Oracles of Fire

Perseverance of the Saints - The P in the TULIP

2012-01-09T05:35:00.000-06:00

Perseverance of the Saints:

Perseverance of the saints simply means that if anyone comes to faith in Christ, he will always be in a saved position, no matter what he does.

Much of the debate comes from the basic difference between the beliefs of the majority of those who approve and those who object to this doctrine, especially from the extreme poles of the camps. Calvinists hold to a phrase that says, “once saved, always saved,” that is, once you become a Christian, you cannot lose your salvation.

This belief is expressed in a range of ways. Some say that a true Christian will become more and more holy as time progresses, and he will not depart from the road toward holiness, though he will never become completely righteous until he goes to heaven (I have not yet met a Calvinist who believe in the ability to live a sinless life while alive on the earth). Some Calvinists believe that a person who once makes a profession of faith and then falls into a pattern of sin likely was never saved at all. It is difficult, if not impossible, for these Calvinists to draw a line to say how much sin is required before they would claim that such a person was never saved.

Other Calvinists believe that even the vilest sinners are saved simply because they once made a profession of faith. They believe that sin and righteousness are not to be used at all as a sign of salvation.

On the anti-Calvinist side, most believe that a person can “lose” or perhaps forfeit his salvation if he turns from his faith and returns to his former manner of life, that is, a life of sin, though some hold to a hybrid position I will explain soon.

On the anti-Calvinist side, we have a similar range of opinion. Some use the “once saved, always saved” phrase and its acronym (OSAS) as a symbol of heresy, almost as a litmus test to determine a person’s standing in theology. To them, if you believe this doctrine, you are heretical. There is no other option. And it seems to them, when shown any example of a person who once professed faith and then fell into sin, whether in the Bible or in modern times, that person must have lost their salvation. The idea that such a person might not have ever been saved is often foreign.

Other anti-Calvinists allow for the idea that perseverance can be a viable option, believing that real Christians simply won’t fall into sin and that those who once professed faith and fell into sin weren’t ever real Christians, that is, they were never saved. They believe in the theoretical possibility that a real Christian could sin and forfeit salvation, but in practice, they would identify a falling-away person as one who was never saved. This is the hybrid position, a belief in once saved always saved that is lived out in holiness.

And, as in the Calvinist camp, there are people who believe ideas that fall somewhere within the wide range.

There are Scripture passages that might lead a person to believe either one, and we could examine every one of them in detail and still not settle the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. We see several examples of people who claim to have faith and then abandon it, making us think they might have lost salvation, and we also see passages that teach us that perhaps this kind of person never had true faith at all.

This is often the crux of the issue for anti-Calvinists. Was a formerly faith-professing sinner ever saved? We see Jesus saying to those who claim faith, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. (Matthew 7:23). And John says, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

At the same time, we see examples in which the text speaks plainly of a fallen believer, and I will give an example in a moment.

I think, therefore, our goal should not be to prove the past spiritual condition of any particular sinner who once professed faith. It simply isn’t important. The important fact is that a sinning person is not currently saved, whether they ever were saved or not. And it is this proposition we will explore, because the Calvinist system has spread more danger through their perseverance tenet than through any other, guaranteeing eternal security to people who have no good reason to possess such assurance.

Why is this issue important? People want to have assurance of salvation, evidence that what is invisible is real. We can’t see our internal salvation with our eyes, so it gives us comfort to have some kind of knowledge that our faith has substance, that God has indeed responded to our cry of faith.

How does a person know he is saved? Is having assurance of salvation important? What does the Bible say?

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you (2 Peter 1:10).

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13)

And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments (1 John 2:3).

These verses give us reason to believe that knowledge of our salvation (or of our choosing, which isn’t necessarily the same thing) is important. Many Calvinists agree that it’s important to know, as Dr. Sproul says:

Such a person might say, “I don’t know if I am elect or not and I am not the least bit concerned about it.” There can hardly be any greater folly. If you do not yet know if you are elect, I can think of no more urgent question to answer.[1]

Dr. Sproul gives three ways to have assurance, and we’ll discuss each one.

True assurance is grounded in the promises of God for our salvation. Our assurance comes first of all from our trust in the God who makes these promises.[2]

The problem with this point is that it lends nothing to gaining personal assurance. Yes, God’s promises are sure; they never fail. But His promise to save someone doesn’t apply to someone who is not truly in the state of salvation. You can’t say to someone, “You can be sure you’re saved, because God’s promises to save never fail.” The person you’re speaking with may not be truly saved. Therefore, this is not a valid way to gain assurance.

Secondly, our assurance is enhanced by the inward evidence of our own faith. We know that we could never have any true affection for Christ if we were not reborn. We know that we could not be reborn if we were not elect. … I know inwardly that I do not love Christ totally. But at the same time I do know that I love him. I rejoice inwardly at the thought of his triumph. I rejoice inwardly at the thought of his coming. I will his exultation. I know that none of these sentiments that I find in myself could possibly be there if it were not fore grace.[3]

Is that so? Can someone have internal good feelings about Christ without being saved? What does the Bible say?

“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. (Matthew 7:18-23)

These whom Jesus commands to depart seem to have an internal attachment to Christ, yet they are rejected because they don’t obey. We’ll come back to this passage in a moment.

Jesus also says something else about loving Him, “If you love me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15). Having an emotional response to Christ is not a way to gain assurance of salvation, for feelings are fleeting; they change every day. It is only obedience that proves love, or in Sproul’s words, “affection for Christ.”

Dr. Sproul continues, now giving a hint of the true way to gain assurance:

In addition to the inward evidence of grace there is also outward evidence. We should be able to see visible fruit of our conversion. The outward evidence, however, may also cause our lack of assurance. We can see the abiding sin in our lives. Such sin does not do much for our assurance. We see ourselves sinning and we ask ourselves, “How can I do these things if I really love Christ?”[4]

Good question, but Dr. Sproul doesn’t give an adequate answer.

We must ask ourselves if we see any real change in our behavior, any real outward evidence of grace. This is a precarious process because we can lie to ourselves. It is a difficult task to perform, but by no means impossible.[5]

Does the Bible say that we are to be assured by a change in our behavior? Yes, but how much change? Dr. Sproul wishes to allow the possibility of daily, ongoing sin, but how much sin is allowed before our assurance is dashed? With his system, Dr. Sproul can give no answer. There is no definitive line that can be drawn. If we change somewhat, yet go back and forth between sin and obedience, is that real change? How much change is necessary? If I used to sin twenty times a day before salvation and reduce it to nine times, does that mean I am saved? What if I mess up and go back to eleven times for a few days and then back to six the next? Is that evidence of change?

A change in behavior that allows for sin draws a wavy, jumping line. It is useless.

But the Bible does draw an absolute, definitive line.

And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:9-10)

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him. (1 John 5:18)

For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:14)

Notice in the 1 John 3 passage, the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest. Allowance for any sin makes the decision “not manifest,” for who can draw an adequate line that says how much sin is too much. And John, in the verse immediately preceding verse 10, says that a true Christian does not commit sin at all, as we saw in the Matthew 7 passage that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.

Simply put, the Bible leaves no room for the commission of sin in a true Christian. In fact, it gives a foreboding warning about what happens if a person who knows the truth should ever sin.

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)

This takes us to our next question, “Can a person “lose” his salvation? We have said that a true Christian does not commit sin, and some theologians have agreed. “A Christian is so far perfect as not to commit sin. This is the glorious privilege of every Christian, yes, though he be but a babe in Christ.”[6]

But the question remains, can a person have true salvation and then lose it? The Hebrews passage seems to say so, at the very least providing the theoretical possibility. The writer of Hebrews somewhat hedges on the practicality for his particular audience in verse 39, “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” The same writer repeats the message back in chapter 6.

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

But he again states that he believes better of his readers and real salvation, “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way (Hebrews 6:9). This hedging can make a reader wonder if this forfeiture of salvation is merely hypothetical.

Again, I propose that making the distinction of whether or not a sinner was ever saved is unimportant, practically speaking. If obedience is our only way to gain assurance, then it is our divining rod by which we determine whether a person is or is not saved currently, not whether a person has ever been saved. Our concern is with present condition and not in wrangling over a previous position in Christ. We should deal with the current problem at hand.

The “once saved, always saved” doctrine of the Calvinist is offensive, but not because it gives assurance of salvation; it is offensive because it has been used to give license to sin. In other words, as I indicated earlier, many people stretch it to say that if a person is saved, he is always saved, no matter how much he sins. This gives false security, providing people with a reason to believe they can do anything they want and still enjoy the assurance of going to heaven. This false assurance is surely leading a host of millions into eternal condemnation, and they will say with those in Matthew 7, “Lord! Lord!” And Jesus will say, “Depart from me!” They will be shocked at His response, but it will too late to repent.

We have security as real Christians because we obey God, because we follow in the footsteps of Christ. But this is a conditional security. If we ever begin sinning, then we no longer have assurance, for no one who is born of God sins. At this point, knowing whether salvation is lost or never held is of no practical value.

But what about Hebrews 6:4-6 where it says that it’s impossible for them to be renewed to repentance? Doesn’t that make it important? Not really. It doesn’t change the fact that we will still call such people to repent; we will still call them to be reconciled to God. Since we can’t know their true previous position, we will not fail to beseech them. Therefore, in practicality, it still makes no difference.

Calvinists use several passages in an attempt to prove their views. For example, the following is a passage I hear most often with regard to this topic:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

This is certainly true, but it in no way proves perseverance. It proves that we cannot be separated from God's love, but it doesn't say that we cannot be separated from salvation. Salvation isn't the topic.

Then there is this passage:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:37-40)

Yet, later, Jesus gives an exception:

I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. (John 17:11-12)

Jesus says that one of the disciples God gave was ultimately lost. Why? Because he turned his back on Jesus and betrayed Him.

The solution is simple. It is the Father's will that none would be lost, but the Father's will is not always done. God's will is thwarted here on earth on a daily basis. God doesn't want anyone to fall away, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Of course, Calvinists can't bear the thought that God's will might not be done. Few can even think in those terms.

Here is another:

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:27-29)

Supposedly, since no one is able to take a sheep from the hand of Jesus or out of the Father's hand, a saved person can never be lost. Yet, this passage is referring to someone on the outside taking a sheep away, that is, an enemy forcefully removing a sheep from God. This, of course, could never happen. But the passage says nothing about the sheep leaving voluntarily or about God sending the sheep away because of rebellion. Therefore, this passage provides no evidence that a Christian cannot lose salvation.

Here is another:

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 24-25)

According to the Calvinist, this proves that God can keep us from the stumbling that would cause loss of salvation.

Well, of course God can do that, but that doesn't mean that everyone will follow the course God sets to prevent that stumbling.

And finally:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

This passage says that the inheritance is imperishable and won't fade away. Of course it won't perish. Heaven and its blessings will always be there, but it doesn't say that an individual's ability to partake in it will always be guaranteed. Still, it does say that the reservation is protected by the power of God, but by what? By faith. If our faith continues, then the reservation is secure. What happens if the faith doesn't continue? We can assume only that the reservation no longer is protected.

I write these rebuttals to show that the Calvinists look at these passages through their Calvinist filters. They come to the Bible with presumptions that make the verses say things they don't actually say.

My own view is the hybrid one I mentioned earlier. I believe that true Christians will persevere and that they won't sin. If I see someone who claims Christianity and still sins, I first assume that he or she was never actually saved and did not lose salvation. I think God's cleansing power and the presence of His Spirit are overwhelming factors in making us and keeping us holy. I can't see how someone could be truly crucified with Christ, have his flesh crucified and removed, be cleansed of all sin, be raised to new life and indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and still turn to sin. It makes much more sense to me that anyone in sin was likely never saved, regardless of their history. I don't doubt the theoretical possibility, just the practical application.

In any case, we should be able to agree, as I stated before, that no one who is in sin can have assurance of salvation. The Calvinistic form of perseverance is not true, and it endangers people's souls.

In Conclusion:

God’s sovereignty is not damaged by the free will of man. God is not rendered powerless by the fact that man can operate outside of His absolute control. Yes, God can step in and prevent an act by erecting insurmountable obstacles or guide someone into an act by creating desirable or alluring incentives. If God, however, were to force people to worship Him by infusing faith into those He chooses unconditionally, He has created false adoration, for only true free will can induce true worship.

If God drags people to their knees by an irresistible call, He has merely designed robots, programmed to bow at the push of a button. In this there is no glory. Are these true praises, the voices of those who have been forced to sing hymns of worship? Or is this Calvinist God more eloquently described by those consigned to hell who were condemned simply for being born sons of Adam?

Let us who understand this great gift of free will respond according to its awesome responsibility. We speak to the lost as though God Himself were beseeching through us. “Come! Be reconciled to God! He has given you a choice. Which will you choose? Life, or death? I beg you to choose life!”

[1] Ibid, P. 169.

[2] Ibid. P. 169-170.

[3] Ibid, P. 170.

[4] Ibid, P. 170.

[5] Ibid. P. 171.

[6] John Wesley, "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection", The Works of John Wesley, 11:376.

Irresistible Grace - The I in the TULIP

2012-01-09T05:20:00.000-06:00

Irresistible Grace:

This is one of the more misunderstood tenets of Calvinism. It implies that God grabs an unbeliever by the scruff of the neck and drags him kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. In other words, God saves a person whether he likes it or not. The Calvinist who understands his doctrine will deny this implication, though, in practicality, it exists, albeit without the kicking and screaming.

According to the Calvinist, God infuses His grace into a person, regenerating him so that he wants to come to Christ. He is not an unwilling participant; he is made to be willing. As R.C. Sproul writes:

Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ if God plants a desire for Christ in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their wills. They come because they want to come. They now desire Jesus. They rush to the Savior. The whole point of irresistible grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiritual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen in his irresistible sweetness. Jesus is irresistible to those who have been made alive to the things of God. Every soul whose heart beats with the life of God within it longs for the living Christ. All whom the Father gives to Christ come to Christ (John 6:37).[1]

The Calvinist still can’t escape the charge, however, that God forces a person into the kingdom against his will. Before this infused grace, the man was unwilling to come. Then God, by an act of His omnipotent power, makes a man willing. What God did was against the man’s previous will, and man did not want this grace infused. With God acting as an irresistible influencer, man is, in a sense, dragged into the kingdom. He is made to want it, making God’s grace sound like some sort of mind-altering drug that forces man into liking what he sees, though he previously did not like it. Is this repentance of sin? Is this a true act of faith, when God does the altering? I think not.

Dr. Sproul brought up John 6:37 at the end of his quote, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” This verse is almost universally used in concert with verse 44 in the same chapter to prove this doctrine of irresistible grace. “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” Let’s look at these verses in their context to determine what Jesus was trying to say.

26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves, and were filled. 27 “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man shall give to you, for on Him the Father, even God, has set His seal.” 28 They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30 They said therefore to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 They said therefore to Him, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” 35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 “But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
41 The Jews therefore were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 “Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 “I am the bread of life. 49 “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52 The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 ”What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before? 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6:26-65)

Again, the verses most often used by the Calvinist to promote irresistible grace are these two:

John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

John 6:44, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

The Calvinist says that only those God chooses for salvation will come to Christ, i.e. those whom He draws by His irresistible grace, because He has elected them from the foundation of the world. The problem with this understanding is that God’s decision to draw someone is interpreted as being based on a predetermined election made before the foundation of the world. Where does it say that in this passage? Jesus said that the Father must draw someone before that person can come to Him. It doesn’t say why the Father draws a person or what conditions must be met for God to draw a person.

Let’s see what the context says. Look at verse 45, which comes immediately after Jesus’ statement about those who are drawn. “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.”

Jesus gives us two facts. 1) Everyone is taught of God. 2) Those who hear and learn come to Christ. Jesus is trying to tell us that God initiates the process of coming to Christ by teaching all people. Those who heed that call come to Christ. It doesn’t say that God’s decision is based on a predetermined choice; it clearly says that His decision is based on the person’s response.

Not everyone who is taught will come to Christ. God draws those who, by faith, respond to the teaching. This passage says nothing about predestined election to salvation, so any attempt to read it into the verse is done by the addition of words that simply aren’t there.

Back to verse 37, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

Whom does the Father give to Jesus? Is it those predestined to salvation? If so, where does the passage say that?

Verses 29, 36, 40, and 64 give us the answer:

29: But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

36: For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

40: Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.

64-65 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

These last two verses drive our conclusion home. Jesus directly gives us the reason He made the statement in the first place, that some of them don’t believe. He didn’t say it because some of them were not of the elect. Jesus was saying that only those who believe are granted access to Christ by the Father, only those who respond to the enlightening call by faith.

It is the faith of a person that determines whether or not God draws him to Christ. The context provides no other reason. When God teaches all people, this is the universal grace of God, the enlightenment that is brought by the Holy Spirit. Those who respond are those who come to Christ. This is really a simple concept, but those who have a predetermined understanding of Calvinistic election have a hard time getting past their presuppositions, which we shall see.

Sproul argues against the concept of universal grace (or prevenient grace) by asking why, if everyone gets the same amount of enabling grace, do some people come to Christ and others do not. Doesn’t that give the believers something to boast about?

Why is it that you have chosen Christ and they have not? Why did you say yes to prevenient grace while they said no? Was it because you were more righteous than they were? If so, then indeed you have something in which to boast. Was that greater righteousness something you achieved on your own or was it the gift of God? If it was something you achieved, then at the bottom line your salvation depends on your own righteousness. If the righteousness was a gift, then why didn’t God give the same gift to everybody?[2]

Sproul goes on to castigate prevenient grace as follows:

But I must press the question. Why did you recognize your desperate need for Christ while your neighbor didn’t? Was it because you were more righteous than your neighbor, or more intelligent?

The $64 question for advocates of prevenient grace is why some people cooperate with it and others don’t. How we answer that will reveal how gracious we believer our salvation really is.

The $64,000 question is, “Does the Bible teach such a doctrine of prevenient grace? If so, where?[3]

Our answer to the $64 question is, “Some people cooperate because they want to do so. Those who do not cooperate don’t want to cooperate.” The Calvinists have a premise in their thinking that they simply can’t put out of their minds, the concept that man doesn’t really have free will. Something has to cause a thought or decision. They can’t accept the fact that a person can be a first-cause agent or that two different people can make different choices even with identical influences.

In refuting our position, Calvinists make the assumption that either the believer must be more righteous than someone who doesn’t believe or else God gave the believer more grace. They can’t accept individual choice as a viable alternative, thus creating an either/or fallacy. In other words, Calvinists provide only two possibilities, vanquish the opposing position with logic, and claim victory. The problem is that they use a Calvinistic premise in their logic, that man cannot have true free will, in order to prove that the concept of prevenient grace isn’t possible.

But we deny the premise. We claim that man can choose to have faith once he is enlightened by God’s Holy Spirit. We believe that God is a rewarder of faith, and that boasting comes as a result of works. No person who truly surrenders in complete repentance has room for boasting. They are completely aware of their inability to obey God without His grace. The charge of boasting assumes that they will keep their unregenerate mindset, so the charge is spurious.

If a person could actually work for his salvation, i.e. gives to charity, participate in missions, tend to the sick, etc, in a sense, he would be able to earn his salvation, and in this he could boast. Basically, he would deserve it. Faith, however, is not a work. It is surrender. Who is able to boast about surrendering? Who is able to boast about freely receiving an undeserved gift? Such a concept is absurd. The Calvinists try to equate choosing faith with works, and they claim that choosing faith enables boasting. This attempt is a great error, and we completely reject it as a misunderstanding of what real faith is all about.

Prevenient grace is simply the call of God to all people everywhere, a call that reveals their sin and gives them an opportunity to repent. God’s call is a light in their darkness that allows them to see reality, the spiritual truth that they are in need of a savior. This is truly an act of grace, for it is a good gift, and it is undeserved.

Such a call gives people the opportunity to exercise their free will. Before this call of grace, they had insufficient knowledge or spiritual insight to see the darkness in themselves, for darkness is all they knew and someone who knows only darkness cannot recognize its separation from light.

As the Bible says,

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (John 1:4-5)

And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God (John 3:19-21)

The blazing light of the gospel sheds light and reveals both the goodness of God and the sin in ourselves before we believed. Only then can a person trapped in the chains of sin respond. This call is truly a call of grace.

As Charles Wesley wrote so eloquently in his hymn, “And Can It Be?”

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

The answer to Dr. Sproul’s $64,000 question is in the passage we studied. “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me” (John 6:45). And we could site many more.

John 12:32 “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

John 16:7-11 “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”

Acts 17:30-31 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Galatians 3:21-24 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

Although we listed several places the Scriptures teach prevenient, universal grace, and we could easily come up with many more, I doubt that Dr. Sproul will soon be sending us a check for $64,000.

As a side note, some Calvinists try to get mileage out of their understanding of the word “draws” in verse 44, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” They say that “when it refers to man it has the meaning of to compel, of irresistible superiority, as in James 2:6 where the rich drag the poor before the judge, and as Paul and Silas are dragged into the market place in Acts 16:19.”[4]

It’s a fallacy to assume that a word has the same nuance wherever it appears. A man runs for political office in a very different way than he runs in a road race. A woman cries in a very different way for a lost child than she cries for her son to hit a home run. Yes, “draw” can be used to mean “drag” or “coerce,” but the Calvinist remains silent when he sees, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself,” for he cannot abide God dragging all men to salvation.

What does the Calvinist system of doctrine do to their efforts to evangelize? If God irresistibly draws the elect to salvation without fail, why would they bother to go through all the world to preach the gospel, bringing danger and huge burdens upon themselves?

They give a reasonable answer; they evangelize out of obedience. They realize that God may use them to bring the gospel to the lost, and in obedience they are willing to do whatever it takes to obey God by bringing the message of salvation.

The problem with this answer is that it doesn’t address the logic of the Calvinist system and how it might affect the minds of its followers. If a person can’t have faith until God regenerates him, then speaking the gospel message to Him will have no effect. They have to admit that sinners will always refuse to listen unless God infuses faith in their hearts. What does this do to the motivation of the evangelist? Why should a missionary be passionate for reaching the lost when they can do nothing to inspire faith?

Also, a Calvinist missionary “knows” that any person who is saved in his ministry would have been saved whether he made his sacrificial journey or not. And every single person to whom he speaks is already ordained to his eternal destiny, a decision by God that his years of laborious duty cannot possibly change. He is risking the health, comfort, and life of himself and his family in order to do what? Absolutely nothing. It’s impossible to maintain that such a doctrine has no effect on the passion of the laborers in the harvest.

We know, however, that God has a completely opposite viewpoint.

“Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)

The Apostle Paul knew that people would not hear the good news without the message bearers going out and spreading it throughout the world. He knows that millions who deserve condemnation because of their sin need to hear the gospel, and their destiny is not unalterably chiseled in a predestined stone.

