I Chronicles 16:34, Psalms 107:1, Psalms 118:29 "O give thanks unto the LORD; for [he is] good; for his mercy [endureth] for ever."
I Chronicles 16:8 "Give thanks unto the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people."
I Thessalonians 5:18 "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."
II Thessalonians 2:13-14 "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (14) Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
I'm thankful to God that He saved me! I'm thankful to Him for His provisions and blessings, family, and friends! May God bless all my brothers and sisters in Christ! Amen.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
More on Homosexual Uber-Rights
by James White
I have been saying for years, homosexuals do not want equal rights. They want uber-rights. They want to silence anyone who would identify their sexual perversion as sin. Why? Romans 1 tells you. Suppressing the truth is tiring, and for the homosexual, it is a full-time job. They cannot silence their conscience, but they can try to silence anyone who would remind them of it. And so, they seek to force us, by rule of law, to honor, or admire, in the words of President Obama, their sin. Note this article from the UK:
Homosexual activists are lobbying to change the law hoping that, in the future, churches may be forced to host gay civil partnership services.
At present the gay lobby group Stonewall is seeking an amendment to the Equality Bill which will allow churches to host the services if they wish.
But Ben Summerskill, head of Stonewall, said: “Right now, faiths shouldn’t be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.”
Mr Summerskill said his organisation was working with the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) and the Metropolitan Community Church.
Rev Sharon Ferguson of the LGCM told Pink News, a gay news website, she wanted “equality” for civil partnerships and marriage.
This is why there is no protection at all in the addition of "free speech" protections in hate crimes laws, etc. We need to realize they are taking things one step at a time: get the law in place, then whittle away at the protections until you accomplish your goal. Do it slowly enough not to raise too loud an alarm, but never, ever give up. And given that these people define themselves by their deviancy, they will dedicate themselves each and every day to their task.
I have been saying for years, homosexuals do not want equal rights. They want uber-rights. They want to silence anyone who would identify their sexual perversion as sin. Why? Romans 1 tells you. Suppressing the truth is tiring, and for the homosexual, it is a full-time job. They cannot silence their conscience, but they can try to silence anyone who would remind them of it. And so, they seek to force us, by rule of law, to honor, or admire, in the words of President Obama, their sin. Note this article from the UK:
Homosexual activists are lobbying to change the law hoping that, in the future, churches may be forced to host gay civil partnership services.
At present the gay lobby group Stonewall is seeking an amendment to the Equality Bill which will allow churches to host the services if they wish.
But Ben Summerskill, head of Stonewall, said: “Right now, faiths shouldn’t be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.”
Mr Summerskill said his organisation was working with the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) and the Metropolitan Community Church.
Rev Sharon Ferguson of the LGCM told Pink News, a gay news website, she wanted “equality” for civil partnerships and marriage.
This is why there is no protection at all in the addition of "free speech" protections in hate crimes laws, etc. We need to realize they are taking things one step at a time: get the law in place, then whittle away at the protections until you accomplish your goal. Do it slowly enough not to raise too loud an alarm, but never, ever give up. And given that these people define themselves by their deviancy, they will dedicate themselves each and every day to their task.
The Manhattan Declaration
(By John MacArthur)
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
John MacArthur
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
John MacArthur
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Here I stand, I can do no other! - Martin Luther
I Corinthians 16:13 "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong."
The phrase "quit you like men" in the greek means to make a man of or make brave or to show one's self a man, be brave. In the Strong's Concordance it is reference G407. This verse is clearly encouraging those of us who are believers.
Today throughout the country on college campuses evangelists were handing out the book The Origion of Species by Darwin. Now before some of you get excited, you must know that there was a 50-page forward written by Ray Comfort of www.wayofthemaster.com
This special 308-page edition not only contains the full Origin of Species but also has a 50-page Introduction that reveals the dangerous fruit of evolution, Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin's racism, and his disdain for women. It counters the claim that creationists are "anti-science" by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe -- scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Pasteur, and Kepler.
All across this land today this book was being passed out to college students along with Gospel tracts, one-on-one evangelism conversations, as well as open-air preaching of the Law of God (the 10 Commandments) and the Grace of God, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is an event that I wish I had been a part of and had been planning on attending for some time now, but for the flu I was not able to join my fellow proclaimers of the Gospel. My heart went out to them and I prayed for them this day. May God receive all the glory and praise and as Isaiah 55:11 says " So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Wrath of God
I came across this article and was compelled (no pun intended) to include it in this blog. As I read it, I could not help but remember an event that I and others were evangelizing at this past June. One of my good friends had a sign that read "God Loves / God Hates". What a great sign! It was a means for many good conversations and caused many negative responses based upon universalism, which you will read about in the article below. Another event that myself and others were evangelizing at recently had several booths with signs that read about God's love for everyone because He made them just the way they are (another topic for another time). I was able to see another good friend approach these "vendors" (so-called churches) and ask them about the Scriptural references to God's wrath and how God's Word compared to their signs. Well, they didn't want to talk and suddenly had to leave the conversation (because the Scriptures had conflicted with the false image of a god they had created). It amazes me that people ignore the wrath of God, which can clearly be seen in verses such as Psalms 5:5, 7:11, 11:5, II Thessalonians 1:8, and etc.
The following article by W.J. Grier
One of the evidences of decay and departure in the professing Church is the large-scale rejection of the teaching of the Scriptures on the wrath of God. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his recently-issued Exposition of Romans draws attention to this and shows that it is not only among Modernists and Ritualists that this attitude prevails; it is evident too among some who are evangelicals by repute.
Dr C. H. Dodd, for some 14 years professor of Divinity at Cambridge and chairman of the panel of translators of the New English Bible [New Testament section], deals in his Commentary on Romans with the phrase ‘the wrath of God’ in Romans 1.18. He speaks of it as ‘an archaic phrase’ which ‘suits a thoroughly archaic idea’. In other words, he looks on the idea of God’s wrath as out-of-date, antiquated. Early in 1931 there was a dialogue in the pulpit of Elmwood Presbyterian Church, Belfast, two prominent ministers Drs Frazer-Hurst and Hyndman taking part. The former quoted from a Catechism he was taught in his boyhood. The question was: ‘What are you by nature?’ and the answer: ‘I am an enemy of God, a child of Satan and an heir of hell’. Dr Frazer-Hurst described such teaching as monstrous and Dr Hyndman supported him by saying:
‘These ideas belong to the mentality and outlook of bygone ages.’ It would seem as if these men believed that we come into the world as little cherubs sprouting wings.
To adopt such views one would have to repudiate a large part of Scripture from Genesis through to Revelation. In Genesis 3 we find Adam and Eve thrust out of the garden for their sin and a flaming sword set to keep them from the tree of life. Not only were they affected, but the sentence of condemnation fell upon the race [Romans 5.12, 18, 19]. In Genesis 6 we find God saying: ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth’ — and the deluge ensued. Then in Genesis 19 we have the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire and brimstone from heaven.
