13 DecIs it Arrogant to Claim that Pelagians Misunderstand the Gospel?

Is it arrogant to claim that Pelagians (definition) misunderstand the Gospel? Yes, it is as arrogant as claiming that Catholics distort the Gospel, that the Jews missed their Messiah, and that Muslims do not serve the God of Abraham. It is arrogant in a day of post-modern tolerance, where truth is relative to the individual and where truth thereby is non-existent.

And how have Pelagians misunderstood the Gospel? They have done it by misunderstanding the bad news of humanity’s condition. For if good news is going to exist, bad news must go before it, and if extremely Good News is going to exist, extremely bad news must go before it.

Read more…

22 NovThe Fitting Practice of Castrating Teachers of a Gospel Based upon Free Will

The late, great Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, said many times concerning the doctrines of free will which are commonly labeled Arminianism, that, “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works.” In other words, Spurgeon believed, and quite passionately, that the gospel preached by those who hold that men have a free will that can choose Christ is nothing more than a salvation that is based upon works not upon faith in Christ alone.

Such a charge is not a light charge, for when one takes that which is the Gospel and distorts it into a salvation that is based upon human merit and law-keeping, he does not merely tarnish the Gospel, but he destroys it in its entirety. The apostles, for this reason, speak very harshly concerning those who do thus to the Gospel and admonish the church over and over throughout their letters to watch out for those who distort the Gospel in this way and to cast them out of their fellowship. And to demonstrate this great passion of the apostles for the purity of the Gospel, the apostle Paul speaking to the Galatian church regarding the Judaizers (those who sought to add the work of circumcision to the Gospel), wrote:

You [Galatians] were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? [i.e. The Judaizers did.] This persuasion [of the Judaizers] is not from him [i.e. God] who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump [i.e. a little distortion ruins the whole Gospel]. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine [i.e. the Gospel that I have preached], and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who [Judaizers] who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! (Gal. 5:7-12).

Now, the apostle makes it very clear of how he feels about the Judaizers adding the work of circumcision to the Gospel. He says that their doing thus, first, leavens and destroys the whole Gospel, in that, second, it removes the offense of the cross of Christ thereby demonstrating that it is a false gospel, and, third, that, because of this false teaching, he wishes that they who did this to the Gospel would castrate themselves! In other words, he is saying in not so many words, “I wish that they who wish to cut off the foreskin of your flesh and by it destroy the Gospel would instead keep cutting on their own genitals and leave you and the Gospel alone.”

Read more…

20 NovWhy I Refuse to Labor beside an Arminian in the Great Commission

There is a sad reality in the existence of denominations in the church, and it is this: denominations unite people in the church under secondary doctrines of the Faith so as to make those doctrines primary to the denomination, and they take doctrines that should be primary and make them secondary for the sake of unity in the denomination. For example, the Southern Baptist denomination is a denomination that is united under the secondary doctrine of the mode of baptism (viz. immersion), and since Southern Baptists have this secondary doctrine of mode of baptism in common, it becomes to the denomination a primary doctrine. Despite this common ground on baptism, there is division within the denomination on other issues that are of primary concern to the Faith (e.g. the Gospel and its proper understanding) that however become secondary issues in the denomination because they divide the denomination. And thus you will find in these denominations capitulation of doctrines that are of first importance for the sake of preserving the denomination, for the denomination, not the Church nor righteousness, is end of doctrine and practice, and therefore every doctrine must be filtered and ranked through the denomination not through the Revelation of God.

And thus, to jump to the point, you will find efforts in the Southern Baptist Convention to unite with one another within the denomination over issues such as Calvinist / Arminian understandings of the Gospel for the sake of what is being called the Great Commission Resurgence whose chief end is to get the Gospel out to the Nations. The problem with such an endeavor is that despite pious sounding mantras to “Just give the world the name of Jesus,” it neglects the very Gospel that is to be delivered to the Nations. Its practice would be tantamount to rounding up medicine and sending it to a country that is perishing from smallpox, when it is not merely medicine that the country needs, it is the particular medicine of a smallpox inoculation. Sending aspirin would not do, and neither would a measles vaccine, but they need the pure, unadulterated cure of a smallpox vaccine. Likewise, when we speak of a Great Commission Resurgence, we do not merely need to send to them the name of Jesus (for the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are just as well-equipped to do that), but we need to send to them the pure, unadulterated Gospel that was delivered to the prophets and apostles.