There is hope for every lost soul. Not a single one is destined to eternal fires simply because God has not chosen him from the foundation of the world. This fact gives us true zeal to reach the lost. We have a message that can really make a difference, an eternal difference. Our inspiration is not the lukewarm response of those who preach out of duty, believing that God will only save those already chosen. Our inspiration is love, the urgency of a man searching the seas for floundering souls, a lifesaving rope in his hands and a beacon that guides the way to the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.

And it is this knowledge that feeds our zeal, that as laborers in the harvest, God can use us to change the world. “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

[1] Chosen By God, P. 122-123.

[2] Ibid, P. 124.

[3] Ibid. P. 125.

[4] Berkouwer, G. C., Divine Election, pp. 47f

Limited Atonement - The L in the TULIP

2012-01-09T05:15:00.001-06:00

Limited Atonement:

Limited atonement declares that the mission and death of Christ was restricted to a limited number—to his people, to his sheep.[1]

In other words, the Calvinist believes that Christ died only for the elect, those predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. This, of course, would be logical if the first two points, total depravity and unconditional election, were true. If God decided who was going to be saved, why would Jesus die for anyone else? And it seems that Calvinists rarely, if ever, use Scripture to back up this tenet, choosing merely to point to the logical demands for it. Since their first two points actually aren’t true, an appeal to logical consistency fails. The premise upon which they build their arguments has already crumbled, so this house of cards is easily blown away.

What the Calvinists prefer to do is defend their position against the Bible passages that prove it to be false, and they attack opposing views by saying that a universal atonement can’t be true because not everyone is saved.

For example, the following verse indicates that Christ died for all.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

Let’s look at R.C. Sproul’s explanation, and I’ll comment on it as we go.

The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (People from every tribe and nation) or the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. It was a Jew who wrote that Jesus did not die merely for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. Does the word our refer to believers or to believing Jews?

We must remember that one of the cardinal points of the New Testament concerned the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation. Salvation was of the Jews but not restricted to the Jews. Wherever it is said that Christ died for all, some limitation must be added or the conclusion would have to be universalism or a mere potential atonement.[2]

Sproul tries to make us believe that “whole world” means the world outside of Judaism, that John means something to the effect of “other nations besides the Jews.” Does John say that? Not at all. Where in the context does he refer to Jews and Gentiles? Nowhere. Sproul has to conjure this meaning in order to make it fit his system. When the Scripture writers wished to make the Israel versus Gentiles distinction, they were quite capable of doing so. For example:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. (Romans 3:29-30)

This is the blatant error that Calvinists so often commit, making unreasonable assertions about Scripture and indefensible insertions into Scripture in order to make the Bible fit their preconceived notions. Why not allow the Scripture to create and inform our system rather than the other way around?

As we continue to look at Sproul’s argument we should ask, why can’t “world” mean the entire human family? Because, according to Sproul, it would necessitate either universalism or potential atonement. Universalism means that everyone is saved, while potential atonement means that Christ died for people who might or might not be saved. Universalism is easily refuted from Scripture; clearly not everyone is saved. Potential atonement, however, is exactly what is , that Christ died so that everyone has the opportunity to be saved, though not all will respond to God’s gracious offer.

Such a notion is scandalous to the Calvinist. That God’s desire could somehow be thwarted by man’s decision is beyond their comprehension. As Sproul goes on to explain.

Christ’s atonement was real. It effected all that God and Jesus intended by it. The design of God was not and cannot be frustrated by human unbelief. The sovereign God sovereignly sent his Son to atone for his people.[3]

But God is often frustrated by human unbelief. The Bible is bursting with examples.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37)

Wasn’t God frustrated with obstinate Israel in the wilderness, in their desire for a king, and in their response to the Babylonian invasion? Of course He was. God’s desire for obedience is often thwarted, and His desire for each person to be saved is often unrealized. But God’s ultimate purpose is never thwarted.

Sproul continues:

Our election is in Christ. We are saved by him, in him, and for him. The motive for our salvation is not merely the love God has for us. It is especially grounded in the love the Father has for the Son. God insists that his Son will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. There never has been the slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If man is truly dead in sin and in bondage to sin, a mere potential or conditional atonement not only may have ended in failure but most certainly would have ended in failure. Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. They are left with a Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.[4]

Here we see Sproul appealing to the logical conclusion of his system, that if man is truly dead in sin, at least in the Total Depravity of Man view, then no one would ever come to faith. The strangeness of this argument is that he juxtaposes two opposing systems in order to argue for his own. In other words, he says something like this. “Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain, because since man is Totally Depraved, none would ever come to faith.” But we deny Total Depravity! Those who oppose Calvinism (Arminians and others) have sound reason, because we don’t agree with Calvinist notions. We believe man is capable of responding to the gracious offering of salvation. Sproul’s is actually a rather confused argument and points out his inability to see outside his tightly sealed systematic box.

(Note: Calvinists tend to label as Arminians all who oppose their beliefs. This is a faulty notion. Not all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians. I am not one. This is another Calvinist fallacy.)

It is true that God’s ultimate design is not thwarted. God has graciously offered salvation to all by freely giving His Son in painful, bloody sacrifice. All who respond in faith are saved. This is God’s purpose, that all who call upon His name be brought to salvation. And in this, God’s desire NEVER fails. He never fails in saving someone who lifts up his hands in repentance. His saving arm never loses its power in pulling a soul from the pits of sin. His sturdy grip never releases a man who keeps his feet firmly on the path of life.

The atonement is potential in that it is potentially available to all. Not all respond. The atonement is not, however, unlimited in its effect. It is not automatically conferred upon people who do not respond.

Jesus Christ died in order to allow anyone who comes to Him in faith to be saved. That this sacrificial grace is available to everyone in the world is abundantly clear in Scripture, and efforts to prove otherwise fail, exposed as efforts to preserve a doctrinal system by adding words and notions that don’t exist in the Bible.

John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Whom does God love? Only the elect? That's what Calvinists believe, but the verse says nothing of the sort. Those roads have to be blatantly inserted in order to fit their system.

1 Timothy 2:1-6
2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Whom does God desire to be saved? All men. Again, the Calvinists have to insert words to make phrases that fit their system, such as "all elect men." Such a notion isn't there.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Does God want all to come to repentance or only the elect? The text says all, but the Calvinists add words to make it say "all the elect" or something similar.

Again, the Calvinists have no Scripture to back up the notion that Jesus died only for the elect. They rely instead on logical inference, that since, according to them, the first two points are true, then this one must be true as well. Yet, the first two points aren't true, and the Scriptures deny the third, so this idea that Jesus died only for the elect is hereby refuted.

[1] Chosen by God page 205.

[2] Chosen by God pages 206-207.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Unconditional Election - The U in the TULIP

2012-01-09T05:11:00.000-06:00

Unconditional Election:

This is the identifying statement of Calvinism, in other words, the doctrine that most people think about when they consider Calvinistic predestination. Following is a statement defining this doctrine, written by a prominent Calvinist.

Unconditional election means that our election is decided by God according to His purpose, according to His sovereign will. It is not based on some foreseen condition that some of us meet and others fail to meet. It is not based on our willing or on our running, but upon the sovereign purpose of God.[1]

When we say that election is unconditional we mean that the original decree by God by which he chooses some people to be saved is not dependent upon some future condition in us that God foresees. There is nothing is us that God could foresee that would induce him to choose us. The only thing he would foresee in the lives of fallen creatures left to themselves would be sin. God chooses us simply according to the good pleasure of his will.[2]

The Calvinist argues that God chooses people to be saved based on nothing in the person, yet they claim that God’s choice is not arbitrary. As R. C. Sproul writes:

To be arbitrary is to do something for no reason. Now, it is clear that there is no reason found in us for God to choose us. But that is not the same as saying that God has no reason in himself. God doesn’t do anything without a reason. He is not capricious or whimsical. God is as sober as he is sovereign.[3]

God predestines us according to what pleases him. … What pleases God is goodness. … Though the reason for choosing us does not lie in us but in the sovereign divine pleasure, we may rest assured that the sovereign divine pleasure is a good pleasure.[4]

The Calvinist argues that God’s reason is his “good pleasure,” yet he never defines what that is or what brings about that pleasure. Whatever it is, however, it is nothing in the individual being elected. This, of course, is blatantly illogical. The only reason for choosing one individual over another must, by necessity, be in the individual being chosen. Otherwise there can’t possibly be a reason to choose. To say, “It’s God’s good pleasure” completely begs the question. In other words, “How does this choice bring about God’s pleasure?”

The Calvinist gives no answer. He prefers the logical inconsistency, shrugs his shoulders, and says it’s a mystery about God that we can’t understand.

Here’s a dictionary definition of arbitrary:

Arbitrary
1.     Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice; arbitrary division of the group into halves.
2.     Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3.     Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4.     Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

The Calvinists want a positive spin on both sides on their doctrine. They can’t allow for God to use anything in man as a reason to bring about His choice. Otherwise, there would be something in an individual that merits the choice, giving that individual some reason to boast. But they also can’t allow for there to be no reason at all. That would make God arbitrary, capricious, a divine being who seems to draw from straws to see who will share His everlasting glory and who, on the other hand, will gnash his teeth and suffer in the eternal doom of Hell. So they simply appeal to mystery, saying that it’s “God’s pleasure,” which, of course, is no explanation at all.

This appeal to mystery lacks intellectual integrity, and it’s unnecessary. God does have a reason for bringing about salvation to mankind. God responds to the faith an individual has in Christ the Savior.

We’ll look at some of the passages the Calvinist uses to support his view and see why their view of election and predestination is completely false.

We must understand, first of all, that real, biblical predestination does not mean, “God’s predetermined decision to choose certain people to salvation.” And predestination and election do not necessarily have the same meaning. The problem is that the Calvinistic understanding of these key words is pervasive, and many people presume their definitions whenever they see these words in Scripture. We must not get caught in the trap of assuming this meaning whenever we see “predestined” or “elect.”

God does elect people to certain acts and purposes, and some of these election decisions are determined long ago, but that doesn’t mean election and predestination are the same thing. God can elect a person to do something without deciding this election well before the event. “Predestined” purposes, on the other hand, are those that are unchangeable “destinies,” determined before a person acts, before he the purpose is ready to be fulfilled. Let’s look at some of the passages to see what we mean.

Ephesians 1:3-14
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, 8 which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Every time we see the words “elect,” “chose,” “predestined,” or similar words, we have to ask the following: “Who is being chosen?” and “For what purpose was the choice made?” We cannot, as the Calvinists do, suppose that every use means, “Individuals being chosen for salvation.”

Look at verse 4, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him.”

Who is chosen? Us in Him. Who are “us in Him.” Believers in Christ.

For what purpose? To be holy and blameless.

This means that God decided before the foundation of the world that believers would be holy and blameless. It does not say that God decided who those believers would be.

How about verse 5? “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”

Who is predestined? Us. Again, believers.

For what purpose? To be adopted as sons.

This means that God decided long ago that believers would be adopted as sons. It does not say that God decided who these believers would be.

Important sidetrack: What is adoption?

Who are the sons of God? How do we know who they are?

12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him. (Romans 8:12-17)

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Romans 8:22-25)

4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:4-6)

And that brings us back to Ephesians:

13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

We are sons, and the only way the world knows we are God’s sons is by our obedience to Him (Romans 8:14). There will come a day when the whole world will know whose we are, when the fullness of the time reveals our true identity, when God comes to claim His own. Until then, we have a pledge, the Spirit of Promise dwelling within us, who tells us that we are His. The public claiming of God’s sons is our adoption. Until then, we are, in a sense, sons in secret, our display of God’s light in us being the identifying mark of our sonship.

Therefore, being predestined to adoption as sons simply means that God decided before the foundation of the world that all believers will be adopted as sons. They won’t be left as orphans, cut off from God’s family. We have a pledge, a promise that God will eventually take us into His heavenly home where we will be co-heirs with His Son, Jesus Christ.

The important point to emphasize is that adoption is not the same thing as salvation. It is something that happens in addition to salvation, a future event in which God’s sons will find the consummation of their sonship.

Now we’ll get back to looking at the issue of predestination. Look at verses 11 and 12 in Ephesians chapter 1.

In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

Who is predestined? We are. Again, these are believers.

For what purpose? That we should be to the praise of His glory.

This is a choice of a group for a purpose other than salvation, not a choice of which individuals will be saved.

Therefore, in Ephesians, we see that God predestines that Christians will do or obtain certain things, that we will be holy and blameless, that we will be adopted as sons, and that we will be to the praise of His glory. There is nothing in this passage that says that God decided to save certain individuals. To gain such a meaning from this passage is to read something that isn’t there.

The Calvinist view of predestination, therefore, fails the test of Scripture. The Bible simply doesn’t say what the Calvinist believes. Using our interpretation, God’s character is upheld. There is nothing evil or unjust in God deciding beforehand what He is going to do with His faithful believers after they come to faith.

Now we’ll go on to another passage Calvinists use, one they call “The Golden Chain of Salvation.”

Romans 8:28-30
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

According to the Calvinist, this chain of God’s activities proves the basics of Calvinistic predestination. Supposedly, whomever God foreknew, he predestined to salvation. Whomever He predestined, he called to salvation. Whomever he called to salvation, He justified. Whomever He justified, He glorified. In other words, God made all the decisions, and he irresistibly called to salvation all whom he predestined.

Simply put, the passage doesn’t say that at all.

The context of the passage is how God works events together for good for those who love Him, those who are called according to His purpose. So, when it says, “whom He foreknew,” who is in mind? The ones who love Him, the ones called to His purpose. The Greek bears this out. “Whom” is masculine plural, harkening back to its antecedent, “called,” a masculine plural noun, and every “whom” and every use of “these” thereafter is masculine plural.

The question that the Calvinist answers incorrectly is, “Who is included in the first ‘whom’ in verse 29?” They assume that it’s the people who are elected to salvation. The problem is, the verse doesn’t say that. In context with the preceding verse, “whom” refers to “those who love God,” “those who are called according to His purpose.” The “whom” in verse 29, therefore, refers to faithful followers of Christ.

Once it’s established about whom Paul is speaking, we can explain what the “chain” of verses 29 and 30 is all about. Let’s flesh out the verse by restating in paraphrase with the antecedent in place.

For God knew beforehand about the people who would love Him, the people who answered His call, and He predestined them to become conformed to the image of His Son. Why? That Christ might be the first-born of many brothers. And these same people he predestined to this image conformity, he also called. And these people He called, He also justified. And these people He justified, He also glorified.

This is not a “Golden Chain of Salvation.” It doesn’t talk about how God chooses individuals to be saved. It’s about how God treats and has treated faithful believers. This is actually a “Golden Chain of God’s Work in Believers.”

The context is crucial. Look at verses 26 and 27: 26 And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

The “Golden chain” is given to explain why and how God works; it’s given to encourage believers who need intercessory help from the Holy Spirit. “Why does God allow my suffering?” a reader might ask. The encouragement comes from the apostle in this form. “Don’t be troubled. God works it all out for good for you, because you love Him. And don’t forget. God has planned all of this. He knew beforehand that those who follow Him would suffer for His name, and He predestined that all who follow Him would be conformed to the image of Christ.

Being conformed to the image of Christ is our calling; through our suffering we are honed into the righteous image of the Son of God. And when we are made into that image, Christ then has holy brothers, among whom He is the first-born.

I trust that you can see the Calvinist error. They see the word “predestined” and automatically assume that it means election of individuals to salvation. We see that it really means that God has decided beforehand that believers in Christ will be conformed to His image. That’s exactly what the verse says, and the Calvinist adds a meaning that simply isn’t there in order to make the passage fit his preconceived doctrinal system.

Other “unconditional election” passages:

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. 14 And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thess. 2:13-15)

Who is chosen? You, that is, believers.

For what purpose? For salvation. In this context, it means saving people from the wrath to come. In other words, God has chosen that believers would be saved from His wrath. This does not mean God has decided who those believers would be.

10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10)

Who is chosen? Paul doesn’t specifically say, but he endures all things so that they may obtain salvation.

For what purpose? Paul doesn’t specifically say, but since he endures so that they may obtain salvation, then it seems that what they are chosen for isn’t necessarily for salvation, because it seems that the obtaining of it isn’t secure.

1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago (Titus 1:1-2)

Who is chosen? Apparently those who have faith.

For what purpose? He doesn’t specifically say, so to claim that this choosing is a predestined choosing of which individuals will be saved is a wild stretch.

1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. (1 Peter 1:1-3)

Who is chosen? The recipients of this letter, presumably believers.

For what purpose? That they would obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

Therefore, God chose that believers would obey Christ and be sprinkled by His blood. It does not say that God decided which individuals would be believers.

2 We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; 3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, 4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; 5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (1 Thess 1:2-5)

Who is chosen? Believers, those who are working out their faith and have steadfastness of hope in Christ.

For what purpose? This isn’t clear, but the following verses indicate that it might be for them to imitate Paul in his quest:

You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. (1 Thess 1:6-7)

There is nothing here to indicate that God chose which individuals would be saved.
Galatians 1:11-17

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

Verse 15 is often used by Calvinists to “prove” God’s predestined choice of a particular person for salvation. Again, we need to ask about God’s choice, in this context being represented by “had set me apart.” The Calvinist would have us believe that it means, “set me apart to be saved.” As usual, the Calvinist adds words that aren’t in the text.

Who is chosen? Paul was set apart.

What is the purpose? Since it was from his mother’s womb, the most likely meaning is to be a Jew, since that was what he was talking about.

Is the “called me through His grace” part of the setting apart? No. The calling comes after the setting apart as a Jew. He was called to salvation, but so is everyone else.

A closely related passage follows:

13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon Thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (Acts 9:13-16)

Who is chosen? Paul.

What is the purpose? To bear Christ’s name before the Gentiles, etc.

There is nothing here that says Paul was chosen for salvation.

Acts 13:44-48

44 And the next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 “For thus the Lord has commanded us,
‘I have placed You as a light for the Gentiles,
That You should bring salvation to the end of the earth.’”
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The last verse in this passage has been misused by many, and for good reason. Most Bibles (perhaps all) mistranslate verse 48.

The Greek allows for two different “voices” in the verb phrase that’s translated, “had been appointed to eternal life.” Here, it’s translated in the passive voice, rather than the active voice. Passive means that someone has appointed them, while active would mean that they appointed someone else. If it’s passive, then the believers didn’t actively do anything. The Greek structure in this verse doesn’t allow for active voice.

The Greek phrase does allow, however, for middle voice. The ending of the verb can be either middle or passive. Middle voice means that the believers did something to themselves. With the middle voice the verse would be translated something like this: “And all those who had agreed (or had aligned themselves) to eternal life believed.” Their faith didn’t come about because of divine appointment; it was the result of their willingness to believe.

This middle voice alternative makes more sense than does the passive when considered in the context. In verse 46, Paul speaks of those who judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. Verse 48 merely shows the contrast, that those who listened and believed were the opposite of those mentioned earlier. The ones who believed did not judge themselves unworthy.

Romans Chapter 9

Romans chapter 9 is considered by many Calvinists to be their most powerful proof text, their absolute proof that their doctrine of particular election to salvation is true. It should be no surprise, then, that they badly misunderstand the purpose and meaning of this chapter. I’ll quote the entire chapter here, section by section, and we’ll ask questions about each section, but let’s jump ahead and read verse 30 first, because we have to keep Paul’s conclusion in mind if we’re going to understand the argument that precedes it.

Romans 9:30 - What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

Now, with this verse in mind, let’s proceed.

9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

What is Paul’s concern? For whom is he grieving and why? How are they special?

He is concerned about his brethren, Israelites. After all, they received the covenants and promises.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

In verses 6-8, Paul provides the reason that his brethren according to the flesh are in trouble. Only children of the promise are true descendants. Not all the children of the flesh are going to be in the new covenant. They are not all children of the promise.

Paul then gives us examples of promises in verse 9 and 12. It is crucial to understand that the promise is in verse 12 ends with verse 12. The verse Paul quotes in 13 was not part of the promise made to Rebekah. Verse 13 is provided as proof that the promise was fulfilled. It was not part of the promise itself.

Also notice that this promise has nothing to do with salvation. It involves only who will serve whom, and the “Jacob I loved part …” is merely showing us proof that the promise came to pass. It says nothing about God deciding beforehand that He would love Jacob and not Esau.

Here is my attempt to succinctly state what Paul is trying to tell us up to this point.

Paul is grieved over the Israelites and their lack of following God by faith. They continue to try to achieve salvation by following according to the Law. God says that His people are those who are children of promise, and he gives us an example of how God makes a choice based on His purposes rather than on the actions of the people involved. This is not a choice for salvation. Rather it is an example of how God makes a decision. Similarly, God has decided that people who have faith will be saved, not those who attempt to be saved by works. This decision is God’s choice, not man’s.

Let’s continue with Romans chapter 9.

14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

With this in mind, what possible charge of injustice could someone bring against God? None at all. God has decided that those who have faith will be saved, not those who try to achieve salvation by following the Law. That choice of how to save is up to God, not up to men.

In verse 15, the Calvinist claims that God has mercy and compassion on those He elects to salvation, but it doesn’t say that at all. It simply says that God decided on whom He will have mercy. It says nothing about predetermined, individual election to salvation. That’s why the conclusion in verse 30 is so crucial. This entire section is explaining that God decided that He will have mercy on those who have faith, and Paul is defending God’s ability to make that decision.

Verse 17 and 18, then, are simply another example of God deciding what to do with people. He is allowed to do so. And His decision to save by faith is within his authority.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

In verse 19, Paul raises a question that objectors might have. If God can make such decisions, why does he find fault and punish? Paul’s answer is quite dismissive, that man has no right to ask such a question, and then he goes into an illustration about a potter and clay. The basis for the decision to make a vessel for common use or for wrath is not a predetermined, individual election to salvation, but rather on the faith and/or works of the clay. There is nothing in this chapter to indicate an election based on God’s good pleasure, but there is a direct statement in verse 30 that the decision is based on the faith of the people. Therefore, God looks at the lumps of clay (people) and makes the pots based on the quality of the clay (their faith, which is proven by their works).

Some might claim that the word "beforehand" in verse 23 means that God decided before he made the pots that he would make them for glory, that is, before they had a chance to show faith or works. The problem with that idea is the assumption that "beforehand" means before the making of the pot. The language makes this idea impossible.

