contend that the apostles were saved before Jesus was on the cross, they weren't saved by believing the gospel of 1 Cor 15:3-4. not to mention in Mat 16 Peter rebukes Jesus for saying he's going to the cross, and even after the resurrection happened they still didn't get it until Jesus opened their understanding in Lk 24.

In reference again to Gen 3: one problem we have today is assuming that because something is mentioned at a certain point of scripture, that those people knew what we know today: this is wrong. In Gen 3, all that is said is the woman will have a child that will crush the head of the serpent. To assume Eve knew that this seed was going to be virgin born from the tribe of judah of Israel, die on a cross and resurrect the third day is unfounded in scripture.

You said: "How does that make any sense? If I told you, Peter doesn't choose to wear the red shirt, because he rejects the shirt, that doesn't say much, does it? The question is WHY do they reject Christ? Well, they reject Christ because men love the darkness because their deeds were evil (that is what John 3:19 says). That says something about their nature. It is because men innately hate God that they reject Him."
One of the things i run into w/ Calvinists a lot is the use of logic: How does it make sense is an irrelevant question. it doesn't have to make sense to our finite minds. You are correct in that men love darkness. However you miss the first part. All men are given light: ALL. And as Paul says in Romans:

Romans 1:19-21 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them(this is on the inside); for God hath shewed it unto them (they had a knowledge in them). For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse(God also gave them the witness of creation leaving them 2 witnesses of God, hence thay are w/out excuse): Because that, when they knew God (there was a time when they knew God), they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (their heart was darkened after they chose not to glorify God, and so forth). 

Although we all have the sin nature: we are not actually sinners until we commit a sin: that is we do something that we know violates God's law: this is why children go to heaven if they die, or as Paul says Rom. 7:9. The more they violate their conscience, the more it is seared, their heart and understanding darkened to the point that God will give them over and give them what they want; just as the lying spirit sent to the false prophets in the OT.

As you said earlier, I do practice the biblical command to rightly divide the scripture and I assume you hold to a covenant theology. This is the true reason we cannot come together. But I enjoyed the cordial conversation. God Bless.

--Since my opponent was dismissive, and espoused nothing new except the massive confusion that is Dispensationalism, I will post my response here-- 


My Response: 


You are correct that I rightly divide the bible


1) I never said that his was the biblical position, rather, that IF you are looking at scripture through Dispensational eyes, then yes, the confusion espoused above makes perfect sense.


2) He was not able to prove that faith is something all men have. Now, let me be clear: All men have faith in something (idols), to that I concede. But, not all men are given faith to believe upon Christ. Faith upon Christ is something a man in his natural, carnal, God hating state, could never have (1 Cor 2:14). Faith is a gift to God's elect (Philippians 1:29)


OT righteousness is found in obeying the commands of the law to the end which would be an outworking of your faith (Phil. 3:9 & Lk. 1:6)


3) The Old Testament saints were not justified by their obedience to the law (no one will be justified before God by keeping their law, since keeping the law perfectly is an impossibility). Romans  three, verse twenty says this exact thing:


"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."(Romans 3:20 ESV)


4) I am not saying that the Old Testament saints had perfect knowledge concerning the coming Messiah. What I am saying is-- they trusted in God's promise to give them a Messiah- their's was not a righteousness attained by works, rather, by believing upon the works of Him who was to come. 


1st Peter 1:10-11 


Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,(11) inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 

One of the things i run into w/ Calvinists a lot is the use of logic: How does it make sense is an irrelevant question.

5) Oh, I am glad that we have someone who admits that Calvinists are logical (this implies that non-calvinists are illogical).
But, following that admission we have a statement that says that making sense (or using logic) is irrelevant. I can see why making sense would be difficult- given the unbiblical system of theology that divides scripture, and sets different standards for different people at different times. Since, making sense is irrelevant to my opponent, I can finally admit that I believe Space Cows inhabit Mars. 


Furthermore: the Gospel that was preached unto Abraham was not Paul's gospel as Paul's gospel was revealed to Paul and not before that (Gal. 1:11-12). 


6)  The isn't what the verse cited says. The verse cited does say that the Gospel was revealed to Paul by God (Paul is emphasizing to the Galatians that the Gospel is of divine origin and not of human invention), but it does not say that it was not revealed before that. Actually, if we look at the verse I originally cited, Paul says that it was the GOSPEL that was preached to Abraham (Galatians 3:8). Why is my opponent forced to believe it is a different gospel? Because it doesn't work with his system.


7) Since logic isn't relevant, and my opponent pretty much admitted that Calvinists are logical (both statements made by my opponent)- it seems in vain to attempt to reason with him on Calvinism. Truth of the matter is that God is sovereign, and will not share His glory with men. Salvation is completely a work of God, by grace through faith, and not of works that no man may boast. Amen. 


-Awretchsaved