Read more…

19 OctHow a Free Will Distorts the Gospel

At my new job site with the security company for which I work, I have the privilege of working with a brother of Christ who comes from a Church of God denominational background, and who is presently pursuing a Master of Divinity in Christian Counseling. We have had some wonderful conversations the past two days (and will likely have many more in the future, Lord willing), and I have little reason not to believe that this man is a child of God. He loves the Lord and his Word, and he strives for holiness and likely shares Christianity with more unbelievers than I do.

However, despite these admirable and godly traits, this brother is a full-fledged Arminian and believes the very doctrines that the Synod of Dordt denounced. And while I am convinced that the Spirit of God dwells in this man, I have felt it my duty to share with him at least some differing views on his beliefs since this man aspires to one day be a full-time minister to God’s flock. Here are a few of my thoughts that I have shared with him.

Read more…

17 FebAddressing Texts that “Contradict” Romans 9, III. 1 Timothy 2:4

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim. 2:3, 4).

As promised, I am continuing my survey of texts that supposedly contradict the doctrines taught in Romans 8-11, et al. Several weeks ago, we dealt with the texts of John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 and how those classic texts supposedly portray God as a God who is, respectively, desperately in love with the world and is wringing his hands at the thought that any person on this planet should have to perish. We demonstrated through these texts’ context and through biblical theology that this is not the God that is portrayed in these verses, but instead we find a God who is quite the opposite.

Despite this clarity in context, we must realize that we live in a reader response society and among Christians who use the Bible as a reference book rather than the meat upon which they feast daily. Thus we find not Christians who read the Scriptures through and thoroughly in its own context, but we find Christians who google, “Why Calvinism is evil,” and find a website of some other person who also only uses his Bible as reference book and then compiled a list of verses and spouted the infamous lie that Calvinists do not believe in evangelism and missions, despite the fact that the greatest preachers and evangelists (e.g. George Whitefield, C. H. Spurgeon, etc.), the leaders of great revivals (e.g. Jonathan Edwards), and the one who is called the father of modern missions–William Carey–were all Calvinists.

Read more…

08 JanIt Depends Not on Human Will or Exertion, but on God, Pt. 2

Paul’s interpretation of God’s declaration to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” is possibly one of the most direct statements on a controversial topic in all of Scripture. He writes, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (v. 9:16). Another version translates the text this way: “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (NASB).

Before we come to any conclusions concerning this statement by the apostle, it would be beneficial for us to understand the context in which it is spoken. We have just finished studying God’s sovereign will over the selection of the Israel’s forefathers according to the Promise, which we have concluded from its context and from the fulfillment of the Promise in Christ that the apostle is speaking of the Eternal & Spiritual Israel, i.e. the children of God, not the physical Israel and its physical, covenant promises (cf. v. 9:8). The mercy of God of which the Apostle speaks is therefore not a mercy that affords physical prosperity for a particular nation and ethnic group but it is mercy unto eternal blessing.

Read more…

07 JanIt Depends Not on Human Will or Exertion, but on God, Pt. 1

In our study on God’s dealings with the children of Abraham and his sovereignty over them, we primarily addressed the lineage of the Promise. We looked at how God chose Isaac over the firstborn Ishmael to be the bearer of the Promise and how God chose Jacob over the firstborn Esau, before either of them were born and had done nothing good or evil, to demonstrate his purpose of election (cf. Rom. 9:11). We saw also that God’s choice brought with it eternal blessing to one and eternal ruin to the other (cf. Mal. 1:2, etc., Rom. 9:13).

It is at this point that many interpreters of Romans 9 who do not like the doctrine of Divine Election point out that vv. 1-13 have dealt solely with God and the people of Israel. In spite of Paul’s design in using the examples of Isaac and Jacob to explain God’s Purpose in Election and thereby explain why God has not broken his promise to Israel though they were not believing in Jesus Christ and are therefore condemned, many interpreters see, “God’s dealing with Israel” stamped over the text and skip ahead to Romans 12. They argue, “This text does not deal with the Church, so let us move on.”