The text says that God prepared the vessels beforehand for glory. The "beforehand" must refer to a time before the receiving of the glory, not to the time before he made the vessels, because God couldn't possibly prepare the vessels before he made the vessels. Paul is saying that God prepared the vessels before they received the glory. The "which" in verse 23 refers to the vessels, not to the mercy ("which" in the Greek is plural, as is "vessels," while "mercy" is singular). God did not prepare the mercy beforehand, that is, before making the vessels to receive that mercy. God prepared the vessels before the reception of the glory. And it certainly doesn't state that God cannot change His mind regarding what He will do with these vessels. He might have prepared them to receive glory, but that doesn't mean the purpose couldn't change based on how the vessels turned out, as a similar illustration in Jeremiah demonstrates:

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying,
Jer 18:2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will announce My words to you."
Jer 18:3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel.
Jer 18:4 But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.
Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
Jer 18:6 "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.
Jer 18:7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
Jer 18:9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
Jer 18:10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

We see in verses 9 and 10 that God, as a potter, changes His mind with regard to what he will do with the clay based on the quality of the pot's faith and works. God had planned to build up a kingdom, but their evil caused Him to change His mind.

This is also true in Romans 9. God could plan for a pot to receive glory, deciding before the reception of the glory to do so, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this decision will remain. The decision could change if the pot is no longer worthy to receive the glory.

And now to Paul's conclusion in Romans 9:

25 As He says also in Hosea,
“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’” 26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly.” 29 And just as Isaiah foretold,
“Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity,
We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Paul’s conclusion is that God, in His divine authority, has decided to save those who have faith, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul gave us examples of God’s right and power to make such decisions, decisions based on His own purposes, to show the riches of His glory. It follows, therefore, that God has the right to save people by faith rather than by works.

I have included all the major passages that Calvinists have used in my presence to prove unconditional election, and I have shown that these passages simply do not say what the Calvinists claim that they say.

It’s true that God predestines, but it is always for a purpose other than individual election to salvation. God determined that believers would be holy and conformed to the image of Christ, that they would be adopted and sons and escape His wrath, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that God decided who those believers would be.

[1] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 154-155.

[2] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 156.

[3] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 156.

[4] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 158.

Total Depravity - The T in the Calvinist TULIP

2012-01-04T12:56:00.000-06:00

Total Depravity of Man

This tenet of Calvinism is the key to the remaining four. If the Calvinist understanding of depravity is true, then the other four points follow logically. Because of this, it is important to take the time to thoroughly refute it.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2).

This Scripture is the basis of much Calvinistic argument. If a person is “dead” in sin, so the Calvinist contends, then the person cannot be made alive without a direct act by God. To this point, we agree. God is the one who makes the first move in saving us. The Calvinist goes on to say, however, that man is so totally depraved, he is unable to have faith. As one Calvinist says:

Regeneration precedes faith. Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe.[1]

In other words, according to the Calvinist, God saves a person, regenerates him, and makes him born again, before he has faith. There is no Scripture that verifies this conclusion specifically, so the Calvinist relies on the following logical flow to prove it.

Unregenerate man is dead in sin.
Being dead in sin, he can do nothing but sin.
Faith in God is an act of obedience.
A man in sin cannot obey, so he cannot have faith.
God must regenerate a man in order for him to have faith.
Therefore, regeneration precedes faith.

As in many claims that point to logic for their proof, this syllogism fails because of a faulty premise, that man, being dead in sin, can do nothing but sin. The Calvinist error comes in his incorrect definition of “dead.”

So, what does it mean to be dead in sin? Let’s explore the Scriptures to learn.

It is true that humans exhibit corruption, as Paul teaches in Romans 3:

There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one (Romans 3:10-12).

And again:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

This corruption is what has often been called original sin, a concept that most churches affirm, though many don’t agree with the extreme Calvinistic view. For example, here is the view of the Church of the Nazarene:

“We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam by reason of which everyone is very far gone from original righteousness or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, and inclined to evil, and that continually. … We believe that original sin differs from actual sin in that it constitutes an inherited propensity to actual sin for which no one is accountable until its divinely provided remedy is neglected or rejected.”

Although I disagree with the Nazarene view, it is interesting to see how many churches have an original sin doctrine that differs from that of the Calvinists. The Calvinists say that original sin not only breeds actual sin, it is deserving of eternal damnation. Adam sinned by choice, so somehow his sin is imputed to every person. Supposedly, he is our perfect representative, and since he actually sinned, we all actually sinned. This view is called federalism, or the federal headship of Adam.

"The chief idea of federalism is that, when Adam sinned, he sinned for all of us. His fall was our fall. When god punished Adam by taking away his original righteousness, we were all likewise punished."[2]

Therefore, original sin, according to the Calvinist, is actual sin, worthy of eternal damnation. The tiny newborn who dies before he takes his second breath is condemned to hell for all eternity, because he is the offspring of Adam. Here is Calvin, himself, saying as much,

“what will he make of those infant children who are taken from this life before they could display any such example of faith and the works of faith because of their age? The infants of Sodom and of Jerusalem had the same condition of birth and death, nor was there any disparity in their works. Why then will Christ on the last day separate them to stand some on His right and the others on His left? Who does not here adore the admirable judgment of God by which it is ordained that some are born in Jerusalem and pass thence to a better life, while Sodom, the forecourt of hell, receives the birth of others? But as Christ awards to the elect the recompense of justice, so the reprobate will receive not less fittingly the punishment of their impiety and crimes.[3]

Robert Shank eloquently rebukes this notion as follows:

Such comments as the above have provided warrant for preposterous assertions by zealous Calvinists that millions of infants will forever writhe in everlasting flames in hell – to the eternal praise and glory of God. Many “Calvinists” repudiate such assertions, but they thereby become to that degree not Calvinists, for such assertions are the inevitable corollary of Calvin’s doctrine of unconditional particular election. All such unscriptural assertions are seen as outrageous when set over against the gracious words of Jesus, “Let the little children come to me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”[4]

This federalism view is supposedly supported by a passage in Romans chapter 5.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

According to verse 12, what action brings death to all men? The key to understanding the verse is the phrase, “because all sinned.” The “because” phrase can have several meanings, and I’ll list the two that seem the most plausible:

Option 1:         “Death spread to each individual because of the sin of that individual, not because of the sin of Adam.”

                        This would mean the phrase “all sinned” is the reason death spread to all men.

Option 2:         “The fact that all sinned proves that death spread to all men because of the sin of Adam.”

                        This would mean that “all sinned” is the proof that death spread to all men.

The phrase translated “because” (eph ho) occurs in 2 Cor 5:4: "For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

The phrase “we do not want to be unclothed” is clearly the reason for the groaning, not the proof of it, giving us reason to conclude that option 1 is viable, perhaps even the only possible meaning.

So, if death spread to all men because of their own sin, how does Adam’s sin have any bearing on us? Clearly, sin entered the world through Adam’s sin, as did death.

In order to figure out the answer, we should examine the questions, “What happened when Adam sinned? What occurred at the time of the fall that had lasting impact through every generation?”

Verses 15 through 21 show parallels between the sin of Adam and the righteousness of Christ, and it is here that the Calvinist draws much of his support.

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Rom 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Rom 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Many Calvinists use verses 17 through 19 as a trump card of sorts to prove that Adam's sin resulted in death and condemnation to all, yet they use only the first part of each verse. They are quick to say that Adam's sin spread to all, but they refuse to apply the same logic to the second part, that is, the effect of the righteousness of Christ. If Adam's sin automatically resulted in death and condemnation for everyone, then the obedience of Christ must also automatically result in justification and righteousness for everyone. I don't know of any Calvinist who would affirm such a universal salvation.

The only way to maintain consistency between the two halves of each verse is to apply the context. In verse 12, Paul explains how the sin and death of Adam spread, by each person's choice. The same is true regarding those who are made righteous by Christ. They choose to follow Him, as the context of the book of Romans proves. Therefore, Calvinists wrongly use Romans chapter five to prove original sin. If it actually does prove original sin, it also proves universal salvation. The context, however, show us that it merely proves that Adam brought sin into the world. His sin was not automatically applied to everyone.

Now, back to the original Calvinist proposal. Supposedly, since man is “dead” in sin, he cannot do anything good, so he cannot have faith without being saved first. We have seen the Scriptures that show that man acts corruptly, but does that mean he is incapable of doing good? What does the Bible say?

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ 14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deut 30:11-14)

Just because a person is dead in his sins does not mean that he is incapable of obedience. He is able to obey; he simply chooses not to at times.

What, then, does it mean to be “dead”? Calvinists wish to read into “dead in your trespasses” the following: “so completely dead in sin that you cannot even have faith unless God puts it in you without your will or knowledge.”

Here is how Dr. Sproul puts it:

"There is not an ounce of spiritual life left in them. If they are to be made alive, God must do more than offer them medicine. Dead men will not open their mouths to receive anything. Their jaws are locked in death. Rigo mortis has set in. They must be raised from the dead. They must be new creations, crafted by Christ and reborn by his Spirit."[5]

Does the passage say that? Dr. Sproul and other Calvinists are reading into the passage an idea that goes far beyond what is actually in the text. They define the word “dead” to suit their purposes. When there is lack of clarity over a word, it helps to read other Scripture to get an idea of the meaning of an unclear verse. At the very least, we can learn what the verse cannot possibly mean.

Mark 16:16: He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

The Calvinist would say, “He who is saved shall believe.”

John 10:9: I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

The Calvinist would say, “If anyone is saved, he will enter through the door.”

Acts 16:31: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.

The Calvinist would say, “If God saves you, you will believe.”

Romans 10:9-10: If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The Calvinist would say, “If God saves you, then you will believe, for God brings salvation, resulting in confession.”

The Bible directly contradicts Calvinistic thought. Throughout the Scriptures, people are called to repent and believe. If they were so dead that they could not respond, then the call would be a silly exercise. To be dead in sin simply means to be separated from God, alienated from His fellowship, and God raises us from that dead state in response to our faith to Him. He calls out for us to repent and believe, in His mercy giving us the ability to respond. Those who respond in faith are raised to spiritual life.

If a person were really dead in sin to the extreme point that the Calvinist demands, then he would also not be able to walk, eat, breathe, or even sin. But the Calvinist insists that a person who is dead is incapable of obedience or of faith; he takes the definition only as far as suits his doctrinal purposes. The Bible, however, shows us that people who are dead in sin are out of fellowship with God, dead to Him, and a call to faith may awaken them to hear and respond.

Awake, sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you (Eph. 5:14).

The final Calvinist salvo in this first doctrinal tenet comes from their notion that saving faith in God can only come from God. In other words, we can have saving faith only if God grants it, and God does not grant it to everyone. They use Ephesians 2:8-9 as one of their proof texts.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

Here are some examples of Calvinists who see this passage as proving that God gives saving faith:

In English, the phrase, “and that not of yourselves” could be said to modify “grace,” “have been saved,” or “faith.” However, the Greek is clear that "faith" is the antecedent of the phrase “and that not of yourselves.”[6]

But due to the total depravity of humanity we know that no one is capable of any good thought or action, including faith. Faith is a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8) If God had not foreordained to give the gift of faith to a person, that person would never come to faith in God.[7]

Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.[8]

The first quote is the strangest, for it is the Greek that proves exactly the opposite, that the gift of God is not faith, at least not in this passage. Both “grace” and “faith” are feminine gender in the Greek. The word “that” is a pronoun that refers back to a previous word, what is called an antecedent. Pronouns can have any of the three genders, masculine, feminine, or neuter, and each will have the gender that matches its antecedent. In other words, if “that” in “that not of yourselves” is supposed to refer to “faith,” it would take the feminine gender, since pivstew" (pronounced pisteos) is feminine. In fact, “that” takes the neuter gender, so it probably refers to salvation itself, the whole concept of “by grace you have been saved through faith.”

The Calvinists insist that such an allowance in the Greek language can be made, but it is made at the expense of normal interpretative disciplines. Their understanding is forced upon the Scripture because of their presuppositions as to the origin of faith. For the Calvinist, their interpretation of where faith comes from trumps normal Greek exegesis, an understanding birthed in their doctrinal system rather than from the Scriptures.

How do we know that faith is not a gift? From the same letter to the Ephesians. As Paul wrote, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph 1:13). Faith is our response to hearing the gospel. In no place does Paul indicate that faith is the result of a prior regeneration by God. He always describes it as man’s response to hearing the truth.

Therefore, based on Paul’s own words, we conclude that people who are “dead in sin” are able to respond to the gospel. The Calvinist, in contrast, concludes that man is unable to respond, but their source of authority comes from outside the Scriptures. They surmise what “dead” means based on presumed and unjustified parallels to physical death, and they force that understanding on the passage.

The Calvinist doctrine of total depravity is untrue and cannot be supported by Scripture.

[1] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 72-73.

[2] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 90.

[3] The Eternal Predestination of God, John Calvin, Section IV

[4] Elect in the Son, Robert Shank, Page 103.

[5] Chosen By God, R. C. Sproul Pages 115.

[6] Dr. Van Lees from Internet article at http://www.covenantofgracechurch.org/article%205.htm

[7] Michael R. Finney in an Internet article at http://www.gospeloutreach.net/unconditional_election.html

[8] John MacArthur Jr. from an Internet article at http://www.kenscustom.com/bible/election.htm

Refuting Calvinism

2012-01-04T10:21:00.001-06:00

The majority of Christians in our church culture possess an innate belief that man is able to freely choose saving faith. Christian media, however, is dominated by theologians and preachers who believe otherwise, that God has predestined certain people to faith and eternal life while condemning others to hell by a decision wrought before mankind ever sinned. This media influence has brought about an unnecessary confusion regarding God’s sovereignty, ushering in a mindset influenced by the doctrines of John Calvin and other “Reformed” theologians. Does the Bible teach predestined salvation? Do we have free will? Are both doctrines somehow true?

Many Christians realize deep inside that Calvin’s form of predestination, which disregards faith and the will of man, seems capricious. In our hearts we know that condemning someone to hell when he has no hope to live without sin or to find the savior, is inherently unjust. Yet, Calvin’s doctrine runs rampant in the church, and many Christians throw their hands up in surrender, because ardent Calvinists twist the Scriptures to the point that many truth-seeking believers have trouble defending the simple truth of God’s word.

The generally accepted doctrine of predestination has also brought about an apathetic response to the call to evangelism. After all, if someone is predestined to be saved or condemned, it doesn’t matter if I, personally, witness to that person. Calvinist thought leads to the idea that God is going to do what He’s going to do, whether or not we speak a word of witness. Yes, Calvinists still witness, but they cannot possibly do so with the urgency that the truth demands, and their message is always tainted with falsehoods that lead people astray.

It’s also important that we learn the truth about the ways of our gracious God. He has not created humans simply to play with their robotic responses, forcing some into eternal damnation for sin they could not help but commit, that He is not a God who calls the world to repent, secretly knowing that He will force some to respond to His call while preventing everyone else from responding. Because of the tragic, even blasphemous attacks on God's character that Calvinist doctrine creates, it is important that we are able to explain Him rightly, so that the world will learn of our gracious heavenly Father and not the evil god the Calvinists propose.

I believe that God allows people to make a choice. We all possess the ability to have faith in Him even while we were still sinners. The Bible teaches free will. Yet, predestination and election are also taught in the Scriptures, though the truth of the Word does not line up with the Calvinistic understanding of these doctrines.

Over the next several days, I will posting essays that dismantle the five points of Calvinism, often called the TULIP, because each letter in that word represents one of the points. Although going through this exercise might not prepare readers for a debate with Calvinist seminarians, I hope it will give them confidence in the true doctrine of God’s gracious love and his desire that all people be saved through his wonderful sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. I hope this effort brings you joy and wipes away the confusion that so many misguided theologians have smeared on the Christian landscape. God is sovereign, yes, but God is also love. Let’s see how these two wonderful attributes meld in God’s wondrous plan of salvation.

Galatians 2 and the Peter/Cephas Controversy

2011-08-14T18:08:00.000-05:00

Many assume that the apostle Paul confronted the apostle Peter in Antioch regarding Peter’s apparent lack of straightforwardness with the gospel. It’s no wonder they think so, because the King James Version of the Bible says exactly that in Galatians 2:11-14. Yet, there are many reasons to doubt this assumption.

Here is the passage in the King James Version:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Now here is the same passage from the New American Standard Bible:

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Gal 2:12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

We notice right away that the texts differ regarding the name of the person Paul confronted. Some Greek texts say that the man’s name was Cephas, not Peter, and the translators of the NASB decided that these were the more reliable. To many people, that difference poses no problem, because Peter was given the name Cephas by Jesus, as follows.

“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter).” (John 1:42)

It’s interesting that Jesus never called Peter by that name again. Besides the John chapter one reference, the apostle Paul is the only person in Scripture to refer to the name Cephas using the Greek word for that name. One possible place is in Galatians chapter one, and it’s interesting to note that there is a difference in Greek texts here as well.

Here is the passage in the King James Version:

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

And here it is in the New American Standard Bible

Gal 1:18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

In this passage, it is clear that Paul was referring to Peter, because he indirectly refers to him as an apostle in verse 19. It seems to me that the KJV is correct in this case, and the name should be Peter.

Paul more definitely referred to Cephas using the Greek word for that name in other places:

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

1Co 15:5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Paul differentiates between Cephas and the twelve. This isn’t proof that Cephas was not part of the twelve, because Jesus easily could have appeared to one of the twelve and then to the twelve together, but the following use of Cephas casts doubt on that idea.

1Co 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Here Paul puts Cephas outside of the group called “the apostles.” It is theoretically possible that Paul could have listed Peter separately from “the apostles,” but it would be unnatural to do so. It is more natural to assume that Paul was referring to a non-apostle.

We have historical evidence pointing to the idea that Cephas was not the apostle Peter. Eusebius wrote:

“And there is a story from Clement in the fifth of his Hypotyposeis in which he also says that Cephas, concerning whom Paul says: But, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples, one who happened to have the same name as Peter the apostle.” (Eusebius. The History of The Church. Book 1. 12)

This was Clement of Alexandria, who lived from about 150 AD to 215. He likely had access to records that no longer exist, so this is historical documentation indicating that this Cephas was not Peter. Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, though not one of the apostles.

Internal evidence in the Galatians chapter two passage also indicates that Cephas could not have been Peter. Let’s look at the verses leading up to Paul’s opposition to Cephas.

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

If Cephas were the same person as Peter, why would Paul change his name in mid-sentence? (In this passage, there are no variations among the Greek texts. In other words, the various Greek texts all agree on the Greek words in these verses. They all use the Greek word for Peter at the same places, and they all use the Greek word for Cephas at the same places. Where it says “Peter,” the Greek word for Peter is used in every Greek text, and where it says “Cephas,” the Greek word for Cephas is used in every Greek text.)

Also, if Peter used the Greek word for "Peter" in his own letters to Gentiles, why would Paul use the Aramaic form (Cephas) to Gentiles? That wouldn’t make sense at all. If Paul had meant "Peter," it would make sense to use the most recognizable form of the name when writing to Gentiles, and he certainly wouldn't change from one to the other. The most reasonable conclusion is that Peter and Cephas are two different people.

According to this passage, Cephas recognized the grace given to Paul, because Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter had been to the circumcised. Why, then, would this fact cause Cephas (if he were really Peter) to extend the right hand of fellowship to Paul and divide their ministries (Paul one direction and Cephas the other) when it was the division itself that indicated that they ought to divide? This would have to be circular logic.

To explain this crucial point further, let’s break down this passage:

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The reasons for the actions of James, Cephas, and John are underlined, and the actions themselves are italicized.

"Seeing that" indicates that James, Cephas, and John had noticed something that happened in the past. What did they notice? That Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised. Those things happened at some unspecified time in the past, and these three are taking note of the events in order to decide on an action.

What is that action? To have fellowship with Paul so that he would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

But that had already happened with the real Peter. He and Paul had already made the choice to divide the ministry and choose separate targets. So if Cephas is Peter, what is he using as a basis for deciding to divide the ministry and choose separate targets? The fact that he already has made that decision? That would be nonsense.

It would be like making a decision to become a farmer because you already are one. It is a senseless, circular statement.

The decision was based on something that happened in the past, so using that as a basis for an identical present decision that cannot logically be repeated by the same person proves that this Cephas cannot be Peter.

Again, Paul had already gone to the Gentiles, and Peter had already gone to the Jews, so if this Cephas is Peter, then he would be deciding something that had already occurred. This is not sensible. And since Paul changed the Greek words for the names in the very same sentence, thinking that these two people are the same would be the most illogical way to understand this passage. In fact, there is no logical reason at all to think that they are the same.

We also have proof from the book of Acts that this person in Galatians 2 could not have been the apostle Peter:

“From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. And they spent a long time with the disciples.

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. (Acts 14:26 - 15:2)

This is a perfect description of what was described by Paul in Galatians 2: There was dissension with Judaizers regarding the necessity of circumcision, it occurred in Antioch, and Barnabas was involved as well. This Acts account perfectly fits the Galatians 2 account, and there is no other event recorded in Acts that coincides with Paul’s account of a dispute in Antioch.

So what did Paul and Barnabas do about the problem? They decided to consult the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Who was one of those apostles? Peter himself:

The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." (Acts 15:6-11)

If Cephas in Galatians 2 was Peter, it would make no sense at all for Paul to go all the way to Jerusalem to consult the very person who was causing a problem. Peter was already in Jerusalem. He wasn’t in Antioch. So it seems impossible that Peter could have been the man Paul confronted in Galatians chapter 2.

Some refer to other accounts in Acts where they believe the Galatians chapter 2 conflict might have taken place:

Act 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
Act 11:23 Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;
Act 11:24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
Act 11:25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
Act 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Act 11:27 Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.
Act 11:28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.
Act 11:29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
Act 11:30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.

We see the presence of both Paul and Barnabas at Antioch along with the desire to provide for the poor, so this could be the first meeting between Paul and these people and when the right hand of fellowship took place. The Galatians text leads us to believe that the first meeting occurred in Jerusalem, so it might not have occurred here, but there is no mention of the dissension similar to what we saw in Acts 15.

If the first meeting did occur here, Peter could not have been present. Where was Peter at this time? In Jerusalem speaking up boldly for the Gentiles. (Acts 11:2 and following) According to the beginning of chapter 12, Peter went to jail in Jerusalem at that time (Acts 12:3), and Paul and Barnabas left Antioch (Acts 13:4). So if this Cephas is Peter, and this was the first meeting (which it might not have been), then he could not have been there at this time.

Others claim that the argument between Paul and Peter took place during another of Paul's visits to Antioch:

Act 18:22 When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch.
Act 18:23 And having spent some time there, he left and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.

There is no mention of any dispute here or of any visit by Peter, so why should we think that the Galatians 2 dispute took place at this time? There is no reason at all except for the fact that this is the only time Peter could have been there, which carries the presumption that the person Paul confronted in Galatians 2 was Peter, and that is the idea in dispute.