I might go on citing countless examples of the manifestation of divine wrath right through the Bible. Dr Leon Morris says of the Old Testament in his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross: ‘There are more than 20 words used to express the wrath conception as it applies to Jehovah’ and ‘these are used so frequently that there are over 580 occurrences to be taken into consideration’ [p 131]. He adds that this conception ‘cannot be eradicated from the Old Testament without irreparable loss’ [p 156]. So the Old Testament is full of the concept of the wrath of God.
In his Commentary on Romans Dr Dodd says that the wrath of God ‘does not appear in the teaching of Jesus’. One is reminded of John Newton’s reply to Dr Taylor of Norwich when the latter said: ‘I have collated every word in the Hebrew Scriptures 17 times, and it is very strange if the doctrine of the atonement you hold should not have been found by me.’ Newton’s reply was: ‘I am not surprised at this; I once went to light my candle with the extinguisher on it.’ He meant that prejudices from education, learning, etc., often form an extinguisher which must be removed and which only God can remove.
Dr Dodd speaks of the thought of anger as an attitude of God to men as disappearing and adds: ‘His love and mercy become all-embracing’. This really smacks of universalism. One suspects that universalistic presuppositions are really in many cases responsible for the rejection of the concept of the wrath of God.
Jesus spoke of the rich man in the torments of hell and He warned again and again of ‘the weeping and the gnashing of teeth’ and of hell fire and the unquenchable fire and the undying worm and the outer darkness. Describing how He would act as King at His coming one day to sit on the throne of His glory He pictures Himself as saying: ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.’ Surely the extinguisher is functioning when Dr Dodd claims that the idea of the wrath of God is absent from the teaching of Jesus.
Nor is the wrath of God absent from the teaching of the apostle Paul. He pictured that wrath as like a dark cloud overhanging a guilty world and he proclaimed Jesus as the only deliverer from this coming wrath [I Thess. 1.10]. He also describes this wrath as evident in the heathen world of his day — evident in God’s giving them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness and vile passions and a reprobate mind [Romans 1.24, 26, 28]. And in Romans chapter 2 he warns of ‘wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God’. These are but a few of the citations which might be given from Paul’s teaching.
We have the same testimony from John, the apostle of love. What a tremendous picture he gives of Christ coming as King of kings and Lord of lords ‘treading the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of God the Almighty’ [Rev. 19.15]! How can anyone that has read Jonathan Edwards’ comment on this verse ever forget it? ‘The words’, he says, ‘are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said ‘the wrath of God’, the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is ‘the fierceness and wrath of God’. The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! O how dreadful must that be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them? But it is also ‘the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God’ — as though there would be a very great manifestation of His almighty power in what the fierceness of His wrath would inflict, as though omnipotence should as it were be enraged and exerted as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath.’
Many more Scriptures could be appealed to, but sufficient evidence has been produced to show that the witness to the idea of the wrath of God is pervasive in the Scriptures.
When the doctrine of the wrath of God is denied, other great truths are affected by this denial. First among these is the historic doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
I. THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
Anyone who denies the wrath of God strikes a blow at divine revelation — for, as we have seen, God’s wrath is plainly revealed in His Word. His holy indignation against sin is one of the great ‘burdens’ of Scripture, one of the Bible’s great oracles; and he who denies this holy indignation is flouting the verdict of the Judge of all the earth, a verdict repeated times without number in His Word. Professor T. J. Crawford was right when he said: ‘A great part of the Bible would need to be written over again before we can expunge from it the broad and palpable evidence of God’s holy displeasure against sinful men and of His righteous purpose to inflict judgment for their iniquities.’ The effect then of the denial of the divine wrath then would be devastating in its effect upon the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
II. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
If we preach the wrath of God, we are sometimes accused of representing God as a Being of fitful passion and vindictive fury. In other words, we are accused of blackening the character of God. But we plead ‘Not guilty’. The God of the Bible is not subject to sudden and irrational fits of anger. His wrath is His settled indignation against sin. Dr Leon Morris rightly speaks of it as ‘a burning zeal for the right coupled with a perfect hatred for everything that is evil’.
When men reject the idea of the wrath of God, it is evident that they really do not believe in the perfect holiness of God, for that holiness involves a settled and burning indignation against sin. Moses could say of the adversaries of Israel: ‘their rock is not as our Rock’ and we can say the same of men who reject the divine wrath. Their god is a flabby sort of being, not the God who is holy in all His ways and righteous in all His works.
III. THE DOCTRINE OF SIN
There is a close connection between the denial of God’s wrath and a light view of sin, as Dr J. G. Machen said: ‘The modern rejection of God’s wrath proceeds from a light view of sin which is totally at variance with the teaching of the whole New Testament and of Jesus Himself’. It is the sight of the infinite holiness of God which leads a man to a true sense of his sin and depravity. When Isaiah viewed God as sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and worshipped as the perfectly Holy One by the seraphim, then he cried ‘Woe is me, for I am undone’. When men see God’s righteousness and His wrath, it is then that they become earnest seekers after grace.
Once when Whitefleld was preaching at Norwich, a thoughtless youth was led by a gipsy’s forecast of his future to go and hear the great preacher. The sermon was based on John the Baptist’s appeal to the Sadducees to flee from the wrath to come. As he preached Whitefleld burst into a flood of tears and then cried with all his might: ‘O my hearers, the wrath is to come, the wrath is to come’. The words sank into the young man’s heart; they followed him for days and weeks and he could think of little else but ‘the wrath to come’. He later became, as Andrew Fuller tells us, ‘a considerable preacher’. Such conviction of sin followed by genuine conversion is not likely to occur where the note of divine wrath is muted; sin is no longer regarded as ‘the abominable thing which God hates’.
IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
In his commentary on Romans chapter 1, Dr Dodd denies divine wrath. It is small wonder that he proceeds in his commentary on chapter 3, verse 25-26, to repudiate the idea of ‘the propitiation of the wrath of God’ and of ‘the satisfaction demanded by His justice and afforded by Christ’s vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin.’ Small wonder too that the word ‘propitiation’ was removed from the New English Bible as well as from the Revised Standard Version. One of the RSV translators, Dr C. T. Craig of Oberlin School of Theology, commenting on the omission of the word ‘propitiation’, said: ‘Any attempt to show that there was something in the essential nature of God that demanded satisfaction for sin ends only in blackening the character of God.’ So the doctrine of the atonement must go in the interests of the Modernist view of a flabby deity!