Read more…

25 NovA Preface to Romans 9: The Myth of the Free Will

Man comes out like a flower and withers;
….he flees like a shadow and continues not.
And do you open your eyes on such a one
….and bring me into judgment with you?
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
….There is not one.
Since his days are determined,
….and the number of his months is with you,
……..and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass (Job 14:2-5).

There are few philosophies that are as ingrained in the human psyche as is the free will of man. It is as common to the natural man as the craving for food, the desire for companionship, and the drive for sex. Left to himself, the natural man would believe in his autonomy his entire life and would die thinking that he arrived at his end on his own accord.

We, however, cannot come to Romans 9 as the natural man does. Before we begin studying this chapter, we must approach it with minds and hearts that are teachable. We must be willing to question our natural philosophies and also be willing to replace them with the doctrines of Scripture. If we do not, we will either come out of Romans 9 hating it, or more likely, will come out of it with ridiculous interpretations. Our best guide for studying Romans 9 is Romans 1-8, which lays a foundation for the hard teachings of the chapter. Since Romans 9 deals with God’s sovereignty over all men, we will look at his sovereignty over natural man and then his sovereignty over his children in these chapters.

The Bondage of Natural Men
Our first encounter with natural men is in the first chapter of Romans. The chapter portrays men whose morality is in constant attrition. Their moral attrition is attributed to nothing–not to their lack of education, their poverty, etc., but it is portrayed as their natural course forged by their natural condition. Not even their knowledge of God sways their destructive course. The Apostle writes:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Romans 1:21-23).

Though they knew God through the natural law, they also knew a portion of the revealed law of God. Again the Apostle writes:

Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (v. 1:32).

This is our first encounter in the letter with a will that knowingly fights against its soul’s own good. The Apostle writes that these natural men know their actions and their desserts, but they do them all the same. They know that they will ultimately answer for their wickedness, but they commend the wickedness that they see in others. They know that their good is not to do wicked acts, yet they continue to do them.

Lest we think that Paul is speaking only of the Gentiles apart from the law in chapter one, the Apostle clarifies this, writing, “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin (v. 3:10).” Again he writes, “There is none who is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God (v. 3:11).” This universal “not doing good” speaks of the bondage of all men apart from God’s divine intervention. Apart from God, all men are bound to sin and can do no good. Though men might “will” to do things that resemble good, they are no more good than graven images are God. Regardless of how we explain or justify the “selfless” acts of good by natural men, the simple truth is that no man apart from God can do any that is truly good and is bound to do evil with every step he takes.

In that same chapter, the Apostle writes, “We know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God (v. 3:19).” As is implied in the first chapter, we find that the law exists over natural men, not to be a stepladder to God, but to demonstrate their guilt before a righteous Judge. In Romans 7, we see also that the law over natural man points to life to those who fulfill it. Since the natural man is bound to sin and unable to fulfill the law and thereby attain life, we find the natural narrator through the lens of the Apostle saying, “The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me (v. 7:10).

In the next paragraph, we find the most vivid portrayal of the natural man’s bondage. In this paragraph, we find a narrative of man who recognizes that the law gives life to those who keep it, who desires that life, and, through the Apostle’s eyes, sees clearly his bondage to sin and his bondage to the flesh. Even in this most enlightened of natural men, we still find that his will is completely and utterly bound, for he laments, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to to do what is right [i.e. so that he might obtain life], but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I continually do (vv. 7:18, 19). Here we find that even the man who is enlightened by the law and its promises is powerless to keep it. Thus he needs a deliverer–one outside himself who is not bound by sin, death, and the flesh to keep the law on his behalf and to break his bonds. Hence we have Romans 8:1-4, but that is beyond our present scope.

Our point in looking at the utter bondage of natural men is so that when we read Romans 9:16, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy,” or v. 9:13, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” we will have categories for these declarations, and so that we will see that the declarations of Romans 9 are the same as those made in Romans 1-8. Tomorrow we will look at God’s sovereignty over redeemed men.