Another problem is that Peter, at the time of Acts 18, would have to completely go against what he had so boldly stood for. It would be totally contradictory for Peter to do that. In fact, throughout the book of Acts, Peter stood up for the Gentiles’ reception of the gospel. Ever since his call by God to preach to Cornelius in Acts chapter ten, Peter was unwavering in his support of unfettered access to the gospel for the Gentiles. There is no evidence in Acts that Peter ever strayed from this steadfast support.

Yet another problem with the idea that the Galatians 2 man was Peter is that Paul indicates that people who do what the confronted man did are not even true believers.

Gal 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

Paul questioned Cephas – “How is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” To compel someone to live like Jews is an attempt to bring people into bondage. Since Paul indicated that such people were false brethren, they weren’t true believers, so it’s reasonable to conclude that Cephas wasn’t a true believer and certainly not the same person as the apostle Peter.

The evidence, both biblical and historical, is overwhelming that the man Paul confronted in Galatians is not the apostle Peter. That man was named Cephas, likely a Jew who sympathized with the Judaizers.

Because of Peter’s faithful defense of the Gentiles and their reception of the true gospel at every turn, it is important to make sure we do not denigrate Peter’s legacy with the false charge that he dissembled in Galatians chapter two. After the Holy Spirit indwelt him at Pentecost, he was sure and steadfast. Let us honor the truth about Peter and clear his name in the church, especially among those who have so greatly benefitted from his faithful stand for our inclusion in the faith.

Comments Turned Off For Now

2009-06-12T13:34:00.001-05:00

I have been receiving a lot of comments lately, for which I am thankful, but because I have to turn my attention to my next book project, I am turning off comments temporarily.

How Great is the Darkness!

2009-06-10T08:47:00.004-05:00

Jesus said, "The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Matthew 6:22-23)

A couple of events during the past week have brought this passage to mind. While Jesus was likely talking about the eye being the source of light and knowledge coming into a person's mind and how the gateways to the mind need to be clear and holy, it seems to me that the principle holds true for the church as well.

The gateways into the body of professing believers surely influence the way the church as a whole thinks and processes information--pastors, authors, filmmakers, and musicians write, speak, and sing about ideas and transmit their understanding of God and His word to the pew-sitters in congregations all across the world. If these eyes, these gateways of light, are clouded or blind, then those who receive their input will process skewed or erroneous information, and they will live according to faulty conclusions.

This week I was reminded of that in two very disturbing circumstances. I went to a wedding this past Saturday, and the preacher looked the groom in the eye and told him he is a sinner, and that when he sinned against his wife, he would have to repent, and when his wife, who is also a sinner, sinned against him, he needed to forgive her.

He went on to say that this sinning, repenting, and forgiving in marriage is an illustration of the gospel and how Jesus and the church function.

Wait a minute! The groom is supposed to represent Jesus, and he is a sinner? The bride is supposed to be spotless and pure, and she is a sinner? Marriage is supposed to be an illustration of a holy union, not an adulterous tryst. I wanted to stand up and ask, "What sin will he commit? Adultery? Wife beating? Child molestation? How dare you suggest such a wicked idea!"

And then they said their vows, promising fidelity, support, love, etc, all after the pastor insisted that they wouldn't keep these vows. It was sick and twisted, a slap in Jesus' face. I can't imagine how these two could speak these vows knowing that they would intentionally violate them, assuming they believed this pastor's words of darkness.

A few weeks ago I received a textbook for potential endorsement, and yesterday I had some time to look through it, a Christian worldview book for teaching children about God. Although I had some minor quibbles with the approach, the subject matter was reasonably true until I came across this line, an exhortation to Christian children:

"In the meantime, if you should happen to sin—and you will sometimes—you need to seek God’s forgiveness as soon as possible."

This is horrific. Can you imagine that this could possibly be a good way to teach children, to insist that they will sin?

Johnny, don't steal. Oh, but you will sometimes, and then you have to hurry and ask forgiveness. Don't fornicate, but you will sometimes, so be sure to ask forgiveness. Don't rape, murder, or take drugs, but since you will sometimes, be ready to ask forgiveness.

The absurdity is mind boggling. How can we avoid the accusation of madness if we command our children to do something and then tell them they won't obey our commands? How can our children look at us as anything but raving lunatics if we exhort them to holiness and then insist that they cannot achieve what we request?

And the confession for forgiveness part is also an illogical mess. What happens if they don't ask forgiveness? This is the dilemma that the anti-holiness crowd constantly runs into. On one hand, they say that 1 John 1:9 is an everyday thing to do, confess and be forgiven, but they get hung up when you ask, "What happens if a Christian doesn't confess? Are they not forgiven? Will they go to hell if they don't confess?"

Then they'll say, no they'll be fine, because all their sins have been forgiven past, present, and future. (Of course, they have no biblical proof for this faulty assertion.)

Okay, then why confess? There seems to be no need if their sins are already forgiven.

Well ... uh ... because it says to confess?

True. It does say to confess, and it says that confession brings forgiveness and complete cleansing from all unrighteousness. This is an if/then statement. If you confess, you will be forgiven. Doesn't that imply that lack of confession will mean lack of forgiveness and cleansing? If not, then why make the statement at all if forgiveness is granted no matter what? And, of course, if they're completely cleansed, I assume they'll never sin again.

And then they usually get angry or try to change the subject.

Their doctrine is ridiculous, and it's so tragic that it has become the default in church circles. Surely the eye has become a pit of blackness.

Confession in 1 John 1:9 is the confession that brings about forgiveness and salvation, and salvation brings about complete cleansing from all sin. There is no other reasonable way to interpret it.

It's frustrating and sad. The church holds on to this sinning doctrine so doggedly all the while exhorting their congregants to be holy. What a strange lot they are! Be holy, but you can't be holy. Go and sin no more, but you will sin every day. Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, but you will never be able to do that.

This is madness. This is darkness so black, the blind are truly leading the blind into a pit. This love of sin and the comforts of false security will surely cause millions to be among the crowd who call out to Jesus, "'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?' And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23)

This is what the church today has fallen into, a completely warped view of reality, a twisted mindset that cannot even see its own clownish behavior. God help us!

(Artwork by Ed Miracle: http://www.miraclesart.com)

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

2009-06-05T08:33:00.006-05:00

Obama made a speech in Cairo yesterday that revealed that he is really a Muslim or at least honors Islam higher than Christianity. Although he called himself a Christian, he kept referring to the "Holy Koran," the same book that prescribes killing all "infidels." This is the same man who bowed to the Saudi king (not allowed for a U.S. leader), covered up Christian symbols during a speech, criticized evangelical Christianity, no longer goes to church, and didn't even use the Bible for his real oath of office. This is the same hypocrite who said, "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being," yet he is the most pro-abortion politician I have ever seen, and he promotes the killing of the most innocent of human beings through his policies. He is a lying fraud.

As Jesus said, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-16a)

Obama has shown us his fruits. He is a liar, a conspirator to murder the innocent, and he consistently thumbs his nose at the law and the Constitution. Think not? Have you wondered how the government has the authority to take over General Motors? They don't. In fact, Congress never passed the auto bailout bill, but they spent our money anyway. Blatantly illegal. But no one in power cares. Click here for more on this story. This is just one of many illegal acts the current administration has undertaken.

Both major parties are at fault. They have forgotten God, the Constitution, and the rule of law as they seek only power and money.

I'm sure some will comment that we have to obey the authorities, because God put them in power. Please don't bother. The passage to which you refer talks about authorities that reward good and punish evil. Obama does the opposite. We are in a situation as described in Hosea:

They have set up kings, but not by Me; They have appointed princes, but I did not know it. With their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves, that they might be cut off. (Hosea 8:4)

Clearly the people are able to put someone in power that the Lord opposes, someone the Lord did not want there. We are living in such a time.

We have a wolf in the White House, a wolf dressed in white who has the masses hypnotized by his rhetoric. And if the people don't wake up and shake off this usurper, the ramifications for our nation and the world will be devastating.

Misunderstandings in the Epistles

2009-05-26T13:32:00.003-05:00

One of the main arguments people make for the existence of sinning Christians relies on the epistles to the churches. They claim that Paul and others refer to the letter recipients as saints, yet describe ongoing sin among the church people. Therefore, they think, there must be sinning Christians.

The problem with this approach is the assumption that a greeting that refers to the readers by a descriptive label means that every single person who might read the letter or referred to in the text must also be labeled the same. Such an assumption is not true, and the text of the epistles prove that this leap is not warranted.

I’m not going to go over every letter that refers to saints and every proof that sinners in the church are not really saints, but I will focus on the letter that is used most often by opponents of holiness—the book of 1 Corinthians. Once it is established that Paul uses “saints” in his greeting while knowing that sinners among his readers aren’t truly believers, that fact can be used to prove that he uses the same practice in other letters.

I will begin this analysis with a passage that many use to prove sinfulness among Christians.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. 2I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

Many people will confess, no matter what their position is on the subject at hand, that no relatively large church will contain only true believers. There may be false professors of faith, interested seekers, or even skeptics who were dragged into the congregation by a friend or relative. It seems reasonable that Paul would know this and would write in such a way that all parts of the body would receive proper instruction. This kind of all encompassing teaching would require some kind of wording that would allow the readers to understand who among them is to receive the message. For example, such wording of identification is made in the following passage.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5
1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

This is about a man who apparently had a sexual affair with his father's wife. Notice that Paul says that there is "immorality among you," indicating that this person is a part of their group while at the same time not insinuating that this is an indictment directed against all of them. More important, the construction of verse 5 reveals that the man in question is not a Christian.

Follow this line of thinking carefully. When Paul says that he is delivering this man to Satan "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus," he is stating a purpose for his disciplinary action. The reason that he is delivering the man is the hope of salvation for him. If this man were already saved, the purpose would not exist, and the statement would not make sense. This is a clear example of Paul singling out a non-Christian from the group in order to deal with him properly. In Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians, he makes an appeal that is in the letter to the church at large, but it is meant for only the unbelievers among them.

2 Corinthians 5:19-20
namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Those who are believers in the group would not need such an appeal, because they have already been reconciled to God. The next appeal also makes more sense if it is perceived as being addressed to unbelievers only.

2 Corinthians 6:1
And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain-

Since this verse comes immediately after an appeal to receive initial grace for salvation and is followed (6:2) by another request to come to salvation, it is written to tell the unbelievers how to receive the grace they need. Since Paul appealed for some to come to Christ, it is impossible for him to have considered all of the Corinthians in his reading audience as Christians.

Again in 1 Corinthians we see Paul stating his assumption that his readers are saved, and in the same breath he qualifies the statement with the possibility that they are not.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

It is valuable to examine other places where Paul and other writers change their focus from one sub-group within the addressed group to another. In Ephesians chapter 2 Paul makes it clear that he is addressing Christians (vs. 19-22), but notice the change to a different audience in the first two verses of chapter 3, "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles- if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you," and in verse 6, "to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." Paul is addressing Gentiles in general, some of whom may not have even heard of Paul's "stewardship" of grace or of the great news mentioned in verse 6. A quote from later in the chapter indicates that Paul did not assume that his audience in the passage was made up of believers but seemed to assume that they were not.

Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man; so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God.

Paul's prayer is that these people would be strengthened "so that Christ would dwell" in their hearts. Having Christ dwell in a person's heart is practically a definition of being a Christian, so if Paul's reason for praying for this spiritual strength was for the indwelling to come about, it would not make sense if they were already believers and already indwelt. Also notice the second purpose for the prayer, "so that you ... may be able to comprehend with all the saints ... " Paul assumes that his particular audience does not, at the time of the reading, comprehend the love of Christ. This is something that "all the saints" do know. If they were saints, then they would also know the love of Christ, and if they knew, there would be no second purpose for the prayer.

The writer of Hebrews uses the same method of addressing particular people among a larger group.

Hebrews 10:26-29, 39
For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? ... But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

The writer warns the group about falling away and then states that "we" are not in that group. How could the writer warn a reading audience about something of which they are not a part unless he is temporarily changing the focus of his address? The warning makes no sense unless this change of audience focus is understood.

The point is that Paul and other writers change their focus to a particular audience from a general audience in many places. In the case of 1 Corinthians chapter 3, this particular audience consists of unbelievers that are in the church, Paul's general audience.

Let us look more closely at the shift in Paul's particular audience in the 1 Corinthians 3 passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter. In verse 3 Paul wrote, "For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" The use of "among" indicates again that there are some in the group who are guilty of the charge and probably some who are not, so when he says, "are you not fleshly," he must be referring to those who are guilty. It would not make sense to ask this question to those who are not guilty of his accusations. But does this mean that this specific, fleshly group in focus is not made up of Christians? It is not clear that they are unbelievers from a surface examination, but the fact that they are not true believers can be brought to the light as follows.

Notice the "could not" in verse 1. The past tense indicates that Paul is talking about a time in the past. To what time was he referring? It seems that the reference is to a previous event mentioned in chapter 2, verse 1, "And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God." This first meeting with the Corinthians was probably the time when Paul first introduced the Gospel to them. Paul goes on to explain that the "natural man" cannot understand God's wisdom, and he sets this kind of man against one who has received the Spirit (2:11-14).

Therefore, in verse 1 of chapter 3 Paul refers to his first presentation of the gospel to them and says that he could not speak to them at that time as to "spiritual men," those who have received the Spirit (2:12, 15), but as to "men of flesh," the "natural man" of 2:14. They could not have been saved at that time, because they had not heard the gospel yet. As has been pointed out before, "men of flesh" is not descriptive of Christians, because the flesh is crucified in a believer (Galatians 5:24). Therefore, when Paul says, "you are still fleshly," he means that they are still not Christians, in the same state as when he first presented the gospel to them.

This does not mean that all of the addressed Corinthians are fleshly or unsaved, only those who are part of Paul's current focus in the verse. Since Paul said that "there is jealousy and strife among" them, he was indicating that this is not true of all of them. Only those who are guilty of the jealousy and strife would be considered fleshly by Paul, and only those are unsaved.
Babes in Christ

The use of the term, "babes in Christ," does not prove that the Corinthians were "baby Christians," but actually gives more proof that they were not believers at all at the time to which the verse refers. The word for babes here is not the word used in 1 Peter 2:2, where "babes" is used in a positive light. The word in 1 Peter is a form of brephos, the word commonly used for a small child or infant, a young person who would be expected to grow into an adult. The word for babes in 1 Corinthians is nepios, a simple-minded or immature person, definitely a negative word in most contexts.

It is interesting to note that Paul uses the same word to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14:20, "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature." Paul wants his hearers to be babes in the things of evil. Of course he does not mean that he wants them to be baby, evil people, or newborn in evil and growing in it. He is saying that he wants them to be removed from evil by being ignorant in the things of evil.

In the same way, Paul says that he had to speak to the Corinthians as those who knew nothing about the things of Christ, because this was probably their first hearing of the gospel. The term "in Christ" does not mean that the people were in Christ in the way that Christians are in Christ, just as someone who is a babe "in evil" would not actually be in evil in the way a truly evil person would be. Since Paul wants his readers to be babes in evil and since he really wants them to be totally separated from evil, to be a babe in evil must include separation from it, a separation that is due to ignorance or inexperience. In the same way, to be a babe in Christ is to be ignorant of Him and separated from Him because of ignorance. The same word for babe and the same kind of message is given in Hebrews chapter 5.

Hebrews 5:12-6:2
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for some one to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For every one who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Here the writer has turned his attention to a group within his audience that is having a problem with understanding the "elementary teaching about the Christ." If they do not understand these things, repentance from dead works, faith toward God, and the others listed, how can they possibly be Christians? The answer is, they cannot. Further study makes it clear that in nearly every place in Scripture, this word for babes is used to refer to one who is in ignorance, not to one newly born.

The word is also used in a passage which is familiar to many.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

The word for child, in each usage, is a form of nepios, and it is again used to describe someone who is ignorant. The following passage also promotes this idea.

Ephesians 4:14
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

The word for "children" is again a form of nepios and again it refers to someone who is ignorant or foolish. When the Scripture writers wanted to refer to someone as a baby Christian or a child in the faith they used other words such as brephos, which was mentioned before, or teknon as in the following verses.

1 Timothy 1:2
to Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1:4
to Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Philippians 2:22
But you know of his [Timothy's] proven worth that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father.

In these verses, as in other passages, Paul uses teknon to describe a child in the faith, either someone who was newly reborn or someone that he feels that he bore himself as a spiritual offspring. When he uses nepios, however, he is describing people who are ignorant in whatever context the word is used. In 1 Corinthians 3, since he calls them "babes in Christ," they must have been ignorant concerning Christ, at least at the time to which he was referring.

Paul is using this "babe" title to give a warning to the group of unbelievers. They have adopted a position that the one who has taught them is the means by which they are measured. In the following passage, Paul reveals that this reliance on human teachers will not work.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

Paul is teaching that certain structures that are built upon the foundation will be burned up. It is commonly held that these structures are works of men, but this interpretation does not fully fit the illustration given. In verse 9 Paul asserts that the people are God's building, the ones who sprouted from his and Apollos's care (verses 5-6), and in verse 10 the illustration is expanded. Paul laid the foundation ("I planted") and another is building upon it ("Apollos watered"). This indicates that the builders are "servants through whom you believed," "God's fellow workers" (verses 5 and 9). They are ministers of the gospel.

The warning in verse 10, "let each man be careful how he builds upon it," is addressed to these ministers. The one who preaches the gospel is the man whose "work will become evident." Since the foundation is Jesus Himself, a person, it is reasonable to assume that a building set upon this foundation is also people ("you are ... God's building"). The testing mentioned in verse 13 is the revealing of the true nature of the people who are resting on the foundation, a determination of who is and who is not a true believer.

This figurative method of discrimination is not unusual in the Scriptures. In Matthew 3:12 the chaff is burned while the wheat is saved. In Matthew 13:30, 42 the tares are gathered and burned. In Revelation 20:12-15 the unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire. There are other references, but these passages clearly demonstrate that the Bible often uses the illustration of fire burning unbelievers in judgment and believers being saved from the fire.

A minister of the gospel will be saved even if some of his "converts" are not, and this is truly a great loss for him (verse 15). Once again in verse 16 Paul reiterates that the people are a building, a temple, and verse 17 gives more proof that the people are the object of the burning discussed in verse 15.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

The temple is the building erected on the foundation, which is Christ. The temple is cleansed of its false parts (verse 15), but if any man destroys the temple, destruction is in store for him. The "any man" may still refer to the teacher, the builder in verse 15. If this is the case, he would probably be a false teacher rather than a good teacher who merely has false converts. The good teacher is saved because his purpose was to build the temple in truth, but the false teacher destroys the temple and is destroyed as a result. It is also possible that "any man" now refers to a false convert among the true parts of the temple. Verse 18 demonstrates this possibility.

1 Corinthians 3:18
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise.

Paul seems to have changed his focus from a teacher to individuals in his readership. In that case, the destruction of that man could be part of the cleansing of verse 15, the man's desire to destroy the temple being the "evidence" (verse 13) of a bad part of the building. In any case, it should be clear that Paul is not talking about the works of individuals in the passage; he is expounding on the quality of the lives of people in the church and on whether or not they are truly saved.

Describing a person as part of a building is not an unusual illustration in the Bible. In Ephesians 2:19-22 the people are called a building laid upon the foundation of Christ, and the building is called a temple, just as in 1 Corinthians 3.

Ephesians 2:19-22
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Another example comes from 1 Peter.

1 Peter 2:4-6
And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed."

Once again the people are the elements that make up a building, a spiritual house of worship, and Jesus is the foundation of the house, the corner stone.

It might be simpler to see that this interpretation is true by looking at verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 3 and working backwards to discover the meaning. Verses 12 and 13 contain, "Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold ... each man's work will become evident." In order to find out what is being built upon the foundation and what a man's work is, it must be determined what that foundation is. Verse 11 states clearly that the foundation is Jesus Christ.

Next, the identity of the people who build upon the foundation and what is normally built upon it must be ascertained. Verse 10 states directly that Paul laid the foundation and another is building upon it and that others also can build upon it (let each man...), but it does not identify who the other person (people) is or what is being built. Verse 9 says, "For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."

Now we can see that the building is made up of people, the Corinthian church in this case. Who are the builders? They are the fellow workers of verse 9. A specific fellow worker is named earlier in verse 6, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." The full context of the illustration points out that people are being built upon the foundation, Jesus Christ, and that the people who build are fellow workers with Paul, such as Apollos. It is also clear that the "work" of verse 13 is the labor for the gospel. "Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor."

The "labor" in this verse is the work of the gospel and corresponds to the work that each man does in verse 13. Comparing the rewards for labor in verse 8 with the rewards for "any man's work" in verse 14 gives further evidence that the working man in verses 12 and 13 corresponds to the laborer for the gospel in verses 5-9. It follows that the section concerning the works of a man from verse 10 of chapter 3 through verse 15 is a general statement regarding the outcome of the work of the gospel and corresponds to the specific example of the work of Paul and Apollos for the sake of the gospel among the Corinthians.

Verses 21-23 sum up Paul's purpose for the warnings in the chapter.

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

This demonstrates that the previous warning to the Corinthians was meant to teach them that their salvation condition is not dependent on their teacher, "whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas," but on their relationship with Christ, the quality of which should leave some of them in doubt.

All of this explanation of chapter 3 is put forth to show that Paul was giving a warning to those in the church at Corinth who were not true believers; they will be tested to determine if they have true faith, and they cannot rely on the status of their "builder." Such a warning was necessary because of the problem that the Corinthians had with wanting to maintain their status symbols (1:12). Therefore, Paul was not speaking to Christians in this passage, but warning the non-Christians in the church that their true nature would be revealed by fire.

We see this pattern repeated throughout the epistles, so the common notion that references to “saints” in epistle greetings mean that all the readers are Christians is not supported by the text.

Shame on Notre Dame

2009-05-21T07:40:00.003-05:00

Notre Dame University has committed an indefensible crime against the unborn by inviting Obama to speak at their commencement this year and by giving him an honorary degree. Obama is the most ardently pro-abortion politician I have ever seen. He is an accomplice to pre-meditated murder, and this supposedly pro-life university is bestowing honors upon him.

The university tried to defend its actions in a number of nonsensical ways. They said they don't want to ban dialogue and want to encourage discourse. First, there should be no discourse on abortion. It is murder. Would they encourage discourse on exterminating Jews, on enslaving black people, or on slitting the throats of children? Hardly. Yet, they want to encourage discourse on the slaughter of the innocent unborn. Such hypocrisy is damnable.

And having Obama come to speak is not discourse. He lectured the students. He did not debate with them. And when some people tried to offer their opinions outside the commencement, they were arrested and put in jail. So much for discourse.