Dr Dodd admits that in classical Greek and in the Koiné [or Hellenistic Greek] the word ‘propitiate’ has the idea of placating or appeasing wrath. But he seeks to argue from the Septuagint [the Greek translation of the New Testament made a few centuries before Christ] that a change had taken place in the meaning of the word. Dr Roger Nicole of Gordon Divinity School has produced 21 arguments against Dr Dodd’s line of reasoning [see the Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 2]. Dr Nicole’s article is simply devastating in its force; he seems to have shot Dr Dodd down entirely.
Dr Leon Morris in his The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross says that Dr Dodd ‘totally ignores the fact that in many passages there is explicit mention of the putting away of God’s anger, and accordingly his conclusions cannot be accepted without serious modification.’ Indeed, Dr Morris produces arguments to show that ‘it is manifestly impossible to maintain that the verb [propitiate’] has been emptied of its force.’
One must be supremely thankful for the labours of these two fine scholars of a younger generation for their labours in putting up such a capable defence of, and devastating argument for, the historic Christian doctrine of the atonement as a propitiation of divine wrath and a satisfaction to divine justice.
V. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOVE OF GOD
Those who reject the wrath of God often plead that their rejection is in the interests of the love of God; but actually their rejection of divine wrath inficts a grievous wound on the doctrine which they profess ardently to espouse. This is so because Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and propitiate God’s wrath is the greatest exhibition of divine love. We read in Scripture: ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ [1 John 4.10].
Dr James Denney said: ‘If the propitiatory death of Jesus is eliminated from the love of God, it might be unfair to say that the love of God is robbed of all meaning, but it is certainly robbed of its apostolic meaning’ [Denney’s Death of Christ, p 152]. And this is the meaning that supremely matters.
VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE JUDGMENT
If there is no wrath of God, then the tremendous terrors of the judgment are eliminated. Then that ancient hymn loses its significance which says:
That day of wrath, that dreadful day
When heaven and earth shall pass away!
What power shall be the sinner’s stay?
How shall he meet that dreadful day?
Take away the concept of the wrath of God and we strip the great day of assize of much of its tremendous awe.
VII. THE DOCTRINE OF HELL
In 1930 there was a book issued with the title What is Hell? There were twelve contributors. Among them were two novelists, a Spiritist, a Theosophist, a pagan, a Roman Catholic, a Congregationalist who became a Roman Catholic two years later, an Anglican bishop and an Anglican dean. The dean, Dr W. R. Inge, though not thoroughly orthodox, could be quite caustic and penetrating in his comments on the Modernists and he had many true words to say about hell. Indeed, he was the one in this volume who came closest to the Scripture doctrine. He said that ‘heaven and hell stand and fall, together’ and pointed out that our Lord spoke in perfectly plain language about its duration. He added: ‘Modernist Protestantism, though it may be reluctant to admit it, believes in Purgatory, but not in hell.’ When Dr Inge ceased to be dean of St. Paul’s in 1934, his successor was Dr W. R. Matthews and it is interesting to note that he says in his book The Hope of Immortality that to him purgatory ‘has great attractions’; he also says that he believes it ‘right to pray for the dead’ and it would seem that universalism also has ‘attractions’ for him. So it again appears, as we have already noted, that many of the objectors to the concept of God’s wrath are really universalistic in their outlook. A distinguished theologian of the Presbyterian Church, U.S., who is a member of his Church’s Permanent Theological Committee stated in a church paper: ‘God does not have two different purposes for men — that is, punishment for some and reward for others — but only one’. This is just brazen universalism.
In conclusion, I would point out that when men deny the wrath of God, they are cutting one of the vital nerves of evangelism. It was the thought of the wrath of God, as well as His love, that lent such earnestness to the pleadings of the preachers of the gospel. The thought of the overhanging cloud of God’s wrath lent earnestness to the preaching of Paul. Knowing the fear of the Lord, he persuaded men. It was the same with Whitefield and Brownlow North and R. M. M’Cheyne and Henry Martyn. Of North his biographer wrote: ‘The immortality of the human soul and its endless existence in a state of holiness and blessedness, or of corruption and misery, were subjects constantly on his lips.’ Listen to M’Cheyne also as he says: ‘As I walked in the fields, the thought came over me with almost overwhelming power, that every one of my flock must soon be in heaven or hell. 0 how I wished I had a tongue like thunder, that I might make all hear; or that I had a frame like iron, that I might visit every one and say, ‘Escape for thy life’. Ah, sinners! you little know how I fear that you will lay the blame of your damnation at my door.’ And it was he who said that the preacher should never speak of everlasting punishment without tears.
What gratitude should surge in our hearts because God has not appointed us unto wrath but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus! R. M. M’Cheyne stressed this too when he wrote:
Chosen not for good in me,
Wakened up from wrath to flee,
Hidden in the Saviour’s side,
By the Spirit sanctified,
Teach me, Lord, on earth to show,
By my love how much I owe.
By nature we were once ‘children of wrath’ — exposed to the dread wrath of God [Eph 2.3]. But we have been saved by grace through faith, that we might do the good works which God has before ordained for us [Eph 2.8, 10]. We are under a tremendous obligation. This was how Paul saw himself. He said: ‘I am debtor both to Greeks and barbarians . . . So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also . . . . for I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation . . . . : for therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith . . . . for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’ [Rom 1.14-18]. Note the four ‘for’s’, especially the last one — ‘for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven’. The divine wrath was revealed in God’s judgments on the heathen world of that day and it overhung that world like a dark cloud. That same wrath is evident in the world of our day and overhangs it like a dark cloud. We too should have the tremendous sense of obligation which Paul had. We too are debtors — debtors to men of every race and condition. May the spirit of concern fill our hearts as it filled the heart of the apostle — that we may give an account of our stewardship one day with joy and not with grief. Amen.
The Universalistic Passages ?
The Universalistic Passages
by Loraine Boettner
Probably the most plausible defense for Arminianism is found in the universalistic passages in Scripture. Three of the most quoted are: II Peter 3:9, "Not wishing [or, KJV, not willing] that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"; I Tim. 2:4, [God our Savior] "who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth"; and I Tim. 2:5,6, "...Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."
In regard to these verses we must keep in mind that, as we have said earlier, God is the absolute sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth, and we are never to think of Him as wishing or striving to do what He knows He will not do. For Him to do otherwise would be for Him to act foolishly. Since Scripture tells us that some men are going to be lost, II Peter 3:9 cannot mean that God is earnestly wishing or striving to save all individual men. For if it were His will that every individual of mankind should be saved, then not one soul could be lost. "For who hath resisted his will?" (Rom. 9:19).