Notre Dame, you're not fooling anyone. You invited this evil usurper for fame and publicity, and you have sold your collective souls to the devil. May God help you to repent of this wickedness.

Click here for the website mentioned in the video.

The Accusers

2009-05-09T09:36:00.005-05:00

Based on my observations, many people in the church of today have a habit of accusing people of sin in a strangely all-inclusive manner. Whatever their sin du jour is, they often sweep across everyone with a pointing finger. Apparently they think it’s somehow humble or “theologically correct” to assume that everyone is doing what they’re doing.

The photo illustrates my point. The sign says, “We commit the golden rule to memory and forget to commit it to life.”

First of all, who are “we”? The people in this church? If so, that’s not a church I want to attend. If they don’t obey the golden rule, they are being disobedient to God and are likely not people with whom I would want to fellowship. It seems odd to me that they would advertise their church that way. Might next week’s sign say, “We know all about ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but we ignore it”? How about, “Adultery is wrong, but we do it anyway”? That a church would advertise their sin this way is truly troubling and certainly not biblical.

If they mean all people are like this, that’s quite an amazing claim to universal knowledge, and, of course, a faulty one. The Bible says that Christians are saints, and they are obedient in all things (1 John 5:18), so this sign really stands as Satan’s pointing finger, for Satan is the false accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:10).

Yes, this sign is faulty and troubling, but it is, in many ways, a sign of the times. I have seen this kind of language used in many Christian circles. “We’re all sinners,” and “All young men lust,” and “We all fall into this trap,” and “We all wear masks to hide our true selves.”

The accusations, when considered with their inclusive language, are false. True Christians are not sinners, many Christian young men are chaste in body and mind, and some of us have shed all pretentious masks.

Why do many in our culture turn to this kind of negative, accusatory language? Are they hoping to feel better about their particular sins by assuming everyone else must be wallowing in sin with them? Is the false doctrine of the sinning Christian so deeply ingrained that their tongues follow the course set by Satan and his accusing minions? Can’t they see that such statements are not only false, they don’t even make sense?

If all people everywhere are caught in sin and are not obedient, the only practical conclusion is that it is impossible to obey. If that’s true, it doesn’t make sense even to provide the command, and it is certainly unjust to punish sinners eternally for committing sins they can’t help but commit.

Yet, the Bible says that it is not only possible to obey God in all things; it is the only true Christian life. No one who is born of God sins (1 John 3:9 and 5:18), and anyone who claims to be a Christian while still sinning is not telling the truth.

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:3-4)

It’s crucial that we tell the truth about sin, obedience, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can be obedient in all things, and to make universal claims that we are not obedient is an insult to Jesus Christ, who has provided us with the power to obey, as well as the cleansed heart, brimming with love for God, that causes us to want to obey.

As always, I welcome civil comments. It won't be helpful to say that this post makes me the same kind of accuser that I am complaining about. I am pointing out a specific error that is displayed in public, a similar reproof to the ones Jesus made in Matthew 23. I am not making a false, general accusation.

Fathers - Comfort from Strength

2009-04-21T04:46:00.002-05:00

As Father's Day approaches, I will occasionally post an excerpt from my book, The Image of a Father. You can buy an autographed copy from me for only $5 plus shipping by clicking here.

This excerpt is entitlted, "Comfort from Strength."

Fear of the unknown surrounds the young; strange shapes in the darkness, creepy sounds in the night, slithering creatures under the bed or in the closet. They all work together to make little hands clench the sheets and yank them over their heads until the dawn of the next day. Even the worries of the world—political unrest, wars, street crime, and kidnappings—can deeply disturb young minds. They hear the news and imagine the troubles sneaking into their own homes; they magnify the dangers, exaggerating them, having no experience to discern the real risks.

As Christian fathers we realize there is no need for fear. We agree with King David, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me” (Ps. 23:4). We know that our heavenly Father is a God of comfort as the apostle Paul so clearly taught. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort; who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Cor. 1:3, 4).

From this passage, we learn without a doubt that we’re to reflect God’s comforting ways, passing his comfort on to our children. It is through knowing God, experiencing his comfort through our own trials, remembering his mercies when we wondered about the future, seeing his mighty works when we could not see how the days of trouble would end, that we have the confidence to stand now without fear.

Our children don’t have that luxury. They may not have seen a mighty God march to your rescue like the commander of a great army to save you from a dangerous predicament. Perhaps they weren’t there when God’s healing hand touched a friend of yours and brought him back from the brink of death. With few exceptions, they’ve never faced a fierce enemy and experienced deliverance from his evil intent. But if you’ve been a Christian for more than a few years, especially if you’ve done mission work on the gospel frontiers, then you have been there. You have seen God’s powerful hand move to thwart your enemies. You have felt his loving arms wrap around you in the midst of alarm. You have heard of his mighty deeds from brothers and sisters all over the world who have escaped the wiles of Satan, the crafty liar who would seek to stop the spread of the gospel.

As those who have seen and heard the works of God, we have experienced his comforting touch. It’s our duty, therefore, to extend that comfort to our little ones, so they, too, may feel the warm blanket of protection when they suffer the chill of the unknown.

Whether or not monsters really stalk our children from the dark corners of their rooms, tales of God’s protection will help them stare down the murky shadows, and they’ll sleep, heads uncovered, in blissful confidence and peace.

So what stories do we tell? What kind of tale would help our children see the light of God’s protection even in the darkest of times, such as what the Israelites experienced in Old Testament times? They were able to recount the horrible plagues God used to smash the pride of the Egyptian monarch, the parting of a sea that threatened to hem them in against the thundering chariots and the points of sharpened spears, and the conquering of terrifying giants who occupied the fruitful land God had promised. What could compare to those stories of awesome might?

At our home we receive mission magazines, and we delight in reading the stories of our dedicated missionaries in foreign and often dangerous countries. Whether at the dinner table or during our evening devotions, I enjoy watching the wide eyes of the younger children as we recount the dangers, even near-fatal encounters, from which God has rescued countless numbers of his servants.

Of course there are times when God chooses to allow some of his faithful ones to go home to heaven, but even then we emphasize that they’ve gone to a place of comfort, reaching the end of their earthly ministry as faithful soldiers of Christ. We can even rejoice with them. How great is the joy to die in the midst of service to God! Even stories like these bring comfort as the children picture a powerful angel escorting a martyr into a joyous “Welcome Home” celebration.

Along with sharing the stories of others, I frequently sprinkle in my own recollections. Some of God’s works in my life are quite impressive, and I enjoy glorifying the Lord by sharing those situations with my children. And it doesn’t hurt to tell them the same story more than once, for the effects it has on their hearts changes over the years as each child matures in wisdom and understanding. Stories that may seem “small,” God’s little mercies on a day-to-day basis, help our children see God’s intimate care, that he is not just concerned about the big issues—war, disease, and parting seas—but he truly does care for us more than the sparrows he counts in the fields. I tell them about the near miss on the highway, about how a stranger hailed me and gave me the wallet I had just dropped, and about an edifying e-mail from a Christian friend. I also encourage them to tell me about their activities, so we try to identify the events in which we can see God’s protection and resulting comfort.

Sometimes stories of faraway lands and recollections of times long past may not soothe a child who senses a closer, more present danger. Perhaps he’s experiencing a situation no story can address. Although you may unsuccessfully rack your brain to come up with a memory that parallels his troubling circumstance, there’s still a way to help your child find comfort. We don’t have to rely on a specific event God has already handled; we can rely on the immovable foundation of God’s character, the unsearchable depths of his wisdom, and the inestimable reach of his power. Simply put, there’s nothing God can’t handle, and this simple message brings comfort to almost any child. But there is one caveat—you have to live like you believe it; and I’ll explore that issue in a future post.

The U.S. still has no legitimate president

2009-04-19T14:14:00.002-05:00

It is now April 19, and Obama still hasn't proven that he is eligible to be president. Since he admits that he was born a citizen of England, he is, in fact, not a natural born citizen and cannot be the real president.

We must keep this issue in front of the public, because with every day that passes, this usurper is doing irreversible damage to this nation at home and abroad.

Click here for a recent article on this masquerade.

The Code of a Knight - Part Three

2009-04-10T13:12:00.003-05:00

In the previous post, I listed three attributes of a “knight in shining armor,” part of the code of a knight, from my book Spit and Polish for Husbands. Those attributes focused on a knight’s personal character. This time we’ll look at three qualities of a knight’s duty toward others.

A knight seeks what is good for his lady. He never speaks against her honor. He serves her with faithfulness as he strives to meet the needs he is able to fill. He honors the feminine nature, gently caring for a lady as a vessel weaker in physical strength, while understanding her inner courage and spiritual potency. He knows that without her, he has no reason to raise his sword of defense.

Your wife is a treasure. Her value cannot be measured. She is a gift, not only to you, but also to all who have the pleasure of witnessing her distinctive feminine grace. Whether she looks like a model for a fashion magazine or a weatherworn farm girl, her heart is the source of her true beauty. As a knight, you must guard such treasure with your life. Your lady has willingly given up her own potential fortunes and attached herself to you, riding with you in your saddle to whatever horizons you choose. What a fool you would be to consider her a common vessel, an object that’s easily scorned and cast aside. No, although she gladly serves as your helpmate, you are to act as her servant, seeking her good, speaking her honor, and meeting her needs.

She is the reason you draw your sword. She is your inspiration for valiant conduct. Hers is the voice that whispers, “You are strong, my good husband! You can do what is right!” She straps your sword on your belt, fills you with sustenance, and prepares your bed when you return home from your battles, weary and in need of her gentle lap. Without her, you might be a lonely, ill-fitted wanderer, without vision, without passion, and without reason to protect those who count on your courage.

A wife is not a plaything. She is God’s feminine symbol of virtue. She gives her body to her husband, she gives her mind to making a home, and she gives her soul to God. She is far more than gold and jewels. Treat her like the unsurpassable gift she is.

Whether or not your wife lives up to these qualities is irrelevant. Even if she’s a shrieking shrew, it’s your calling to treat her as a holy vessel. May God have mercy on you if you have to live with a cold, contentious woman, but your grace, your potent leadership, and your patient endurance will combine to fashion the kind of man who, with God’s help, can soften her and melt her icy heart.

A knight places the well-being of his children before his own. He is there when they need him, and he never forsakes them, even to his own hurt.

Your children will look to you for protection, for guidance, and as a model for behavior. Don’t let them down. If you don’t spend time with them, teaching them in both word and deed, they will look to other people to find their way in life.

Ask yourself, Whom would I rather they follow: me, or their peers at school or church? Me, or the images of fathers they see on television? They will follow someone, and you need to be a man of valor, integrity, and consistency, a man they will gladly imitate.

A knight is generous. He gives to those who are in need, and he guards those who are weak and cannot defend themselves.

If innocent people are accosted, a knight will never stand idly by. He will spring into action, ready to raise shield or sword to protect someone who is unable to withstand the onslaught of evil. He is ferocious against the wicked, yet gentle with the innocent, especially with women and children.

A knight seeks justice, desiring the guilty to be punished and the blameless to be set free. He uses any prowess at his disposal to expose evil and exonerate and extol what is good, shining the light he bears in order to discern truth, never using it for self-aggrandizement. Although he is aware that all evil deserves punishment, he wields a hand of mercy, showing compassion for the penitent and offering forgiveness to the contrite.

A knight walks a steady balance of passion and compassion. He opens his hand to the begging waif and the weeping widow, not leaving their cups empty or their stomachs wanting. Yet he is ready to battle cold-hearted fiends who oppress the downtrodden, turning his giving hand into a fist of war. (See Revelation 19:11-16.)

Men, what is our response to needy people? Do we give food or money to a beggar in the street? Do we strive to place compassionate leaders in our governing bodies? Do we visit prisoners, encourage the elderly, and send money to missionaries? Do we go to mission fields ourselves?
There are many ways in which we can display our Christ like compassion, taking care to maintain soft hearts within our hardened bodies. The world is filled with frauds who beg for money, and thousands hold out empty hands for food with the same fingers that played video games on the spare television. Don’t let an imposter create calluses on your heart. Jesus faced His share of hypocrites, yet He continued to welcome those who came as children to His helping hands.

A knight strives to be the image of Christ, the forgiving warrior. Jesus stayed the executioners’ hands when they sought to stone an adulterous woman. (See John 8:2-11.) He fashioned a whip and cleared the way for praying Gentiles by overturning trading tables and chasing away moneychangers in the temple. And He will come again, mounted on a horse of war, bringing judgment to those who reject God’s holy Word.

Since these are the final three parts of the knight’s code, I give you these parting thoughts. This is indeed an Old Code, but it isn’t fragile. It has stood the test of time because it was erected on the solid foundation of the Word of God. Through the centuries, the Old Code has never been popular; its adherents may not even know of another man who holds to its standard. In the eyes of lesser men, the code’s most unfavorable quality is not a specific portion of its grand design or a particular rule of conduct; they fear the specter of a man who actually follows the code’s precepts.

Legions of men give lip service to the Old Code saying, “Oh, yes, we should all adhere to these principles.” But they refuse to believe in a man’s ability to obey it. While praising the Old Code’s virtues, they discredit the power to abide in them. As Scripture says, such men hold “to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (2 Timothy 3:5). They can’t seem to believe that any real men have the courage to trust in God’s regenerating work.

We, the modern knights of this age, must not listen to scoffers. We believe in the power of God to help us walk in the pure light of holiness. We will not deny the life-giving power of His Holy Spirit as we display the image of Christ on earth. With this profession of faith, we will add the final portion of the Old Code, a verbal confession, that God alone is the source of the power of godliness. While our humility displays an understanding of our lowly estate, our words must lift up the One who has granted us spiritual freedom. God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, is the emancipator. May that confession ever be on our lips.

The Code of a Knight - Part Two

2009-04-05T07:20:00.003-05:00

In my previous post, I listed three attributes of a “knight in shining armor.” Those attributes focused on a knight’s discipline and preparation. This time we’ll look at three qualities of a knight’s personal character, the heart of the Old Code.

This is an excerpt from my book Spit and Polish for Husbands. If you're interested in purchasing this book from me, click here. If you want discounted bulk copies for a church group, maybe for Father's Day, or for a Bible study, please contact me - bryan (at) dragonsinourmidst (dot) com.

A knight keeps his word and performs what he has spoken. Whatever he commits to do, he will either do it or make arrangements to have it done, or he will die trying. Thus he is careful with his words, using wisdom and discretion with every utterance of his mouth.

A knight tells the truth in a world of lies, remains loyal in a land of betrayal, and works faithfully in a culture of excuses. Even his friends might think he is overzealous, and in this zeal he often stands alone. Yet his peculiar faithfulness makes him trustworthy, even in the eyes of pretenders. His loyalty is unquestioned, even among the unfaithful. If a lie of expediency whispers its desire to be told, a horde of lesser men will stampede to tell it. Not a knight of the Old Code. To speak a falsehood is to spew poison, and he will not allow a drop of venom to leave his tongue, even if offered the treasure of Solomon or threatened with his death.

Our culture celebrates the lie. It laughs at the deceptive antics of bumbling fools on television. It elects politicians who tell the most convincing fables. It winks at “white lies” that allow a man to skip an annoying meeting or avoid a tiresome caller by saying, “Oh, I can’t talk to him right now. Tell him I’m out to lunch.”

And with one shady statement, this man falls from being a knight to being a knave. He may think he’s running with the big dogs, but he’s really wallowing with the pigs.

Whether it’s an income-tax “miscalculation” or a “forgotten” appointment, the common man excuses himself time and time again. With each falsehood, his reputation slips into the shadows, where intentions lose their luster, excuses are peddled, and buyers are few.

Are we living in the shadows? What price do we place on our integrity? A few extra dollars in a tax refund? An escape from a pest? A way out of a jam? What could possibly be worth the stripping of our mantle of honor? And our shame is so much the worse if we make excuses, trying to explain why a code of honor doesn’t apply to us.

In contrast, a knight of the Old Code stands boldly in the sun. He carries no shame. He is unafraid of examination. The next time you look in the mirror, look yourself in the eye. Can you say without a twinge of conscience, “I am a man of honor”? If you can, great! Now, can you look your wife in the eye and say the same thing? Does she hold her hand over her mouth and start spewing laughter? Does she avoid your gaze and change the subject? Or does she embrace you and say, “I know. And I thank God for a man like you”?

Think about it. What kind of example does a liar set? If you allow yourself to tell lies, which lies will you allow your wife to tell you? How about your children? Will they give honest answers to a man who so casually splits his tongue?

Lying spreads like cancer and envelops an entire family. It spins a spider’s web, and it traps a liar in its sticky strands because each lie requires another to keep it from falling apart. A man may begin to believe his own lies, but it won’t take long for everyone else to forsake his word.

Whether it takes a hundred lies or a dozen for someone to lose faith with other people, it takes only one lie to sear his conscience and make him more able to tell the next. With just one lie, he violates the Old Code, and, should his wife discover his falsehood, his armor is stained in her eyes. Only the miracle of grace and forgiveness will ever remove that mark.

A knight keeps himself pure in thought and deed, rejecting association with influences that would cause other people to perceive stain in his character. In other words, he abstains from all appearance of evil.

Although there will always be someone willing to accuse us of wrongdoing, we knights must be careful never to give our enemies a real reason to call our character into question. This application is sometimes obvious: we don’t meet our friends at strip clubs, we stay away from bars, and we never wear T-shirts with questionable printed messages such as “So Many Girls, So Little Time.”

“But I have liberty in Christ,” a person may retort. “I’m free to do what I want as long as I stay away from real sin.” Yes, a strong Christian is free, but he must balance freedom with responsibility. We are not called to serve ourselves in our liberty, but to be beacons fueled by true purity, so that, as the Scripture says, “that you may prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15).

We are to reflect to the world what we really are in our hearts, holy and pure. Our ability to remain unstained in this culture is the light that will draw other people to God. Why risk destroying our reputations by pursuing “freedoms” that are worthless in comparison to guiding someone toward the kingdom of God?

What about our wives? We vowed complete faithfulness to them. Do we display an aura of availability? Do we flirt? Do we spend one-on-one time with other women? Let us always realize that part of our duty as knights is to keep our armor spotless by abstaining from anything that would soil our reputation. The light we shine is easily dimmed in the eyes of others.

A knight is humble. He does not boast of his accomplishments, but he gladly exults in the virtuous deeds of his allies because other good knights will not boast of themselves.

If we successfully follow the Old Code, we’ll discover that we stand head and shoulders above most men. It’s not a sin to notice the reality of our upright character, but we should never let pride sneak into our brains. Without God we would be nothing, non-existent, without even an inkling of a thought. A man who ignores God, though he rule the world, is worthless and less than a blurry blip on creation’s eternal radar. Although we can develop massive muscles, brawny brains, and savvy spirituality, we’re still the creature, not the Creator. Walk humbly, men, knowing that we possess nothing that God hasn’t given us.

Remember, however, that with God-endowed power we’re conquerors for Christ. We can stamp a massive imprint on history. We’re rocks of strength, able to forge a radical difference in this world of marshmallow men.

Think about it. A knight in shining armor is not exactly normal, and I’m not talking about any earth-shattering acts he might achieve. When he simply takes out the garbage without being asked, a news crew (complete with a live-feed satellite van) could roar into his driveway to cover this “breaking story.” And when he changes a dirty diaper? Heaven help us! There’s sure to be live coverage, interviews with his elementary school teachers, and expert opinions from mental-health correspondents. No man in his right mind has ever attempted such a feat of nose-boggling dexterity! The world will lean closer to their television sets as a reporter asks, “How long has your wife been out of town?”

Seriously, every time we make a real sacrifice for others, we’ll shine like beacons in our spiritually dark world. How much more of an eternal impact will we make when we surrender every moment to God’s will? There may be no cameras, microphones, or blurbs on page fifteen of our local newspapers. Our sacrificial acts may pass unnoticed. Men who sacrifice usually bleed alone. But we seek not such rewards of this world: photo opportunities from media hounds, the massaging adoration of clinging fans, or even a pat on the back from sympathetic buddies. We seek only these words from the author and finisher of our faith, “Well done good and faithful servant.” And in these words alone we breathe soul-satisfying sighs. May our Lord always find us faithful.

Next time we’ll look at a knight’s duty toward others.

The Code of a Knight - Part One

2009-04-02T07:32:00.002-05:00

I'm posting another excerpt from my book, Spit and Polish for Husbands. This code of a knight will be posted in multiple parts. If you're interested in purchasing this book from me, click here. If you want discounted bulk copies for a church group, maybe for Father's Day, or for a Bible study, please contact me - bryan (at) dragonsinourmidst (dot) com.

---------------
It’s tough being a good husband. Since our media insists that most men worship sports, relaxation, and a six-pack of beer, we guys don’t have many models of good behavior. To whom can we look in our quest to fulfill our marriage vows to love our wives and our biblical command to be like Christ for them?

There are many codes of conduct we follow in our culture, both written and unwritten. Some are so inviolable most of us would shudder even at the thought of breaking the code. Would we ridicule a crying child who has just lost his parents? Would we trip up a blind man who taps his cane on the sidewalk? Of course not.

Yet society embraces other behavior codes in principle while winking at those who violate them. There is little if any outrage expressed toward a motorist who breaks the speed limit, a taxpayer who inflates his deductions, or a store customer who notices the extra change he receives and pockets it for himself. Why? Because, “Everyone’s doing it.” Or, as some might say, “Nobody’s perfect.”

We live in a culture of excuses. “Pardon me for breaking my promise,” so many cry, “I’m only human.” And with this lame apology, many vows of fidelity are tossed away like yesterday’s newspaper, valuable and fresh one day, a birdcage lining the next. A man shatters a code of conduct without fear of retribution, because his fellows nod their understanding of his weaknesses.

Husbands, we need not conform to this weak, faithless confession. We can be so much more than the spineless men that many expect us to be. We believe that God gives us the power to honor the laws He lays down, to follow the path He calls us to tread. The code of conduct that God has established for us shines as a bright light in a world that condones darkness. God’s plan for men is established on the foundation of Christ our perfect model, built with the bricks of men who are unafraid to flex their God-given muscles, and held together by the mortar of masculine courage. With faith in God’s promises, we can follow that code. We can change the world.

I chose “knights in shining armor” as my illustration because of the magnificence of the legendary code of the knights, a system of character and conduct to which the warriors of old promised to adhere. The Old Code, as it is called in modern times, was based on the Bible’s description of a real man, the image of godly masculinity. It captures, in effect, the chivalry of days gone by.

Although popular media have attempted to canonize the Old Code in songs and poems, no ancient document, as far as I know, spells it out word for word. Therefore I will summarize it, having gleaned the code’s principles from several authoritative sources.
For this issue’s installment, I’ll focus on three aspects of a knight’s discipline and preparation.

A knight exercises his body in order to increase and maintain his strength. Without bodily discipline, he will not be able to defend those within his fold of protection.

Most men enjoy the thought of having muscular bodies, bulging biceps, rock hard abs, and pectorals that make their shirts bulge at chest level rather than over their belts. But for the majority, it’s just a dream. As the mind wanders into what it takes to get those muscles—gut-busting labor, hours of sweaty, lung-piercing agony, refusing a second slice of Boston cream pie—many men realize why they don’t already have that kind of body. It’s hard work! It hurts, especially missing out on extra pie!

As they say, “No pain, no gain.” The desires of the body are powerful, both in what it yearns for and what it cries out against. When the desires of the flesh rule the mind, the body relaxes, eats whatever it wants, and disdains exercise. It becomes flabby, and it drags the mind down with it, resulting in laziness.

We don’t need grotesquely overdeveloped Mr. Universe bodies. We need strength, tone, and physical vigor. Our minds are to gain control over our bodies, and the rigors of exercise help us to maintain that mastery. And, most important, the benefits of bodily strength spill over into spiritual virtue as we wake up with ease, face the labors of each day without dread, and give confidence to those whom we protect. Our mental faculties are more acute, and our discipline, by itself, gives us the confidence to rule over the desires of our bodies.

The bottom line (pun intended) is that our toned bodies will please our wives. No woman seeks to be married to the Pillsbury DoughboyTM. Although he’s a cute guy in his white chef’s hat, and he makes great chocolate-chip cookies, the greasy little gnome giggles when a woman pushes on his cholesterol-coated belly. When your wife pushes your waistline, you want her to say, “Wow! Now that’s a nice set of abs!” We can’t all be great cookie bakers, but I’m sure each of our wives will be glad to make the trade, getting an “Oh, boy!” instead of a doughboy.

I know some of you may have illnesses or handicaps, and you’re not able to get into great shape. That’s okay. Just commit to becoming as physically fit as possible. The goal isn’t measured by the size of your muscles; it’s accomplished in your mind’s control over your body. It’s the strength you exude simply because you have dominion over your desires. It’s the joy of victory in a world that accepts defeat.

Be strong for your wife; she’ll appreciate it. If you have children, they’ll love seeing a fit and trim dad. Your strength will give them confidence. Plus, the ability to have dominion over your physical body will allow you to triumph in your spiritual walk. Whether in food or drink, grief or anger, joy or exultation, you’ll be able to respond to your inner drives according to what is needful and proper.

A knight exercises his mind in order to keep his thoughts nimble, orderly, and disciplined against wandering. Many benefits of bodily self-control parallel those of mental discipline. A brain becomes flabby, in a sense, if it’s allowed to atrophy. How can we rightly divide the truth, defend the faith, and counter the wiles of the devil if our brains have turned to mush?

The mentally feeble Christian accepts what he’s taught without question. He decides to trust his pastor or a favorite television preacher, no matter how strange the teaching sounds. When it comes to brainstorming, he’s satisfied with a breezy drizzle instead of a holy hurricane. He is not like the Bereans, who were noble-minded, “for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

We don’t need great intellects in order to prepare our brains for God’s service. Even if our IQs are lower than our body temperatures, we can still be ready to march as cerebral soldiers in the war against evil ideas and faulty theology. The first step is to read books written by great thinkers—interacting with their ideas, wrestling with their logical progressions, and questioning their conclusions.

A great book to launch such a mental quest is Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. Although Lewis delves into spiritual subjects with intellectual rigor, he writes on a level that most people can understand. Another good idea is to take time to sample more than one side of an issue. For example, you could read Chosen by God by R. C. Sproul, and then pick up Elect in the Son by Robert Shank. For a greater challenge, work through some of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and then read a few essays by James Arminius or John Wesley.

In order to really get our brains into gear, we could participate in a discussion group with other men who wish to exercise their thinking skills. We should choose wisely. We need to be with humble men of controlled temperament who are willing to have their opinions challenged, and who are genuinely seeking biblical truth.

We can also discuss what we learn with our families. As we communicate wisdom, we’ll discover new insights or even holes in our understanding, giving us impetus to go back and study again. We must not let uncertainty discourage us. This is to be a lifelong pursuit. Just as our physical muscles will waste away without regular workouts, our brains will return to their former atrophied states if their only form of exercise comes from video games or insipid television programming. With our bodies, as they say, “You are what you eat.” God help us if the same is true for a media-manipulated brain.

A knight exercises his inner man in order to know and relate to God, the creator of man’s spirit, the aspect of man’s being that transcends the physical. Without eternal perspective, a knight’s physical and mental pursuits will count for nothing. Whether he slays dragons, rescues fair maidens, or even conquers kingdoms, if he dies and rots in the grave he has accomplished nothing of lasting value. Deep down, each knight knows there is something beyond this earth.

A knight’s quest for purpose begins in his heart. Being a man of God is a long, hard ride. He needs a reason to endure the saddle sores of daily self-sacrifice and to resist the bitter winds of tribulation. He first looks to his lady, the woman for whom he draws his sword. Yes, she is worth fighting for, even to the death, but like the flowers of the field she will also pass away. Only the Word of God lasts forever, and on the rock of this confession a knight can endure any hardships and withstand any storms.

To build on that foundation, a knight must seek wisdom—the basic source of spiritual nutrition that feeds his soul. Where will he find it? You guessed it, in the Bible. There’s no excuse for lacking in biblical knowledge. The greatest source of dynamic spiritual energy in the universe lies between two easily parted covers of leather or paper. It is gift-wrapped wisdom. It is spiritual adrenaline disguised as ink on paper. It is a smorgasbord for our souls. It is ready to eat, tastier than a military MRE, infinitely more nutritious, and, best of all, there are no dishes to clean up.
So, let’s study it! If we need help, there are mountains of good study guides and more than a handful of people at churches who will gladly help us to understand the basics of Bible study.

Once we’re reasonably equipped in these rudiments, however, we should learn to feed ourselves. A man alone with God and His Word is the first step in God’s plan for each person who calls upon His name. God seeks worshipers who love Him with all their hearts. And in our quiet places, in solitary communion with our Lord, we will digest the spiritual food and drink that will empower us for His service.

Having firmly embraced God’s Word, a knight gains confidence in God’s guiding hand. He finds reason to be courageous. He knows that God will always keep His Word, never leaving him or forsaking him. God is his security, his everlasting source of comfort. Although his wife offers many assurances, a knight doesn’t have to rely on any earthly source of security.

In the next post, I’ll continue with the code of a knight and look at three aspects of a knight’s personal character.

Skin Cancer

2009-03-21T04:47:00.002-05:00

With the popularity of the movie Fireproof and its associated books, and the conversation in Christian circles regarding pornography, I am posting an excerpt from my book Spit and Polish for Husbands modified slightly for this post. This post is rated PG-13, so please keep that in mind.
------
There is an adulterous woman who lurks in the shadows, quiet and unseen, without consistent shape or physical substance, yet is more alluring than the street harlot and just as destructive as the motel tryst. She seeks your company, often posing as a damsel in distress. Her poses beg for your attention; they seek to be rescued from loneliness. Although she wears no clothes, she bears a sword, ready to cut your heart in two, setting body in conflict with spirit. From the slick pages of a magazine or the colorful images of a computer screen, she awaits your peering eyes, ready to strike with her naked dagger. She is the harlot of pornography.

Why do the hearts of so many married men become divided? Although they have wives whom God designed to meet their physical needs, why are they tempted to seek the pleasures of another? For many men, physical adultery is a well-recognized taboo. Physically violating the wedding vows, even in our permissive society, is still considered by most Christians to be a sign of unfaithfulness to God, an act that proves an unsaved spiritual state. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9.) A divided heart that leads to spiritual adultery, however, has not gained such public condemnation.

Millions of men dive into the cesspool of pornography, purposefully filling their eyes with forbidden fruit. Although they may never touch another woman’s body, their minds entertain the thoughts, their lusts traveling from woman to woman, gaining mental and even physical pleasure from the images these willing females produce.

What is the allure of these undressed and apparently sexually insatiable woman? With pursed, come-hither lips, she curls her inviting finger, exposing and caressing her smooth, airbrushed flesh. She is the image of desire, a lonely woman begging for a man’s fulfilling touch, and not just any man. She wants you. She’s begging for you to take her and have your way with her. She’s there for your pleasure. “Come and take me,” she calls. “I need you!”

And it’s all a lie.

The woman is a whore. She poses for money, nothing more, nothing less. She doesn’t care about any man who mentally rapes her with his eyes and mind. In fact, if you venture into her lair, she will likely disdain or even hate you, perhaps laughing at your weakness as she overpowers you so easily with a mere flash of flesh. How many men have allowed her to poison their minds, committing spiritual adultery with this harlot of hate who reveals her body while stealing a man’s soul?

For the lips of an adulteress drip honey,
And smoother than oil is her speech;
But in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
Sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death,
Her steps lay hold of Sheol.
She does not ponder the path of life;
Her ways are unstable, she does not know it (Proverbs 5:3-6).

Pornography is a simple formula, although the user allows himself to be unaware of its devices. It invites wandering eyes to drink from its lovely pool, promising a quenched thirst. Alas! The thirst is far from quenched! The harlot’s drink is a pill of salt; it makes a man beg for deeper draughts, more skin, younger girls, views of lesbian encounters, until images alone are unable to satisfy. Each sip whets the addiction as a man is entrapped by the harlot’s poison, and his mind is imprisoned in pornography’s deadly snare. Solomon wrote, “For on account of a harlot one is reduced to a loaf of bread, and an adulteress hunts for the precious life” (Proverbs 6:26).

Jesus said, “Everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Can a man claim that he looks at images of nude women without lusting, that his reasons for seeking the harlot’s exposed skin are holy? Hardly! This lust is adultery, pure and simple, and a man who pursues this course has broken his vows. And with whom has he mated? He has pursued a mere phantom. He has thrown away his virtue for colored dots on a printed page. He has cast away his wife in pursuit of pixels on a computer screen.

The Internet has certainly helped pornography purveyors capture a whole host of men. An innocent engine search may yield a dozen lurid descriptions, inviting a simple click to reach images of women who beg for your attention. No magazines to hide. No trips to the video store. No evidence of evil. One mouse click and a dozen smiling beauties await your caressing eyes. Simple curiosity leads many into the snare, trapping the minds of those who don’t dash for the exit in disgust. First a sip, then a draught, and the harlot has captured another lover.
But where is thy wife, O man? For whom hast thou cast her aside?

Drink water from your own cistern,
And fresh water from your own well.
Should your springs be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be yours alone,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
As a loving hind and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
Be exhilarated always with her love.
For why should you, my son, be exhilarated with an adulteress,
And embrace the bosom of a foreigner? (Proverbs 5:15-20).

Why do so many men seek strange flesh? The mystery of the unknown? The excitement of the forbidden? The desire to conquer? Any of these excuses is surely inadequate. There is simply no good reason, as Proverbs 6:32-33 reveals:

The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense;
He who would destroy himself does it.
Wounds and disgrace he will find,
And his reproach will not be blotted out.

Let’s get real, guys. What’s this pornography stuff all about, anyway? Freak shows aside, more than 99 percent of the women in these pictures look pretty much alike, with body parts in the same places. Breasts are in front, buttocks are in back, there are two arms and two legs, and an epidermis holding it all together. There aren’t many surprise arrangements. There goes the mystery excuse. And we won’t conquer these women; they’re untouchable. In fact, if we lust after them, they’ve conquered us. We’ve fallen into their trap.

That leaves us with the excitement-of-the-forbidden excuse, the hormonal rush that accompanies the peek through the keyhole, the stolen view of what lies beneath the clothing, the places no one is allowed to see. “Come take a look, Mister, and I’ll show you something you’ll like … just for you.”

Get over it. These women aren’t giving you a private peak; they’re strutting their stuff for anyone with eyes. Forbidden? Yes. For your eyes only? Forget about it. These harlots put their bodies on show, inviting deeper draughts for paying customers. All they really want is your money. You can waste your endorphins on a lie, see hate masquerading as love, and the hormonal rush prompts the desire for more as each drink creates new thirst.

If you’re addicted to pornography, you need to meditate on reality—the truth of the hateful harlot. She’s a stalker, a seductress, a destroyer. She will poison your soul. She has nothing to offer that you haven’t seen before; even her body is just a fleeting image. She’s certainly not a damsel in distress, and it’s not your duty to rescue her, even in your mind.

Tell me, would you look at pornographic images with your wife? Would you sit down and say, “Honey, come take a look at this gal! Isn’t she hot?” May it never be! Such an act would be shameful. Yet this is a good test and a faithful standard to use in avoiding what is shameful. If you’re ever contemplating an act, ask yourself if you would do it in your wife’s presence. If the answer is no, don’t do it.

Say this along with me: “I will never do anything in private for which I would be ashamed in public.” Repeat this promise, and embed it in your mind.

Remember, too, that you’re never really in private. God always looks over your shoulder. Would you say to Him, “Get a load of this one, Lord! She’s a looker!” God forbid! Yet millions of men act as though God can’t see them. But He not only sees everything in your view, He reads everything in your mind. He is watching. Do we believe it? Do we care? Will we invite Him to inspect everything we view? Would we mind showing to Jesus Christ everything we bring up on our computer screens, every image our eyes rest upon in magazines, every television channel that makes us pause as we look for a decent program?

Isn’t this the test of faith? Isn’t how we act in private a true reflection of what we believe about God, that He is really who He says He is, the ever-present, omniscient Lord?

How do I know about pornography and its power? I once dove into that cesspool. Years before I became a Christian, I sought the excitement of the forbidden, the hormonal rush that made my heart beat faster and my teenaged hands shake with anticipation. Thanks be to God, my swim in the sewer was brief. Although I did not yet know Him, I believe God helped me discern the folly of allowing these images to control my mind.

Until I became a Christian, some of those images haunted my mind, stamped into my memory like a searing brand. Such is the power of a pornographic image. The chemical high makes it adhere to the mind. The memories fly like bats unbidden and lurk during both waking and sleeping moments.

Yet there is a cure. As we set our minds on the things above, where Christ is, memories of evil begin to vanish. As Paul taught:

If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:1-3).

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you (Philippians 4:8-9).

Even if you have imbibed the poison of pornography for years, God can give you peace. Give your life to Christ, and He will shatter the unfruitful images as your mind learns to dwell on what is pure and honorable. Leave your adulterous ways behind, and God will help you walk in holiness, giving you the ability never to stray again in your mind.

Your wife is your one and only damsel. Never seek another. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times, and be exhilarated always with her love.

Excuses, excuses - Romans Chapter 7

2009-03-08T19:08:00.002-05:00

When people defend the concept of sin in a Christian, the reasons they give for continued sin after salvation are often lame excuses. Strangely enough, words defending sin come from the lips of those who claim to love God. They say they try to obey, yet they continue to rebel against Him in some manner. This, of course, is unreasonable.

Does a reasonable person rebel against a beloved master? Does a servant of the Almighty lack the power to obey? Of course not. So the words a sinner uses to excuse his rebellious behavior are really a weak cover up. They either misrepresent God and His word or shift blame in a disingenuous manner.

One of the most common excuses for sin comes from Romans chapter seven. Many interpret Paul’s story of struggle with sin as one that occurred while he was a Christian, and, or so the excuse claims, if Paul struggled with sin, somehow that means that all Christians struggle, thereby creating an excuse that legitimizes sinful behavior in the individual.

There are many problems with both the interpretation of the passage and the application. It seems strange to me that anyone would point to another person’s sin and use it as an excuse for his own. For example, if a pastor of a church molests a child, would a layman in the church dare do the same and then claim the pastor’s example as an excuse? Would he dare say, “The pastor molested a child. So it stands to reason that I would, too”?

I assume everyone would agree that such an appeal is absurd. It would be a moral outrage. Yet, this is what people are doing when they compare themselves to Paul and his struggle. “Paul struggled with sin, so it stands to reason that I would, too.” This is exactly the same. There is no difference. It doesn’t matter if the sin is molestation, lying, lust, theft, or an unkind word. In every case, the idea of pointing out another person’s sin in order to exonerate oneself is a moral outrage.

But it’s even worse than that. In Paul’s case, he wasn’t even describing his life as a regenerate man. He was describing his life under the law, before Jesus stopped him in his murderous march toward Damascus, so an appeal to this passage as an excuse for sin is even more unreasonable.
So that readers won’t have to look up the passage, I will be quoting sections here.

Romans 7:1-13
1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God. 5For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; 10and this commandment, which was to result in life proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. 12So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here is an overview of the chapter and its context: The first verse is meant to be a further explanation of truths declared in the previous chapter. Paul starts an illustration section in verse 1 of chapter 7 when he says, “Or do you not know brethren.” He then provides an illustration of bondage to law in verses 2 and 3. Following that, he brings the examples down to earth by relating the doctrine to the readers in verses 4 through 6. Paul goes on to paint a picture of bondage under the law from verses 7 through 25 and then describes what freedom from the law means in chapter 8, verses 1 through 11.

Now for the details. The first six verses of chapter 7 explain how a person escapes from the bondage of law; he must die to it. An example is given in verses 2-3, and Paul shows how the concept works for Christians in verses 4-6. Note the past tense in verse 5, "For while we were in the flesh.” This will become important later.

Paul has taken great pains to this point to make these statements clear:

1. Christians have died with Christ. (6:3)

2. By doing this they have died to the Law. (7:6)

3. By this they have also been freed from sin. (6:18, 22)

4. They have also become slaves of God and of obedience to God. (6:10-11, 13, 16, 22)

Verse 7 of chapter 7 starts an interesting view into Paul's life. He apparently is not satisfied with a pure, step by step theological analysis, but also wants to put meat on the discussion by placing his past life in the open as an example.

There are two deaths to describe in his illustration. First is the spiritual death to God that comes from sinning, illustrating Romans 6:23, "for the wages of sin is death." The second is the death to the law and the coincident rebirth to God, thereby demonstrating Romans 7:6, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound.” Both kinds of death are included to make the example complete.

Verses 7-13 of chapter 7 clearly speak about a past experience. The past tenses throughout show this, and the wording reveals that the first death, the death to God, occurred before Paul became a Christian. Verse 9 indicates that this death occurred when “the commandment came,” which is probably a reference to Paul's understanding of God's expectations of him, whether through the Old Testament written law or through revelations of conscience.

Paul, being a zealous Pharisee, certainly knew God’s law long before his conversion, so this coming of the commandment must also have occurred before his conversion. It will be important to remember that this passage (7:7-13) is about a past experience as I examine the next passage.

Romans 7:14-25
14For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

In this section Paul switches from past to present tense in his illustration, without otherwise changing the time of the events. Verse 14 is certainly connected with the previous passage, because the word "for" is used as an explanatory introduction. There is also no change in the pronoun, "I." The person described in verses 7-13 is certainly a man under the law, so since the pronoun does not change, we should assume that this is the same man in verse 14, unless a change is given explicitly. But is this the same man under the same condition as in the preceding verses (7:7-13), enslaved to the law and to sin? Apparently so, because the verse says that he is both of flesh and sold under sin.

Remember that Paul has taken great pains to say that a Christian is freed from sin (6:18, 22), and now he says that he is sold into bondage to sin, or, more literally, sold under sin. It is also clear in verse 9 of chapter 8 that Christians are not in the flesh, “However you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Galatians 5:24 says, “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Christians are not "in the flesh" and have "crucified the flesh," but in Romans 7 Paul is saying that he is "of flesh.” This is certainly not a description of one who is a Christian. These two ideas, being of flesh and in slavery to sin, contradict the clear lessons that Paul has taught in this section of Scripture. Remember verse 5 of chapter 7 where Paul says "while we were in the flesh"? The illustration at hand describes this “in the flesh” time, but the obvious implication is that Christians are not in the flesh.

If Paul is not describing his present experience, then why does he use the present tense? With Greek, a tense does not necessarily indicate the time of an action; it is used to indicate the type of action that is being described. The time of an action may also be indicated (depending on the mood of the verb) but even then only the context will reveal it. When this passage is considered with its context, making the assumption that this is the present condition of Paul is at best, very confusing and at worst, impossible.

Using the present tense in an illustrative way (the "historical" present), even when reflecting on a past event or series of events, is not unusual. Paul uses much of chapter 7 to illustrate the truths explained in the previous chapters, especially the truths in chapter 6 in which the death of the old self is taught. To illustrate the death of this self Paul explains, starting in verse 1 of chapter 7, how bondage to the law requires death for release. His explanation includes an illustration in verses 2 and 3. Notice that the illustration is about a person's relationship to the Law and that it uses present tense verbs. It is followed in verse 4 by a "therefore" statement relating the readers to that illustration, that they have died to the Law in order to be joined to Christ. Paul follows with another teaching section from verse 7 to verse 13 explaining how people become bound by the Law and sin in the first place.

In order to better explain this teaching section, Paul again gives an illustration, and again it is about a person's relationship to the Law using the present tense. Paul's illustration technique is consistent, and he follows it up again with another "therefore" statement in chapter 8 verse 1 comparing the readers' position to that of the illustrated individual.

I’ll try to break this down in an orderly way:

We have two teaching sections that begin with “What shall we say then?”
Romans 6:1-23 is one of those teaching sections: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”
Christians are dead to sin, so they no longer sin, and the remainder of the chapter talks about that in detail. Then, Paul provides a present tense illustration in chapter 7:1-3 where he explains how death to the law brings about freedom from the law. Then, in chapter 7:4-6, Paul makes a comparison to his readers, “Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ.”

In a similar manner, Paul starts another teaching sections in 7:7-13, using identical beginning words, “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.” The teaching section goes through verse 13. Then, as he did in verses 1-3, he gives a present tense illustration in verses 14-25, followed by a comparison to his readers that begins with a “therefore.”

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

It should be clear that Paul is being consistent in his explanatory and illustrative way of teaching. He uses the present tense in both illustrations in order to describe truth about the law and its bondage. He is not making statements about his current life.

The present tense argument is truly weak. It cannot overpower the obvious contradictions between the condition of the man in the chapter 7 segment and the explicit descriptions of a Christian in the rest of the book, especially when a clear reason is given for the use of the present tense to make an illustration.

After telling about how he died to God spiritually, Paul uses the present tense to describe his ongoing sinful condition which occurred in the past, and then, in verses 24-25, he magnifies the awesomeness of the salvation that is in Christ. Finally, in Romans 8:1, Paul makes it clear that he is reverting back to the real present (not historical present) rather than the Greek "present" of the illustration when he writes; "There is therefore now no condemnation ... ". The "now" indicates that there is no condemnation for those who are free from the condition that he has just described. The "now" is in opposition to the time being illustrated immediately before the verse. If the chapter seven passage was really the present time and his present condition, then the “now” wouldn’t make any sense.