These verses simply teach that God is benevolent, and that He does not delight in the sufferings of His creatures any more than a human father delights in the punishment that he sometimes must inflict upon his son. The word "will" is used in different senses in Scripture as in our everyday conversation. It is sometimes used in the sense of "desire" or "purpose." A righteous judge does not will (desire) that anyone should be hanged or sentenced to prison, yet he wills (pronounces sentence) that the guilty person shall be punished. In the same sense and for sufficient reasons a man may will to have a limb removed, or an eye taken out, even though he certainly does not desire it.
Arminians insist that in II Peter 3:9 the words "any" and "all" refer to all mankind without exception. But it is important first of all to see to whom those words were addressed. In the first verse of chapter 1, we find that the epistle is addressed not to mankind at large, but to Christians: "...to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us." And in a preceding verse (3:1), Peter had addressed those to whom he was writing as "beloved." And when we look at the verse as a whole, and not merely at the last half, we find that it is not primarily a salvation verse at all, but a second coming verse! It begins by saying that "The Lord is not slacking concerning his promise" [singular]. What promise? Verse 4 tells us: "the promise of his coming." The reference is to His second coming, when He will come for judgment, and the wicked will perish in the lake of fire. The verse has reference to a limited group. It says that the Lord is "long-suffering to us-ward," His elect, many of whom had not yet been regenerated, and who therefore had not yet come to repentance. Hence we may quite properly read verse 9 as follows: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance."
In regard to I Tim. 2:4,6 "Who would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth ... who gave himself a ransom for all," is used in various senses. Oftentimes it means, not all men without exception, but all men without distinction - Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, men and women, rich and poor. And in I Tim. 2:4-6 it clearly is used in that sense. Through many centuries the Jews had been, with few exceptions, the exclusive recipients of God's saving grace. They had become the most intensely nationalistic and intolerant people in the world. Instead of recognizing their position as that of God's representatives to all the people of the world, they had taken those blessings to themselves. Even the early Christians for a time were inclined to appropriate the mission of the Messiah only to themselves. The salvation of the Gentiles was a mystery that had not been known in other ages (Eph. 4:6; Col. 1:27). So rigid was the pharisaic exclusivism that the Gentiles were called unclean, common, sinners of the Gentiles, even dogs; and it was not lawful for a Jew to keep company with or have any deals with a Gentile (John 4:9, Acts 10:28, 11:3). After an orthodox Jew had been out in the marketplace where he had come in contact with Gentiles he was regarded as unclean (Mark 7:4). After Peter had preached to the Roman Centurion Cornelius and the others who were gathered at his house, he was severely taken to task by the Church in Jerusalem, and we can almost hear the gasp of wonder when, after Peter told them what had happened, they said, "Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance to life" (Acts 11:18), that is, not to every individual in the world, but to Jews and Gentiles alike. Used in this sense the word "all" has no reference to individuals, but simply to mankind in general.
When it was said of John the Baptist that "There went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5), we know that not every individual did so respond. We read that after Peter and John had healed the lame man at the door of the temple, "all men glorified God for that which was done" (Acts 4:21). Jesus told his disciples that they would be "hated of all men" for His name's sake (Luke 21:17). And when Jesus said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself" (John 12:32), He certainly did not mean that every individual of mankind would be so drawn. What He did mean was that Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations and races, would be drawn to Him. And that is what we see is actually happening.
In I Cor. 15:22 we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be make alive." This verse is often quoted by Arminians to prove unlimited or universal atonement. This verse is from Paul's famous resurrection chapter, and the context makes it clear that he is not talking about life in this age, whether physical or spiritual, but about the resurrection life. Christ is the first to enter the resurrection life, then, when He comes, His people also enter into their resurrection life. And what Paul says is that at that time a glorious resurrection life will become a reality, not for all mankind, but for all those who are in Christ. And this point is illustrated by the well known fact that the race fell in Adam, who acted as its federal head and representative. What Paul says in effect this: "For as all born in Adam die, so also all born again in Christ shall be make alive." Verse 22, therefore, refers not to something past, nor to something present, but to something future; and it has no special bearing at all on the Calvinistic-Arminian controversy.
Two other verses that also are often quoted in defense of Arminianism are "Behold, I stand at the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me" (Rev. 3:20); and "...he that will [KJV, whosoever will], let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). This general invitation is extended to all men. It may be, and often is, the means that the Holy Spirit uses to arouse in certain individuals the desire for salvation as He puts forth His supernatural power to regenerate them. But these verses, taken by themselves, fail to take into consideration the truth that already has been stressed in this article, that fallen man is spiritually dead, and that as such he is as totally unable to respond to the invitation as are the fallen angels or demons. Fallen man is as dead spiritually as Lazarus was dead physically until Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth," and the Pharisee Nicodemus, "Except one be born anew [or, from above], he cannot see the kingdom of God"(John 3:3). And again, He said to the Pharisees, "why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word" (John 8:43). Apart from that divine assistance no one can hear the invitation or put forth the will to come to Christ.
The declaration that Christ died for "all" is made clearer by the song that the redeemed sing before the throne of the Lamb: "Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9). Oftentimes the word "all" must be understood to mean all the elect, all His Church, all those whom the Father has given to the Son, as when Christ says, "All that which the Father giveth me shall come to me" (John 6:37), but not all men universally and every man individually. The redeemed host will be make up of men from all classes and conditions of life, of princes and peasants, of rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations and races. That is the true universalism of Scripture.
The Foreknowledge of God
Arthur W Pink
Arthur W. Pink, born in Great Britain in 1886, immigrated to the U.S. to study at Moody Bible Institute. He pastored churches in Colorado, California, Kentucky, and South Carolina before becoming an itinerant Bible teacher in 1919. He returned to his native land in 1934., taking up residence on the Isle of Lewis, Scotland, in 1940 and remaining there until his death twelve years later. Most of his works first appeared as articles in the monthly Studies in the Scriptures, published from 1922 to 1952.
WHAT CONTROVERSIES have been engendered by this subject in the past! But what truth of Holy Scripture is there which has not been made the occasion of theological and ecclesiastical battles? The deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His atoning death, His second advent; the believer’s justification, sanctification, security; the church, its organization, officers, discipline; baptism, the Lord’s supper and a score of other precious truths might be mentioned. Yet, the controversies which have been waged over them did not close the mouths of God’s faithful servants; why, then, should we avoid the vexing question of God’s Foreknowledge, because, forsooth, there are some who will charge us with fomenting strife? Let others contend if they will, our duty is to bear witness according to the light vouchsafed us. There are two things concerning the Foreknowledge of God about which many are in ignorance: the meaning of the term, its Scriptural scope. Because this ignorance is so widespread, it is an easy matter for preachers and teachers to palm off perversions of this subject, even upon the people of God. There is only one safeguard against error, and that is to be established in the faith; and for that, there has to be prayerful and diligent study, and a receiving with meekness the engrafted Word of God. Only then are we fortified against the attacks of those who assail us. There are those today who are misusing this very truth in order to discredit and deny the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners. Just as higher critics are repudiating the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures; evolutionists, the work of God in creation; so some pseudo Bible teachers are perverting His foreknowledge in order to set aside His unconditional election unto eternal life. When the solemn and blessed subject of Divine foreordination is expounded, when God’s eternal choice of certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son is set forth, the Enemy sends along some man to argue that election is based upon the foreknowledge of God, and this “foreknowledge” is interpreted to mean that God foresaw certain ones would be more pliable than others, that they would respond more readily to the strivings of the Spirit, and that because God knew they would believe, He accordingly, predestinated them unto salvation. But such a statement is radically wrong. It repudiates the truth of total depravity, for it argues that there is something good in some men. It takes away the independency of God, for it makes His decrees rest upon what He discovers in the creature. It completely turns things upside down, for in saying God foresaw certain sinners would believe in Christ, and that because of this, He predestinated them unto salvation, is the very reverse of the truth. Scripture affirms that God, in His high sovereignty, singled out certain ones to be recipients of His distinguishing favours (Acts 13:48), and therefore He determined to bestow upon them the gift of faith. False theology makes God’s foreknowledge of our believing the cause of His election to salvation; whereas, God’s election is the cause, and our believing in Christ is the effect. Ere proceeding further with our discussion of this much misunderstood theme, let us pause and define our terms. What is meant by “foreknowledge”? “To know beforehand,” is the ready reply of many. But we must not jump at conclusions, nor must we turn to Webster’s dictionary as the final court of appeal, for it is not a matter of the etymology of the term employed. What is needed is to find out how the word is used in Scripture. The Holy Spirit’s usage of an expression always defines its meaning and scope. It is failure to apply this simple rule which is responsible for so much confusion and error. So many people assume they already know the signification of a certain word used in Scripture, and then they are too dilatory to test their assumptions by means of a concordance. Let us amplify this point. Take the word “flesh.” Its meaning appears to be so obvious that many would regard it as a waste of time to look up its various connections in Scripture. It is hastily assumed that the word is synonymous with the physical body, and so no inquiry is made. But, in fact, “flesh” in Scripture frequently includes far more than what is corporeal; all that is embraced by the term can only be ascertained by a diligent comparison of every occurrence of it and by a study of each separate context. Take the word “world.” The average reader of the Bible imagines this word is the equivalent for the human race, and consequently, many passages where the term is found are wrongly interpreted. Take the word “immortality.” Surely it requires no study! Obviously it has reference to the indestructibility of the soul. Ah, my reader, it is foolish and wrong to assume anything where the Word of God is concerned. If the reader will take the trouble to carefully examine each passage where “mortal” and “immortal” are found, it will be seen these words are never applied to the soul, but always to the body.
Now what has been said on “flesh,” the “world,” “immortality,” applies with equal force to the terms “know” and “foreknow.” Instead of imagining that these words signify no more than a simple cognition, the different passages in which they occur require to be carefully weighed. The word “foreknowledge” is not found in the Old Testament. But “know” occurs there frequently. When that term is used in connection with God, it often signifies to regard with favour, denoting not mere cognition but an affection for the object in view. I know thee by name” (Ex 33:17). “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you” (Deut 9:24). “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer 1:5). “They have made princes and I knew it not” (Hos 8:4). “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). In this passages “knew” signifies either loved or appointed. In like manner, the word “know” is frequently used in the New Testament, in the same sense as in the Old Testament. “Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” (Matt 7:23). “I am the good shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine” (John 10:14). “If any man love God, the same is known of Him” (I Cor 8:3). “The Lord knoweth them that are His” (II Tim 2:19). Now the word “foreknowledge” as it is used in the N.T. is less ambiguous than in its simple form “to know.” If every passage in which it occurs is carefully studied, it will be discovered that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events which are yet to take place. The fact is that “foreknowledge” is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons. It is persons God is said to “foreknow,” not the actions of those persons. In proof of this we shall now quote each passage where this expression is found. The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Person crucified: “Him [Christi being delivered by . . .
The second occurrence is in Romans 8:29, 30. “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called . . .” Weigh well the pronoun that is used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor believing of their hearts, but the persons themselves, which is here in view. “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew” — Romans 11:2. Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only. The last mention is in I Peter 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the “strangers scattered,” i.e., the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts. Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone saying God “foreknew” the acts of certain ones, viz., their “repenting and believing,” and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is: None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He did know from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s “foreknowledge.” The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons; then let us “hold fast the form of sound words” (II Tim 1:13). Another thing to which we desire to call particular attention is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicity that God’s “foreknowledge” is not causative, that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it, and that something is His own sovereign decree. Christ was “delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). His “counsel” or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Rom. 8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This: “All things work together for good to them... who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s “foreknowledge” is based upon His “purpose” or decree (see Psa 2:7). God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be. It is therefore a reversing of the order of Scripture, a putting of the cart before the horse, to affirm that God elects because He foreknows people. The truth is, He “foreknows” because He has elected. This removes the ground or cause of election from outside the creature, and places it in God’s own sovereign will. God purposed in Himself to elect a certain people, not because of anything good in them or from them, either actual or foreseen, but solely out of His own mere pleasure. As to why He chose the ones He did, we do not know, and can only say, “Even so, Father, for it seemed good in Thy sight.” The plain truth in Romans 8:29 is that God, before the foundation of the world, singled out certain sinners and appointed them unto salvation (II Thess 2:13). This is clear from the concluding words of the verse: “Predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son,” etc. God did not predestinate those whom he foreknew were “conformed,” but, on the contrary, those whom He “foreknew” (i.e., loved and elected) He predestinated “to be conformed.” Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination. God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever does believe until God gives him faith; just as no man sees until God gives him sight. Sight is God’s gift, seeing is the consequence of my using His gift. So faith is God’s gift (Eph 2:8,9), believing is the consequence of my using His gift. If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act, and in that event the saved sinner would have ground for “boasting,” which Scripture emphatically denies (Eph 2:9).
Surely God’s Word is plain enough in teaching that believing is not a meritorious act. It affirms that Christians are a people “who have believed through grace” (Acts 18:27). If, then, they have believed “through grace,” there is absolutely nothing meritorious about “believing,” and if nothing meritorious, it could not be ground or cause which moved God to chose them. No; God’s choice proceeds not from anything in us, or anything from us, but solely from His own sovereign pleasure. Once more, in Romans 11:5, we read of “a remnant according to the election of grace.” There it is, plain enough; election itself is of grace, and grace is unmerited favour, something for which we had no claim upon God whatsoever. It thus appears that it is highly important for us to have clear and spiritual views of the “foreknowledge” of God. Erroneous conceptions about it lead inevitably to thoughts most dishonouring to Him. The popular idea of Divine foreknowledge is altogether inadequate. God not only knew the end from the beginning, but He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader be a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but chose simply because it pleased Him to choose; chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief. This being so, all the glory and praise belongs alone to Him. You have no ground for taking any credit to yourself. You have “believed through grace” (Acts 18:27), and that, because your very election was “of grace” (Rom 11:5).