The present tense argument fails to prove that this is Paul’s condition as a believer. It is not possible for a person to be both enslaved to sin and not enslaved to sin at the same time. The person in the passage is enslaved to sin, and a Christian is not enslaved to sin. It is not possible for a person to be both in or of the flesh and not in or of the flesh. The person in the passage is of flesh, and a Christian is not in the flesh and has crucified the flesh.

Perhaps the most obvious contradiction between the person of this passage and the condition of a Christian occurs between 7:23 and 8:2. In 7:23, Paul is made “a prisoner of the law of sin,” and in 8:2, Paul says that those who are in Christ Jesus have been set "free from the law of sin and of death." Is a Christian a prisoner of the law of sin? The second verse says that he is not. Paul says that he is such a prisoner in chapter 7. A Christian cannot be both a prisoner of sin and not a prisoner at the same time, so Paul is not referring to a believer in the chapter 7 passage.

Again, the present tense argument is not strong enough to overpower the obvious contradictions between the condition of the man in chapter 7 and the explicit descriptions of a Christian in the rest of the section.

Therefore, this section of Romans chapter seven describes a man under the Law, before he becomes a Christian. Any professing Christian who uses this to excuse his own sin or somehow find a biblical description of sin in a Christian does so erroneously. The man with whom he is comparing himself is not a Christian. So those who see such parallels in their own lives are really finding evidence that they, themselves, are also unbelievers who need to cry out with Paul in his unregenerate state, “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” and then find the power of God to be set free from sin.

This explanation of Romans 7 is sufficient to prove that Paul is not writing about a Christian’s struggle with sin. It is about the struggle an unregenerate man who is under the law. It’s true that many unregenerate men have no such struggle. They don’t agree with the law that it is good. Yet, some unregenerate men do agree with the law, and Paul was one of them. This kind of unregenerate man is the topic of the passage.

My main point is that every appeal to Scripture that tries to “explain” sin in an individual professing Christian is nothing but an excuse. A person who loves Jesus will never sin. Christians have the desire and the power to obey, and that combination can never fail to bring about the desired results—obedience to God every minute of every day.

Definition of Sin - Part Two

2009-02-27T18:08:00.002-06:00

Regarding the definition of sin I proposed in my previous post, someone may well say, "If sin is action or inaction against knowledge, then how do you explain the 'unintentional' sins of Leviticus 4:2 and Numbers 15:27-28?” An unintentional sin must be without knowledge, by definition."

If the meaning of "unintentional" in these passages is the modern meaning of the word, then the objector is correct. An unintentional act is one that is carried out by someone who does not "intend" to do it. This would be an accident and would surely be done without any thought about its rightness or wrongness. However, this is not what is meant by the word, "unintentional," as it is translated in the Scriptures. The Numbers passage gives a good clue as to what is meant by the word.

Numbers 15:28-31
And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven. You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them. But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.

This unintentional sin is set in opposition to a sin of defiance, a sin that causes blasphemy. The person who acts this way is described as one who despises the word of the Lord. In other words, if a sin is not unintentional, then it is defiant. Why? When it says, "You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally" and then "But the person who does anything defiantly," the passage is stating that there are two laws to be used, and no more options are given. All who act in defiance are to be punished by being cut off, and there is no atonement or sacrifice that can be made to make up for their sin. Therefore, if atonement or some kind of punishment other than being cut off is allowed to make up for a particular sin, then that sin must be of the unintentional variety. Again, there are no other options. They are only two laws.

For example, in Deuteronomy 22:28, if a man rapes an unengaged virgin, then he has a penalty to pay. Since he is not cut off from his people, he must have committed an unintentional sin, as defined in Numbers 15. It is hard to believe that rape is unintentional according to a common understanding of "unintentional." The act is done with knowledge and intent and is certainly no accident. However, it is not necessarily done defiantly, as in the defiant shaking of the fist at God.

The "unintentional" sin of the Old Testament is really sin that is not defiant, a sin that is committed with knowledge and intent but without direct contempt for God. Notice the following example:

Exodus 22:28-29
And if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished. If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring, and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.

In the first ox goring case, the owner has no knowledge of the ox's goring potential, and he has no sin. By our common definition of the word, unintentional, we might say that the ox owner committed an unintentional act; he allowed a dangerous ox to gore someone. But since there is no punishment for his act, it is likely that God did not consider his ignorance to be sinful. It is only when the owner has knowledge of the ox's goring potential that he is liable and considered to be sinning. He knew of the problem, and chose to do nothing about it. Clearly the ox owner had knowledge or was at least responsible for that knowledge. This law provides a clear example of a truly unintentional act, which includes a transgression of the law, that is not considered a sin.

There is no truly unintentional sin. The phrase that is translated "sins unintentionally" in Leviticus 4 and Numbers 15 is better translated "sins in error." In other words, it is a sin that is considered an error, something done that does not reflect the attitude of the person committing it, and it is not an action that is done in defiance. In 1 Samuel 26:21, Saul uses a closely related word that is translated by the NASB as "error." Saul's actions were intentional by the standard of today's meaning of intentional. When the same word is used in Leviticus 4:13, however, it describes actions that are called unintentional in Leviticus 4:22, 4:27, and Numbers 15. Apparently, these "unintentional sins" are committed intentionally.

Someone may object and say that in Leviticus 4:14, 4:23, and 4:27, the sin had to be made known to the one who committed it, so the transgression must not have been committed with knowledge if the transgressor did not know of it. The objector would say that this is made clear in Leviticus 5:2-3 where a person is guilty for simply touching an unclean thing that is hidden from him.

In the cases listed in Leviticus chapter 5, and in other cases of "unintentional" sin, the offense is made known to the offender. It is impossible for an event to be made known, or revealed, to a person if he does not already know that the event occurred and if he caused the event himself. He may be reminded of an act that he had forgotten or be given evidence of an occurrence that he did not see or hear, but he must know about his own actions in order to remember the event.

If he truly did not remember something that he supposedly did, then he would deny the accusation, and perhaps be right in doing so. If he is persuaded that he did something based solely on evidence, but he still does not remember the event, then it could be said that it was made known to him in one sense. However, this kind of "knowledge," based only on evidence and not on self-witness, is probably not the kind of knowing that is in mind.

When something is made known to someone in the context of this passage, it probably means that the person is told about the wrongness of an act that he remembers or knows that he carried out. In Leviticus 5:2-3 the person who touches the unclean thing either: (1) touched something that he did not realize was unclean and was later told that it was not clean or (2) touched something that was unclean not knowing what it was, and the object was identified later.

The person is declared to be guilty by the passage, but the nature of what caused the guilt is not clear. In the first possible scenario (#1), the person is clearly guilty, because he is responsible for knowing what is clean and what is not clean. This is sin according to the proposed definition. The second possibility (#2) involves true ignorance and is similar to the ox owner not knowing that his ox is in the habit of goring. In that similar event, the ox owner is not guilty of sin. Since the person in the Leviticus passage is guilty, and since a similar transgression in ignorance (the ox owner) did not produce guilt, the first scenario is more likely to be accurate than the second.

Although the second possibility could fit the scenario of 5:2-3, the option is not required, since another explanation is possible. In light of verse 4 of the chapter, where the sin is committed "thoughtlessly" and with knowledge, and in light of the ox owner's innocence in true ignorance, it is reasonable to conclude that the sins of verses 2 and 3 also are in the realm of knowledge responsibility and not of true ignorance. There are other verses that could be considered, but the arguments for and against the proposed definition of sin, in these cases, are similar.

Now for a summary of the preceding argument.

The objector's logic runs like this:

1. The proposed definition of sin is an act against knowledge.

2. The Bible says that there are unintentional (NASB) sins or sins of ignorance (KJV).

3. Unintentional acts are not "intended", so they are not against knowledge.

4. Therefore, there are sins that are not against knowledge, and the definition is faulty.

The rebuttal is as follows:

1. The "unintentional" sins are revealed in context to be sins that are not "defiant". These two categories encompass all sins, so any sin is either defiant or unintentional.

2. Defiant sins are punished by "cutting off".

3. Some sins that are clearly "intentional", by the common definition of the word, are not punished by "cutting off".

4. These sins must be put in the "unintentional" category, since they are not punished by cutting off.

5. Since there are intentional sins in the unintentional category, either the definition of intentional must change, or the name of the category must change.

6. Since the English translation should fit the common definitions of words, and since the word, unintentional, does not fit the common definition, the translation is a bad one.

7. Since the word should not be translated as unintentional, and, in fact, the sins described are intentional, the Bible does not affirm that there are unintentional sins.

8. The objector's second assumption is proven false, and since this assumption is necessary for his conclusion to be true, his objection cannot be sustained.

Definition of Sin - Part One

2009-02-22T14:18:00.002-06:00

I have been asked by a couple of commenters to provide a definition of sin, so I will do that now.

The Greek word most often used for “sin” in the Bible is harmartia. Its root meaning is a missing of a mark or target, but such a definition reveals very little until the "mark" is identified. Theologically speaking, some would say that the mark is all of the character and attributes of God Himself, meaning that any action, word, or thought that is not equal to the manner, quality, or quantity with which God would perform the same action is sin. By this definition, for example, if a person does not love with the quantity or quality with which God would love, then he is sinning. This is a fair attempt at defining the mark and, by extension, sin, but it is flawed as follows.

A basic doctrine, which I will not defend here, is that there will be no sin in heaven. Yet, even in heaven no one will be able to hit the mark as it is defined above. No person will be able to love to the degree or with the quality with which God loves. If a person were able to match this and all of God's other character attributes, then he would be a god himself. Scripture does not allow for the possibility of a created being becoming a god, for there is only one god. If someone wishes to hold to this definition of sin, let him show that there will be sin in heaven or how he can attain to the character attributes of God when reaching heaven.

A second and perhaps more convincing way that this definition is flawed is in the lack of Scriptural backing for it. In fact, Scripture seems to define sin and the mark rather differently, and here is the definition I have put together based on biblical evidence.

A person sins only when he acts in opposition to what he knows is right or to what he should know is right. These acts are defined as any action taken in doing what is known to be wrong or in not doing what is known to be right, and this set of actions includes those which are in opposition to facts not known but for which an individual is responsible for knowing. These acts can be performed in thought, word, or deed.

And now I will provide the evidence for this definition.

John 9:41
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, "We see; your sin remains."

In context, blindness refers to lack of knowledge of the truth. Here, the Pharisees are told that if they did not know the truth, "were blind," then they would have no sin. Therefore knowledge of right or wrong is a necessary component of sin.

John 15:20-24
Remember the word that I said to you, "A slave is not greater than his master." If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.

Once again the revelation that is gained by experiencing the person and miracles of Christ is the difference between having sin and not having sin. If the persecutors had acted in the same way toward Jesus while not knowing of His works as they acted while knowing of His works, then they would not have sinned.

Romans 7:8-9
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died.

Romans 4:15
for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation.

These passages also demonstrate that there is sin only with the knowledge of the law. When the knowledge of the law comes into the life of a person, because he is without God and therefore has only self to please, he rebels against the law. There is no “mark” to miss when the law has not made itself known. How can a target be missed when there is no target? It’s impossible.

The next passage has been used by some to show that there is sin without law.

Romans 5:13
for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

The argument is that since there is no law between Adam and Moses, and since death is the result of sin and death reigned from Adam until Moses, there must have been sin during that time. The previous verse says that "all sinned," so it must be possible to sin without the Law, or so the argument goes. When Paul implies that there was no law between Adam and Moses, he must be referring to the Mosaic law or he would not have ended the "lawless" period with a reference to Moses.

The whole point of the passage is that there was indeed a law during that time. Since "sin is not imputed when there is no law", there must be an explanation for the imputation that actually did exist during that time. We know that there was an imputation, because "death reigned". There was no Mosaic law yet, but there was a law that could be known. Romans 2:14-15 points out that the Gentiles could know the law of God instinctively without the written revelation and were responsible for it. Paul's point is that there was a law to be obeyed, and he used the concept that sin must have law present to prove that there must have been some kind of law in existence.

Here is more evidence for my definition of sin:

Romans 14:23
But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

In this passage, eating a certain substance is sin only if the one eating it believes the action to be sin. The converse is true also, if one believes that eating something is not sin, then it is not. How can the same action be sin for one person and not for the other? The answer is in the knowledge of the one eating. Here again, whether or not something is sin is based upon knowledge.

James 4:17
Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.

This verse is, in reality, an "if-then" expression that can be restated like this, "If a person knows the right thing to do and does not do it, then to him it is sin". The following statement is also true in light of the verse: If a person knows a wrong thing that he should not do and does it, then to him it is sin. This is simple to prove, because it can always be said that knowing to not do a wrong action is the same as knowing to do the opposite act.

The following statement also follows from the verse in James. "If a person does not know the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is not sin." Why? Because if knowledge wasn’t an essential part of defining sin, then James wouldn’t have included that phrase in his statement.

Therefore, James has succinctly stated the definition of sin that I proposed.

Also, notice that James says, "to him it is sin," not simply, "it is sin." Why did he write, "to him"? The simplest answer is, "because it may not be sin to someone else." To whom, then, would it not be sin? The answer would have to be, the one who did not know the right thing to do. Therefore, knowledge of right and wrong is necessary for sin to occur.

Since the biblical definition of sin includes knowledge, there is no sin without knowledge, or, at least, a responsibility to know. This definition does not exclude a person who knows he needs to know and yet refuses to learn. He knows what is right to do and doesn’t do it, so he is already in sin from the start.

A known law doesn’t have to be a biblically written law. As I mentioned before, we have a law written on our hearts. We instinctively know many rights and wrongs, and these likely include every moral law—lust, greed, coveting, lying, etc. So the person who breaks these moral laws, even though he has never read the Bible, is sinning.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them. (Romans 2:14-15)

Still, what is or is not sin in an individual is up to God’s judgment, not ours. He knows the hearts of mankind and can sweep away all pretence. In my experience, I have seen people accusing themselves of sin when they are not sinning at all. They might say something that hurts someone’s feelings, but they didn’t know it to be a hurtful statement until after the fact. That is not sin, nor is anything that is done in love and faith. I have also seen people sin grievously and think that it is not sin. They excuse their behavior based on a skewed or completely broken understanding of God’s holiness and expectations. Their intentional blindness doesn’t change the fact that they are sinning.

I have said many times that Christians don’t sin. The Bible makes that clear (1 John 5:18). Yet, I know people, who I believe are Christians, who think they sin, but they are calling things sin that are merely mistakes that occur due to lack of knowledge. So what’s wrong with calling something sin that isn’t really sin? It leads people to believe that real Christians commit real sins, and that can give sinners a false sense of security that they really are saved when they are not.

Readers of this blog might want to describe a scenario or a moral choice and ask, “Is this sin?” I’m not sure how well I will be able to answer questions like those, because not having an intimate acquaintance with a particular person’s heart, I am not qualified to make judgments in many cases. Still, I will try to help with sincere queries.

Next time, the Lord willing, I will raise typical objections to this definition of sin and show that the definition stands.

If Anyone Sins

2009-02-13T15:43:00.003-06:00

As a reminder, the purpose of this series is to show how teachers often twist, alter, or ignore Bible text in order to defend sinful behavior in themselves and their congregants. They believe that all Christians sin and will continue to sin for the rest of their lives. Of course, the Bible flatly contradicts that notion, but the teachers seem unable or unwilling to see this.

One of the most commonly used passages is the first verse of 1 John chapter two.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

These teachers usually quote the verse out of context in order to alter the real meaning. In order to interpret this verse, it’s crucial to understand the context. As I explained in my previous post, the first chapter provides a gospel message, an explanation of how to gain fellowship with God and eternal life. This happens when a person confesses his sin (1 John 1:9) and is cleansed of all sin.

So, in chapter two, when John says, “I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin,” he is indicating that the gospel he has presented has this purpose. He has provided this gospel so that his readers won’t sin.

That’s what acting on the gospel message does. It makes people holy. It provides the means to stop sinning, because the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin (chapter one verses 7 and 9).

Does the blood of Jesus cleanse only some sin but not all? Of course not. It cleanses all sin, thereby making the believer holy and without sin. If they actually do sin, that would mean that they didn’t heed the gospel message that he provided, for that was its purpose.

Here is where the confusion arises. John then gives us this very scenario. What happens if someone actually does sin?

It is essential for us to identify the people in mind, and the pronouns John uses help us understand his meaning. Most people paraphrase the verse in this fashion.

“John wrote this so that we wouldn’t sin, but if we do, we have an advocate with the Father, so we’re forgiven.”

Or, “This was written so that you won’t sin, but if you do, you’re forgiven because of Jesus, your advocate.”

These are both inaccurate representations of what John is teaching. Remember, John gave them the message so that they would not sin, but if anyone does sin, that person is in the group that is described in 1:6, in darkness, needing a savior. Notice the change in pronouns in the chapter two verse, "I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins ... "

John changes from second person, "you", to third person, "anyone". The one who sins is not meant to be part of the group addressed.

When John wrote, “my little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin,” he then assumes that his readers have accepted this gospel and are now Christians. If he had meant the following "anyone" to refer to his readers, it would have made more sense for him to say, "If any of you sins ... "

This is the reason he says that "we" have an Advocate instead of "he" has an Advocate. He is referring to someone outside the “we” group. The sinning person does not have an Advocate with the Father, because he is an unbeliever. The Christians are the ones with the Advocate, and this Advocate can be shared with the sinning person.

The person who sins could be an unbelieving member of the church or one who has left the congregation, so John is telling the Christians what to do in this situation. This brings chapter 1 verse 9 back into the light, part of the message that he gave to the readers. The Christians are supposed to share the gospel message of chapter 1, the good news of their Advocate. They are to communicate this message to those who are sinning.

The news of the advocate is to be shared, because He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins that John's readers had committed in the past. The Christians had their sins forgiven already, but it was important for them to announce the availability of this forgiveness to "anyone" who sins. This "anyone" would not be part of the “we” who had believed the message, but they would be considered part of the "whole world," anyone who is not assumed to be a Christian.

Therefore, the implication of the possibility of a sinning Christian in "that you may not sin" is removed, because John has apparently placed "anyone" who actually does sin out of the addressed group by the use of the third person pronoun.

The complete purpose of John's "message" is now clear. The first purpose is to make sure that the people in the audience receive the gospel, become cleansed from all unrighteousness, and sin no more. The second purpose is to encourage them, once they are cleansed, to give the gospel message previously stated to anyone who does sin.

Notice the "And" in "And if anyone sins ... " The word is kai in Greek. This connective makes the twofold explanation more clear. If John had meant for the second part of the verse to be applied to Christians who have already received the gospel, the connective would have been "but," alla or de in Greek.

“But” is an adversarial connective, one that is meant to introduce the result of an opposite action. The first part of the verse says that John intends for his reader to refrain from sin. If John were going to explain what would happen if the opposite of this occurred, he would have said, "But if anyone (or any of you) sins ... " He chose "and," which means "in addition to this." Therefore, the second part of the verse is the second portion of his purpose statement, something that adds a separate, new idea. It is not the consequence or remedy for the failure of the first idea.

He is saying that there are two purposes for his message. One, believe the message so that you will stop sinning. Two, share this message with people who are sinning, because Jesus died for them, too.

This interpretation provides a more reasonable flow into verse 3, an explanation of how to tell who is truly a believer, by an examination of their actions.

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. (1 John 2:3-6)

This is crystal clear. The person who actually sins is not a true Christian. This way, the audience is able to identify who actually needs this message, and the purpose can be put into practice. They can share the great advocate with the sinner so that he can be saved and stop sinning.

If actual Christians still sinned, then these three verses wouldn’t make any sense at all. The standard for telling a Christian from a non-Christian is obedience, so if sin continues in a Christian, then we would have to remove these verses from the text. They would be wrong.

The overwhelming testimony of the apostle John is that Christians are always obedient:

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. (1 John 5:18)

They are exactly like Jesus in their conduct:

By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. (1 John 4:17)

And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 John 3:3)

And those who sin are of the devil and in slavery:

He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning, For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” (John 8:34)

I urge readers to evaluate John’s message and cast aside the words of teachers who hold to a form of godliness but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5). I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin, and I hope you will accept it and carry this message to others, this message of the great Advocate who can cleanse anyone from all sin.

Next time, I will explore Romans chapter seven. When it comes to teachers grasping for excuses to sin, Romans seven is probably the most frequently misused passage in the Bible.

Cleansed from All Sin

2009-02-12T13:41:00.001-06:00

First John 1:8 is the verse most commonly used (actually, misused) in attempts to undermine or deny biblical holiness. It has become a trump card, of sorts. Teachers quote a single verse and believe there is nothing more to be said. They believe it wipes out dozens and dozens of passages that teach the practical reality of sinless Christianity.

Of course, the verse is always quoted out of context, and the abusers twist the verse to say exactly the opposite of what the passage teaches.

Here is the verse by itself: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” And sometimes verse 10 is also used. “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.”

Here is the context:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete. (1 John 1:1-4)

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:5-10)

The first four verses state the reason for John’s letter, to proclaim what he has seen so that his readers can have the fellowship of eternal life. He wants to proclaim the gospel message. Then, verses 5 through 10 contain that message: “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you …” and the rest follows to the end of the chapter.

So, verses 5 through 10 contain a message that conveys what is necessary to gain fellowship and eternal life.

The first point is that God is light and there is no darkness in Him. That is the bedrock of the message.

The second point follows logically. If we say that we have fellowship with God and walk in the darkness, obviously we are lying. Why? Because there is no darkness in Him. This helps us see that “we” in this context cannot mean only Christians, as some assert. Since fellowship with God is equated with having eternal life, the person who walks in darkness must not be a true Christian, so "we" cannot be "we Christians." The intent must be a larger “we,” such as “we people.” This understanding of “we” fits every verse in this passage.

The third point also follows and adds a cleansing act. If we walk in the Light, we have fellowship with God and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

Many teachers jerk the next verse out of its context and destroy the meaning of the entire passage. Remember, this is a gospel message designed to bring eternal life. John has established that if a person walks in the light, he will be cleansed of his sin and granted eternal life. So, this passage is designed to show an unbeliever the way of salvation. An unbeliever must admit that he has sin in order to be cleansed. So if he says he has no sin, he is deceiving himself, and the truth is not in him.

This isn’t about a Christian claiming not to have sin. It’s about someone making this claim who still needs to be cleansed. If this wasn’t the case, then verse 7 makes no sense at all. It says that the blood cleanses from all sin. It’s gone. What sin would be remaining? None. Did Jesus do a poor job in cleansing from all sin? Of course not.