The Choice...man's or God's?
In light of the prevelant teaching among the various modern-gospel churches of our day I thought this article might bring a breath of fresh air. Let's take a look at The Book.
“According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.”—Ephesians 1:4, 11
by Peter Eldersveld
One day several years ago, the surveyor was working on our street, checking the property lines of vacant lots where new houses were to be built. I noticed that he was very careful about placing his transit-compass, the instrument surveyors use for measuring. When I questioned him about it, he told me that it was absolutely necessary to locate the exact point-of-beginning before any surveying could be done. His transit-compass had to be set precisely over this point, for otherwise all the work would be in vain. If the point-of-beginning were wrong, everything else in the whole area surveyed would be wrong, too; property lines would be confused, and houses misplaced; and the courts would be overrun with cases of angry citizens whose property rights had been violated. So great is the danger, that builders refuse to begin their work until the surveyor has completed his.
There is a lesson in that for a world that is badly askew. Sin has brought disorder and chaos. But the problem has been immensely complicated by our failure to find the right point-of-beginning in the matter of our salvation. We are always prone to think that we must begin with man—which is another evidence of our sinfulness. We should begin with God; He is the only right point-of-beginning in the search for salvation. And if we don’t begin with Him, we will only go farther astray.
Not only in the world at large but even in the history of the Christian Church do we find evidence of our failure on this score. Both preaching and theology, whether conservative or liberal, have often made man, instead of God, the point-of-beginning. We are so easily tempted to be man-centered in our conception of the gospel. Evangelism seems to be more appealing that way. And theology, too. But that humanistic approach has often led the Church astray, for it invariably accommodates the Word of God to suit the notions of men. In fact, almost every instance of heresy in the history of the Church can be traced directly to that wrong point-of-beginning.
You cannot bring men back to God unless that way of their salvation begins with God. Humanism always ends where it starts, namely, with man. The Bible also ends where it starts, namely with God—which is where we want to be, isn’t it? The predicament in which we sinners find ourselves is so utterly hopeless that divine redemption is our only way out. The Bible says, what we know to be true from our own honest introspection, that we are “dead in trespasses and sins.” And such dead men cannot begin their own resurrection. They must be raised by another— by God. You cannot expect sinners who are depraved by nature to initiate the work of their own redemption. It will have to be initiated by God.
Now the Word of God proves beyond all doubt that He has indeed taken the initiative, that He is our point of beginning. The classic passage on that is Eph. 1:4-12. Among other things, it says: “He hath chosen us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world . . . having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will . . . in whom (Christ) also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.”
Now that doctrine of divine election is mentioned no less than forty-eight times in the New Testament alone. And no wonder, for it is one of the grandest things we know about God. His plan of redemption is not an afterthought, something He had to devise when man fell into sin; it was not occasioned by the contingencies of history, nor does it depend upon the will of man. From eternity God chose sinners to he saved, and He did so according to the good pleasure of His will without qualifying conditions of any kind. It was His doing. Its point-of-beginning is with Him in eternity, where also its end will be. This means that our salvation has its origin as well as its destiny in the everlasting God!
However, oddly enough, this glorious truth, which is one of the fundamentals of our faith, is also one of the most controversial teachings in the Bible. It makes some people stiffen with resistance and even wince with pain every time they hear it. This is particularly true among certain Christians who have a more humanistic theology. And, of course, the reason for their antagonism is quite natural. For the other side of this glorious truth is that if God chose to save some, He necessarily chose not to save others. So, He is not only a God of election but also of reprobation. And that’s the part men don’t like.
They seem to feel under obligation to defend the character of God against the stigma and responsibility of election and reprobation. The fact that God very plainly assumes this responsibility does not seem to impress them at all. They believe it is better to have men choose God than to have God choose men. And so they take the ultimate decision, as to who will be saved, out of the hands of God and place it in the hands of men, who must then make the choice themselves. And thereby they make man the point-of-beginning—and ending, the Alpha and Omega of his own salvation. He can frustrate God if he wants to.
Now, personally, I am deeply grateful that the Bible presents a God who chooses the sinner, rather than a God who must wait to be chosen. I know that teaching confronts us with some very real and difficult questions which we shall never be able to answer, but I would rather live with those questions than try to escape them by adopting humanistic notions that conflict with God’s own revelation of Himself. The fact that we cannot comprehend the mystery of His mercy does not disprove it.
After all, He would be a pretty small God if the sinful human mind could comprehend Him. And if His plan of salvation were comprehensible, if we could make it fit our thinking, it would be like all human plans of salvation which make sense to us but never save us from our sins.
There are so many things we don’t understand about God. As the Bible says, His ways are - not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts; He is past finding out. That’s because He is God! And we ought not to allow our unanswered questions about Him and His Word to prevent us from believing what He declares to be true, even when that conflicts with the confused reasoning of our sinful minds. If we cannot bow humbly and modestly before Him, we have lost our God, and then we have lost also the only real point-of-beginning in the matter of our salvation.
It is interesting to observe that con temporary theologians, both conservative and liberal, who evidently do not believe this Biblical doctrine of divine election, are nevertheless compelled to recognize its underlying principle. Here is one, for example, who says: “In Christianity the initiative is always with God, never with man. All human action is just our response to the active prompting of the living God. It may be an obedient response, or a perverse and willful response. This conception distinguishes Christianity from all other faiths . . . Before we seek Him, He is out in search of us; and when we think we are discovering some new truth, we are in reality apprehending His self- revelation. . . .Man did not come here by his own volition; he was brought here. God was here before man arrived!”
Well, of course that’s right. But then why should we try to take the initiative away from God when it comes to the matter of our own salvation? That certainly proves the perversity of our sinful human nature, doesn’t it? Consider what is at stake here.
To begin with, how could you ever become a Christian if you had to choose God rather than be chosen by Him? Why, you know from your own experience as well as from the Word of God that the natural inclination of your soul is away from God, not toward Him. If He left the matter up to you, do you think you would ever make the right choice? If God did not choose you and then find you in your sin, do you think you would ever choose Him and then find salvation in Him?
Furthermore, how could we ever bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to sinners if we didn’t know that God chose from eternity those who will be saved? Consider the inconsistency of it. We tell men that they are hopelessly lost, dead in trespasses and sins, as the Bible says. But then we would proceed to tell them to do something which is utterly impossible for dead men to do, namely, to turn from sin and give their hearts to God. Now those two things are self-contradictory, aren’t they?
The only way we can make sense with the gospel is to tell sinners that God has done something about their sinful condition; and not only that He has made salvation available, but that He has actually chosen from eternity those who will receive it; and that they will choose Him precisely because He first chose them. As Paul put it in Rom. 8, “whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son . . . whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? . . . Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.”
The whole mission effort of the Christian Church rests ultimately upon this doctrine of divine election. Even before we go out into the world with the gospel of Christ, we know that it cannot fail. For those whom God has chosen from eternity will be called, and justified, and glorified. They will be saved, not first of all because they want God, but because He wants them. When we go out with the gospel, we don’t know in advance who the chosen ones are, but we do know that the gospel will find them, whoever and wherever they are.
This is the secret of the phenomenal success of the mission effort of the early Church. For example, when Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch, they found a ready response among the Gentiles, who “glorified the word of the Lord.” All of them? No, not all of them. How many? Well, we find the answer in Acts 13:48—”as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” Now that’s the whole story of New Testament missions.
The same thing is true today. We preach the gospel everywhere. But only those whom God has chosen actually believe it. There is no other way to explain the difference between a believer and an unbeliever. Both are sinners by nature. The believer is no better than the unbeliever—perhaps worse in some respects. The difference lies in the good pleasure of God, who knows what He is doing, even when He doesn’t tell us what it is and why He does it. As the apostle John put it, those who receive Him, and who thus become the sons of God, are “born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
No, Christianity is not a failure in this world because so many people reject it. God never intended to save all men. He tells us plainly in His Word that He has chosen some and not others. And if that disturbs us, if it raises questions in our minds about the justice and the love of God, then let us seriously ponder the solemn fact if God had not done the choosing, none of us would ever choose Him! And whatever He does with the rest of us is His business, not ours. One thing is certain: we would never find salvation if it were up to us to find it.
Sometimes you will hear people say this doctrine makes men complacent and careless about the matter of their salvation, for they are made to feel that there is nothing they can do about it anyway, since everything depends upon God; if they are chosen, they will be saved somehow; and if not, well, nothing they do will make any difference.
But is that really true? Do you know any unbeliever who actually uses that as an excuse for his unbelief? No, of course not. That’s not why he rejects the gospel. The only people who raise that objection are Christians who think this doctrine will offend and antagonize those whom they want to win for Christ. How strange that God doesn’t have the same fear! He certainly wants to bring sinners to Christ, and yet He doesn’t hesitate to use this doctrine to call them! And Christ Himself did the same thing. He said: “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.” Are we supposed to be wiser than God? Do we think we can make the gospel more appealing and more effective if we omit this basic doctrine of divine election, and let sinners think that their salvation depends upon their own free will, which is sinful and depraved, rather than upon the sovereign will of God?
Which is really the more compelling thing to say to men who are sinners by nature, prone to evil, slaves of sin—that they must choose God, or that God must choose them? Which would you rather have me tell you—that God cannot save you unless you first come to Him, or that He has come to you because you would not and could not come to Him?
Well, to ask the question is to answer it. And Christians like to put that answer in the words of an old hymn:
‘Tis not that I did choose Thee,
For, Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse Thee,
Hadst Thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old Thou hast ordained me,
That I should live to Thee.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Atlanta Pride goes before their fall
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1018091915517
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1018091918109
I'm thankful that the weather this past Friday and Saturday was cool, damp, and dreary. Praise God, because it kept many from participating in the "pride" event. Hopefully it will be cancelled for next year.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which my be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."- Romans 1:18-19.
The above two versed characterized this past weekend in Atlanta's Homosexual Pride Event. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."- Proverbs 16:18. These people are headed for great destruction for the Scriptures say "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." - Romans 1:32.
It didn't matter who we spoke with.....they either denied God, condemned God, or had created a false god to suite themselves and make them feel comfortable in the sins they were committing. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"-Jeremiah 17:9. "There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."-Proverbs 16:25. Jesus Christ said "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man."-John 7:21-23.
These people were hostile to the Word of God being read out loud because their consciences were convicting them of their sin (Romans 2:15). Many however as Scripture proclaims in Romans were given over to reprobate minds and vile affections. Several of those whom we had conversations with and took through the Law (leaving their homosexuality off the table) proclaimed themselves guilty in light of God's moral law yet were unconcerned with consequences they would face on the day God would judge them. However, many wanted to put homosexuality back on the table and include it in the discussion. I spoke with one woman who began to cry and had a look of conviction and desperation on her face as her lesbian lover pulled her away and the security guard standing beside us ordered me to leave the area. At least she took the tract I handed her. Please pray for this unknown woman.
Until Next time......Reformata
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1018091918109
I'm thankful that the weather this past Friday and Saturday was cool, damp, and dreary. Praise God, because it kept many from participating in the "pride" event. Hopefully it will be cancelled for next year.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which my be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."- Romans 1:18-19.
The above two versed characterized this past weekend in Atlanta's Homosexual Pride Event. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."- Proverbs 16:18. These people are headed for great destruction for the Scriptures say "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." - Romans 1:32.
It didn't matter who we spoke with.....they either denied God, condemned God, or had created a false god to suite themselves and make them feel comfortable in the sins they were committing. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"-Jeremiah 17:9. "There is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."-Proverbs 16:25. Jesus Christ said "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man."-John 7:21-23.
These people were hostile to the Word of God being read out loud because their consciences were convicting them of their sin (Romans 2:15). Many however as Scripture proclaims in Romans were given over to reprobate minds and vile affections. Several of those whom we had conversations with and took through the Law (leaving their homosexuality off the table) proclaimed themselves guilty in light of God's moral law yet were unconcerned with consequences they would face on the day God would judge them. However, many wanted to put homosexuality back on the table and include it in the discussion. I spoke with one woman who began to cry and had a look of conviction and desperation on her face as her lesbian lover pulled her away and the security guard standing beside us ordered me to leave the area. At least she took the tract I handed her. Please pray for this unknown woman.
Until Next time......Reformata
Zeal without knowledge
"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge."-Romans 10:2
Zeal without knowledge can be a dangerous thing and possibly lead to false accusations. This brings to mind a bizarre incident that occurred last Thursday in a Cracker Barrel. I was approached by a couple of younger brothers (hopefully) in the faith whom I had handed several tracts to prior to sitting down to eat. They (evidently a small bible study group) had issues with the tract that I gave them, which read as follows:
"Saved From What?"
"a. God's Wrath b. Judgement c. Death e. Hell f. All the above
If you answered 'all the above' you would be correct. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, irrespective of its value? Jesus said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart'(Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked at someone with lust? The Bible says that if someone hates another person they are a murderer(I John 3:15). Have you ever hated anyone? He will judge our actions and our thoughts. How will you do on Judgement Day? Guilty or Innocent? If you are honest, your conscience will bear witness to you that your are Guilty. Unless you repent and trust in Jesus Christ, His wrath remains on you (John 3:36). Problem...You can't repent unless it is granted to you from God (II Timothy 2:25). You must have faith in Christ, but unless He grants you that faith (Ephesians 2:8) it is impossible. God is Holy and demands Justice. What must you do to be Saved from His wrath and your sins? Cry out to Jesus and plead for His mercy and grace, then repent (turn from your sins) and put your faith in Jesus Christ.
Their problem was with repentance. They stated repentance was of works righteousness and salvation came by faith alone. I attempted to dialogue with them and was unsuccessful. I agreed that salvation was by faith alone in Christ, however repentance accompanied saving faith. They continued peppering me with false accusations of works righteousness. They did not have ears to hear and even tried to incorrectly and presumptuously say that I was headed in conversation with them to Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.", and insinuating that I was implying man's work plus Christ, which I denied. These two would not hear and were insistent upon strife. Proverbs 26:4-5 came to mind. They admonished me look at Ephesians 2:8, which had they read the tract would have seen that the verse was sited. They soon walked off. During the brief encounter I tried to take them to when Jesus Christ began His earthly ministry in Mark 1:15 "And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." I attempted to communicate to them that according to I John those who practice sin are none of His and further more "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." - Titus 1:16
Please pray for these two young men and their bible study group. They did not agree to meet with me over a coke to sit down and go over the Scriptures. It concerns me that they would deny the doctrine of repentance. Are they antinomian (against the moral law). Because Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In Galatians 3:24 it clearly states that the law is a school master to drive us unto Christ. Have they in fact never repented and using the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for lasciviousness? I pray not. Are they saved? Keep them in prayer.
I know, preach, evangelize and have never denied that salvation is by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Scripture is replete with verses indicating repentance. Repentance accompanies Faith in Christ. Here are a few cited for you to review (Psalm 34:18, Psalm 51:17, Psalm 57:15, Isaiah 66:2, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:38, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 9:13, Mark 1:15, Mark 2:17, Mark 6:12, Luke 13:3,5, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 11:18, Acts 17:30, Acts 20:21, Acts 26,20, Romans 2:4, II Corinthians 7:10, II Timothy 2:25, and II Peter 3:9).
In fact unless the Lord grants you faith and repentance (Ephesians 2:8, II Tim 2:25 and Acts 11:18) you will not be saved. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."-John 6:44
Until next time........Reformata
Zeal without knowledge can be a dangerous thing and possibly lead to false accusations. This brings to mind a bizarre incident that occurred last Thursday in a Cracker Barrel. I was approached by a couple of younger brothers (hopefully) in the faith whom I had handed several tracts to prior to sitting down to eat. They (evidently a small bible study group) had issues with the tract that I gave them, which read as follows:
"Saved From What?"
"a. God's Wrath b. Judgement c. Death e. Hell f. All the above
If you answered 'all the above' you would be correct. Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, irrespective of its value? Jesus said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart'(Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked at someone with lust? The Bible says that if someone hates another person they are a murderer(I John 3:15). Have you ever hated anyone? He will judge our actions and our thoughts. How will you do on Judgement Day? Guilty or Innocent? If you are honest, your conscience will bear witness to you that your are Guilty. Unless you repent and trust in Jesus Christ, His wrath remains on you (John 3:36). Problem...You can't repent unless it is granted to you from God (II Timothy 2:25). You must have faith in Christ, but unless He grants you that faith (Ephesians 2:8) it is impossible. God is Holy and demands Justice. What must you do to be Saved from His wrath and your sins? Cry out to Jesus and plead for His mercy and grace, then repent (turn from your sins) and put your faith in Jesus Christ.
Their problem was with repentance. They stated repentance was of works righteousness and salvation came by faith alone. I attempted to dialogue with them and was unsuccessful. I agreed that salvation was by faith alone in Christ, however repentance accompanied saving faith. They continued peppering me with false accusations of works righteousness. They did not have ears to hear and even tried to incorrectly and presumptuously say that I was headed in conversation with them to Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.", and insinuating that I was implying man's work plus Christ, which I denied. These two would not hear and were insistent upon strife. Proverbs 26:4-5 came to mind. They admonished me look at Ephesians 2:8, which had they read the tract would have seen that the verse was sited. They soon walked off. During the brief encounter I tried to take them to when Jesus Christ began His earthly ministry in Mark 1:15 "And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." I attempted to communicate to them that according to I John those who practice sin are none of His and further more "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." - Titus 1:16
Please pray for these two young men and their bible study group. They did not agree to meet with me over a coke to sit down and go over the Scriptures. It concerns me that they would deny the doctrine of repentance. Are they antinomian (against the moral law). Because Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In Galatians 3:24 it clearly states that the law is a school master to drive us unto Christ. Have they in fact never repented and using the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for lasciviousness? I pray not. Are they saved? Keep them in prayer.
I know, preach, evangelize and have never denied that salvation is by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. Scripture is replete with verses indicating repentance. Repentance accompanies Faith in Christ. Here are a few cited for you to review (Psalm 34:18, Psalm 51:17, Psalm 57:15, Isaiah 66:2, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:38, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 9:13, Mark 1:15, Mark 2:17, Mark 6:12, Luke 13:3,5, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Acts 11:18, Acts 17:30, Acts 20:21, Acts 26,20, Romans 2:4, II Corinthians 7:10, II Timothy 2:25, and II Peter 3:9).
In fact unless the Lord grants you faith and repentance (Ephesians 2:8, II Tim 2:25 and Acts 11:18) you will not be saved. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."-John 6:44
Until next time........Reformata
Thursday, October 29, 2009
False Prophets/Teachers
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51081348451
Part 1
Beware! False teachers abound in our day as they have in times of old. These false teachers have gone astray as in II Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet." Hence the name for this blog, Rebuked by a donkey. You may read about it further starting in Numbers 22:1. Titus 1:16 "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." You know them.......the health, wealth, prosperity types; not to mention those who spread false gospels such as baptismal regeneration, and decisional regeneration. The latter two in the previous sentence seem to be rampant today. Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Test all pastors and preachers by the Scriptures. I John 4:1
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51081354134
Part 2
Part 1
Beware! False teachers abound in our day as they have in times of old. These false teachers have gone astray as in II Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet." Hence the name for this blog, Rebuked by a donkey. You may read about it further starting in Numbers 22:1. Titus 1:16 "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." You know them.......the health, wealth, prosperity types; not to mention those who spread false gospels such as baptismal regeneration, and decisional regeneration. The latter two in the previous sentence seem to be rampant today. Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Test all pastors and preachers by the Scriptures. I John 4:1
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51081354134
Part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)