So these teachers have this completely backwards. It doesn’t say that Christians cannot claim sinlessness. The passage is teaching the exact opposite. All Christians are cleansed from all sin. It is the one who hasn’t been cleansed yet who cannot make such a claim.

And verse 9 gives the solution for the one who hasn’t been cleansed yet: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Again, this is a complete cleansing. The sin is gone. Verse 9 is a conversion passage, what someone needs to do to be saved and gain the eternal life that John desires for his readers.

Those who teach the false interpretation of verses 8 and 10 have to contradict verses 7 and 9. Does Jesus cleanse from all sin or not? Of course He does. Therefore, a Christian has no sin. Those who have not been cleansed need to confess their sins so that they, too, can be cleansed from all sin and be saved.

This passage is a gospel message, and those who need cleansing are the ones in mind in verse 8 and 10. These teachers twist the passage completely around. The passage teaches complete sinlessness, and these teachers make it their trump card to prove that sinlessness is impossible. This seems quite backwards to me.

And even more amazing is that some use 1 John 1:8 to assert that people who believe they live without sin are not Christians at all! They say, “if you think you’re now sinless as a Christian, then the truth is not in you, so you’re not a real Christian.” This passage teaches that believers are cleansed from all sin, and these teachers use it to say the exact opposite, that only those in sin are believers. Again, this is backwards.

Simple logic also demonstrates that these teachers’ understanding of this verse is off the mark. If verses 8 and 10 mean that it is improper to say you have completely stopped sinning, the “have no sin” and “have not sinned” phrases must have a definite time frame involved. For example, if I say that I have not sinned in the last year, someone may say, “But 1 John 1:10 would call you a liar for saying that you have not sinned.”

If, however, I changed the time frame to claiming that I have not sinned in the last 10 seconds, would 1 John 1:10 apply? I am making the same kind of statement but with a different time claim. Many would say that it is reasonable to claim a sinless ten seconds. If even this is denied, the argument could be divided into microseconds, and the teacher would have to admit that he could not claim a sinless fraction of time of very minute proportions.

Some would believe even this, that they are constantly sinning in every iota of time. This would mean that Christians are always sinning, in direct contradiction to numerous descriptions in Scripture of a Christian's actual behavior:

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. (1 John 5:18)

By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. (1 John 4:17)

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:3-4)

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2)

And I could list many more.

These teachers would also have to admit that they are never obedient. That’s where the logic of their interpretation must take them.

The only reasonable interpretation is that if a person claims that he has never sinned, and by this thinks that he does not need a savior, he is deceiving himself and makes God a liar, because he directly contradicts Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Next time, I will move to chapter two of 1 John to show that John was consistent in his teaching that complete sinlessness is the standard for every real Christian. Stay tuned.

Illegitimate Sons?

2009-02-10T09:16:00.002-06:00

The following passage is often misused by Bible teachers as they attempt to show that all Christians continue sinning.

You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproed by Him; For those who the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives." It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. (Hebrews 12:4:11)

These false teachers explain that God disciplines us because of the sins we commit, and since all true sons of God are disciplined, that must mean that all true Christians sin. Supposedly, anyone who doesn’t undergo this discipline due to their own sin must not be a true son.

As is the case with many false doctrines, the teachers fail to consider the passage in it larger context, and they bring a preconceived doctrine to the text, causing them to miss the obvious meaning.

Sin is mentioned only once in this passage, “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin.” I can’t see how teachers come up with the idea that this sin is instigated by the person being disciplined. Resisting your own sin to the point of shedding blood? Frankly, avoiding sin is much easier than that.

The larger context reveals what the writer is talking about. He has just finished a long description of people who have been faithful, from Abel in chapter 11, verse 4, to, as the chapter ends, a list of those who suffered because of their faith.

Others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:36-38)

In the chapter twelve passage, then, the writer is comparing his readers to those he wrote about earlier. His readers had not yet resisted sin to the point that these other people did, to the point of shedding blood. This sin is not their own sin; it is the sin of others, the sin of their persecutors.

The verse immediately preceding the chapter 12 section makes this obvious.

For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (Hebrews 12:3)

It is crystal clear that this is talking about the sin of the persecutors, not the sin of those being disciplined.

Therefore, being disciplined as a son means that God is using persecutions to shape the son, to make him strong, to allow him to share in God’s holiness.

It’s important to understand that holiness is not merely sinlessness. It is being set apart for a purpose, to act according to all that God has in mind for us. We cannot complete that task until we are made ready for it, and our preparation includes suffering, often at the hands of sinners.

This happened even to Jesus.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Hebrews 2:10)

Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation (Hebrews 5:8-9)

Jesus endured this discipline, the sin that others brought against Him. As verse 3 in chapter 12 says, we are to “consider Him,” the one who endured the sin of others. Obviously we are being told to consider Him as an example, the reason being to endure as He endured, not regarding our own sin, but with reference to the sins of others.

Teachers who use this passage to indicate that all sons of God continue in sin are destroying the true meaning. The passage is meant to encourage obedient followers who are suffering at the hand of persecutors. It is telling them that faithful people have had it worse, and they made it through. There is a cloud of witnesses surrounding them (Hebrews 12:1) to counteract the sin that also surrounds. Follow in the footsteps of the forerunners, the enduring martyrs. Their light will lead the way.

The Disease and its Cure

2009-02-08T16:38:00.002-06:00

Since the delusion of celebrity and media hype has overtaken the United States and caused the death of the republic, what should believers in Jesus Christ do?

I believe God has withdrawn His protective hand from this nation and allowed the forces of socialism and foolish ideology take over in a way we have never seen before. During the two weeks of his usurpation of the office of president, Barack Obama has demonstrated his utter disregard for the rule of law and the principles of righteousness, and Congress is going along with this tsunami of socialism. Many people will suffer greatly as a result.

We have seen such a removal of God’s hand in history, as described by Jeremiah in Lamentations.

How the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger! He has cast from heaven to earth the glory of Israel, and has not remembered His footstool in the day of His anger. The Lord has swallowed up; He has not spared all the habitations of Jacob. In His wrath He has thrown down the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; He has brought them down to the ground; He has profaned the kingdom and its princes. In fierce anger He has cut off all the strength of Israel; He has drawn back His right hand from before the enemy. And He has burned in Jacob like a flaming fire consuming round about. He has bent His bow like an enemy, He has set His right hand like an adversary and slain all that were pleasant to the eye; In the tent of the daughter of Zion He has poured out His wrath like fire. The Lord has become like an enemy. He has swallowed up Israel; He has swallowed up all its palaces; He has destroyed its strongholds and multiplied in the daughter of Judah mourning and moaning. (Lamentations 2:1-5)

Now that we seem to be in the midst of such a removal of God’s hand, what do we do? Can this nation be resurrected from the dead? Can we, like the daughter of Zion, be rescued from the captivity into which we have been taken? What caused this demise in the first place? If we are to find a cure, we need to identify the disease.

Jeremiah provides the answer in the same chapter.

How shall I admonish you? To what shall I compare you, O daughter of Jerusalem? To what shall I liken you as I comfort you, O virgin daughter of Zion? For your ruin is as vast as the sea; Who can heal you? Your prophets have seen for you false and foolish visions; And they have not exposed your iniquity so as to restore you from captivity, but they have seen for you false and misleading oracles. (Lamentations 2:13-14)

The disease is spiritual in nature. The cause is disobedience. The people have listened to the foolish teachings of false prophets. These prophets refuse to expose the sin of the people. Do they sugar coat sin? Far worse. The preachers of today demand that people sin. How? By insisting that no one can be holy, by setting in the stone of catechism their lies that all Christians sin in word, thought, and deed every day.

In fact, if anyone testifies by the grace of God to be holy and walking in complete obedience, these false prophets call that precious soul a liar. Some even go so far as to insist that such a saint is deceived and cannot be a true Christian. These wolves in sheep’s clothing claim that only sinners are true believers. What? This is the opposite of the truth! These blind leaders of the blind are leading a multitude into an eternal pit.

We have fallen from the truth of the gospel, the truth that we are cleansed from all sin and are dead to and free from sin when we die with Christ on the cross. And because of this departure from the truth and because of this plunge into a doctrine that teaches the opposite result of real faith, many people who call themselves Christians have become malignant sores on the visible representation of Christ on earth. They sully the fair name of Jesus and become ambassadors for the devil, though most have no idea that they’re doing it.

How can we be people who can say, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me,” (Galatians 2:20) if we are still sinning? Can you see what an insult to God that is?

No one can expect God to bring blessing and a protective hand if he or she is still sinning. No professing Christian who sins and thereby casts dirt on His name can hope for the abundant spiritual life that Jesus promised.

And no one can be free from slavery to sin while heeding the call of the false prophets who continually shackle people in irons and deny the word of the One who said, “If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed.”

Our cure rests on countering the cancerous teaching that says we will all continue to sin until we die. There is no such teaching in the Bible. In fact, the Bible teaches exactly the opposite, that Christians are holy, righteous saints. And when those who call upon the name of Jesus turn to holy living, perhaps the ills that are befalling us will ease. Perhaps the hand of the Lord will return to our side and protect the little ones who are suffering without cause.

In future blog posts, I am going to examine passages in the Bible that these false prophets either ignore, twist, or alter in order to fit them into their anti-holiness system. I’m not sure how frequently I will post these, but I’ll do the best I can.

In the meantime, I will continue to pray and lament for this nation and its people, especially for the unborn, who are one of the prime targets for the usurper in the White House. As Jeremiah wrote, “Arise, cry aloud in the night at the beginning of the night watches; Pour out your heart like water before the presence of the Lord; Lift up your hands to Him for the life of your little ones who are faint because of hunger at the head of every street.” (Lamentations 2:19)

What is an Oracle of Fire?

2009-02-02T06:26:00.003-06:00

I decided to call this new blog "Oracles of Fire" because of the development of a character in my Oracles of Fire series. Before I began the first book, Eye of the Oracle, the Oracle of Fire label came to me out of the blue. I didn't know what it meant, and it wasn't until I wrote the final book, The Bones of Makaidos, that I realized what it was all about.

The ideas became clear as I continued my recent study of the book of Jeremiah. This passage was particularly insightful.

For each time I speak, I cry aloud; I proclaim violence and destruction, because for me the word of the Lord has resulted in reproach and derision all day long. But if I say, "I will not remember Him Or speak anymore in His name," then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I am weary of holding it in, and I cannot endure it. (Jeremiah 20:8-9)

Do you feel that fire? Do you know what it's like to carry the word of God burning within, so hot that it has to come out? But what happens when you speak it? What happens when you, motivated by love for those around you, warn them of the destruction to come? What is their reaction to a word that is unpleasant, that doesn't fit in with the popular doctrines of the day?

Reproach? Derision? And does the worst of the venom come from the church? If so, don't be dismayed or discouraged. The same thing happened to Jesus and His disciples. Wherever they went to spread the gospel, they were opposed by the religious leaders of the day. The hypocrites didn't want to hear the truth.

Telling an unpopular truth will bring you injury--in reputation, in cultural standing, and possibly even in personal safety. But if you are an Oracle of Fire, you won't be able to stay silent. God has called you to speak, and you will suffer for being obedient to His call.

But you cannot let that stop you. You have to speak up. The truth burns like a fire within you. You cannot endure seeing truth and righteousness maligned by the very people who are supposed to uphold it. Falsehood that leads people astray ignites a fire in your belly that cannot be extinguished. You feel like you're being eaten up inside.

For me, the fire burns hottest when the people who are called by the name of Jesus are blaspheming Him daily, pretending He can't see their sin, and even teaching people that rebelling against a holy God is normal behavior that certainly happens every day in word, thought, and deed. This is a lie that is leading countless souls into Hell.

We have to rescue these souls. We have to tell the truth, no matter what personal consequences we suffer. The fire burning within will never let us rest until we shout the truth from every rooftop in all of creation.

If you are an Oracle of Fire, you feel this passion, but you must be ready to count the cost.

Here is a passage from The Bones of Makaidos, one Oracle teaching a new Oracle what it's all about.

Speak the truth. Live the truth. Be the truth. Never let the faithless ones change any of those three principles. Remember that you are an Oracle of Fire, as is every faithful follower of our Lord. For all true disciples possess the pure silver, purged of all dross, and the fire of God’s love burns within, an everlasting flame that others, even those who give lip-service to the truth, will never comprehend until you are able to pass along that fire from heart to heart.

Are you an Oracle of Fire? Let me know about your experiences.

Miscellaneous Issues

2009-01-24T06:15:00.008-06:00

Ever since my previous post, I have received quite a few comments--some positive, some negative, and a few that were truly hate-filled. The saddest part about the third category is that they were sent by people calling themselves Christians. I don't mind at all when someone points out negative things about me or what I say when they are doing so to further the cause of truth and righteousness, but when they do it simply to injure, that's really a sad comment on their own position. I didn't allow those comments to post.

Because of both positive and negative comments, I have decided to address a few concerns. One is my use of "usurper." Is it right for me to use negative labels when addressing a leader of our nation?

First, I don't consider Obama to be a leader of our nation, unless you mean that he is leading us to ruin. Usurper is simply a descriptive title. It isn't an insulting barb like "fool" or "stupid." He is a usurper, so I call him one.

Second, Jesus gives us an example of using descriptive labels. When addressing the leaders of His day, He was quite forceful and went further than I have.

"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" (Matthew 23:33) Reading the entire twenty-third chapter of Matthew will provide an interesting lesson. Since we are to be imitators of Christ, I see applying accurate labels as being a righteous act.

The next issue is Obama's eligibility. The lack of education about this issue is very troubling. Most people have no idea about the Constitutional requirements for becoming president. They think that being born in this country is all that is required, but that's not true. You have to be a natural-born citizen, which is different than being a citizen by birth.

The framers of the Constitution often referenced Emmerich de Vattel. In the CITIZENS AND NATIONS, paragraph #212, de Vattel says:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children."

Because Obama's father was Kenyan and therefore a British citizen, Obama could not possibly be a natural born citizen. Even if he was born in Hawaii, which he has never proven, he is not eligible to be president.

Some think later laws, amendments, or court cases have changed this definition. If so, then educate me with that act or case that provided the altered definition. Some point to the Fourteenth Amendment, but the term natural born isn't there. It confers citizenship status on people born in the U.S., but that doesn't make them natural born. To be natural born, you have to be born in the U.S. with two citizen parents.

Back to the birth issue, many people don't know that Obama never provided his real birth certificate, only a redacted one supposedly based on the long-form, vault certificate. He has refused, even after many court cases, to allow anyone to see the real one.

Some point to Factcheck.org's article that states that their representatives have seen the certificate, but they have seen only the short-form version, not the one showing the true birthplace. At the time Obama was born, Hawaii allowed people to obtain Hawaiian short-form certificates even if they weren't born there. (Click here to see proof.)

Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of this country, so he is not eligible for the office of President of the United States. He is a usurper and is acting illegally every day.

Some of the vilest comments I received point to Romans 13 and how I will be judged for not bowing to the Obama idol that the majority of Americans are worshiping. So I will address that now.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)

It's no suprise that the commenters quote the passage only to the part that says opposers will receive condemnation. They never quote the rest, the part that defines what Paul is talking about.

What is an authority? It is a "minister of God to you for good." It is "a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

Obama doesn't fit that definition. He is a minister of evil, and his maniacal pro-abortion policies prove that. He rewards evil by giving money to its perpetrators, that is, by providing funds for abortion.

Evil rulers are those who stand in the place of authority, but they are not placed there by God, and certainly usurpers are not in a true authority position. They have simply stolen power.

I have to assume that those who object to my stand would have bowed to Hitler as well. They would have opposed the U.S. as we battled that monster and tried to stop his murderous practices. He was in "authority," by the definition used by my objectors. They would have to claim that he was put there by God and must be obeyed. The same would be true of Stalin. I suppose they think both of these men fit the definition of being ministers of God for good, though they murdered millions.

And, according to the passage, what does it mean to oppose authority? It tells us, "if you do what is evil." But we who are opposing Obama are doing what is good. We are exposing a fraud and an accomplice to baby killing. We are not opposing authority sent from God.

We need to oppose murderers who sit in the sit of power, and we must rescue the innocent who are being dragged away to slaughter. We are to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

**Edit to add** I'm adding this because of another vitriolic comment I received. I'm not going to post it, because I don't want to advertise his or her blog with the comment's associated link or embarrass him or her by posting the vitriol.

Point one - In order to know the definition of what a term in the Constitution means, we need to research the intent of the framers. The framers used Vattel, so learning what the term meant at the time is the best evidence we have as we try to determine intent. Since the term isn't defined within the Constitution, we have to go to the sources the framers used to learn its meaning.

Point two - I am not using hate against anyone. I don't hate Obama. I am criticizing what he does. I don't hate the detractors who are trying to post their rude comments. If you think my comments are hateful, then what of the comments Jesus made against the Pharisees? I haven't gone nearly that far. I have called Obama an idol, because that's what he has become. Just look around. The worship of this man is obvious.

Point three - Obama has already begun his march to increase abortions. On just his third full day acting as president, he lifted the ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions. He will force us to fund abortions overseas. Therefore, he is like Hitler and Stalin as an active participant in the spread of murder.

Point four - I have posted comments that disagree with mine, but I will not post comments that include rude insults.

If you're going to disagree, and you want to have a real discussion, then include substance, not rudeness.

*One more addition. Now that Obama has all the power he needs, look for him to produce a long-form birth certificate soon that shows his birth in Hawaii. It will be fake, probably an excellent forgery, so I doubt that he will allow forensic scientists who are not in his camp examine it.

The Death of the United States

2009-01-20T05:00:00.004-06:00

"So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause." - Padme, Star Wars - The Revenge of the Sith

While hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people crowd into Washington, D.C. to celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama, another group mourns. Those who understand the Constitution and the meaning of liberty, are in grief over the death of our nation. The government has allowed a usurper to rise to the office of President. By the end of the day, a constitutionally unqualified fraud will sit in the most powerful human seat in the world.

Our Republic is dead. The Constitution is a relic, a rag, an ignored scrap of paper sitting under a sheet of glass. We live in a land of mob rule.

Barack Obama has never proven that he is a citizen of this country, much less a natural-born citizen, and he has fought in court to keep his records secret. If he truly is natural-born, he would have gladly shown the proof early on. Yet, to this day, he has hidden the truth from the American people. As a candidate for President, the onus is on him to prove his eligibility. Since he has not done so, we must assume that he is not eligible. He should not be president.

But the people don't care about the rule of law. Like cattle with rings in their noses, they follow the media-induced hysteria that surrounds a cultural icon. They care only about what is popular. They are hypnotized by constant rhetoric and American-Idol-like fanfare. They are sheep being led to slaughter.

In the midst of this madness, we must pray for these misguided people. They are cheering a murderer, a man who has one of the most radical pro-abortion records in political history. If they continue calling good things evil and evil things good, God will bring His wrath, and everyone will suffer.

As I have said before, this isn't about politics. My concern is for people. As they sink further into the darkness, we must shine a light and lead them out of their hypnotized state. Their eternal lives are at stake.

We once had a nation that honored God and the rule of law. Today proves that the nation I once loved has died. And most of the citizens of this deceased nation applaud the passing away of their free Republic, and they laud the death of liberty.

I realize this is no surprise. I expected our nation to die. Yet, that doesn't mean I shouldn't grieve over the loss or be appalled at those who made our nation drink poison and then cheered at its suffering and demise.

"Alas, sinful nation, people weighed down with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away from Him. ... So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood." (Isaiah 1:4, 15)

When the people of a nation sin, God turns from them. They lose their way. They become fools lacking discernment. This loss of wisdom leads to destruction from within. They become easily deluded, and they choose for themselves leaders who will become cruel taskmasters and godless tyrants. The end result will be physical ruin and then spiritual destruction.

As the Scripture says:

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.(2 Thessalonians 2:8-12)

This surely describes our current American culture. Yet, in the midst of this separating of the wheat from the chaff, there is hope. I know that some people reading this are torch-bearers, people who are willing to shine the light. Will you stand with me and call this wicked nation to repentance? Will you allow God to set your heart aflame? Will you burn in the purity of true holiness and spread that fire from heart to heart?

Again, this isn't about politics. This is about rescuing people from eternal destruction, because as the blind lead the blind, they all will stumble and fall, and the fall will be beyond tragic.

May God help us as we figure out how to live as lights in a populist anarchy that celebrates the darkness.

(**Edit to add: If you want to comment, and you plan to call me a racist, don't bother. I won't post your comment. I voted for a black man in the Republican primary. This isn't about race; it's about righteousness.)
My thanks to Tim McCarville who created the image at the top.

A Better Holiday - American Heroes Day

2009-01-19T05:58:00.007-06:00

I have often found it strange that our nation celebrates Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday. No other American has such an honor. While I am aware of many benefits that have come about because of MLK's life, surely there are other Americans who have done more for out nation. More about that in a moment.

It's an odd celebration. Since this country spits in the face of MLK's "dream" of a color-blind society, I can't figure out why the holiday exists. Our culture, especially the ones who carry MLK's banner, act in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what he preached. Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson Jr, and most of the liberals in our country who praise MLK and parade in his honor, are some of the worst race baiters around. They play the race card at every opportunity and use race as a cultural divider at every turn. Their hypocrisy is appalling.

The unreasonable euphoria over Obama is another symptom of the fact that our culture celebrates the antithesis of MLK's dream. I could go into detail about the reasons, but I found this blog post that explains more than I have time to post right now, so the work has been done for me. Enjoy.

Regarding the uniqueness of the MLK holiday, I think it's wrong to have a national holiday celebrating him when so many Americans have done more to help our country. I offer my departed father, Dan A. Davis, who fought in two wars so that every person in the United States, whether black, white, yellow, or red, could live in liberty. He went to war against Japan on a ship in the Pacific when he was only 15 years old, and he served our nation in the Navy for 26 years.

I'm sure you can name others. No single American deserves a national holiday. We have too many great Americans to single out only one for honor.

So, I propose that we change this holiday to American Heroes Day. Yes, give appropriate honor to Martin Luther King, Jr, and let's add all the other American heroes you know.

Please post your tribute to an American hero that you know so that we can honor him or her with you. Invite your friends to come here and post their tributes as well. I would love to read about the many great Americans from the present and the past.

The Nightmare Continues

2009-01-18T06:35:00.002-06:00

It seems that I wake up every morning to a surreal existence. Bad dreams are supposed to occur during the night, but the images I see in the news every day become my waking nightmare.

I had guessed that Obama's inauguration (fraudulent inauguration) would be a lavish affair, but I recently learned that his self-celebration will extend beyond what I had imagined.

The festival is estimated to cost over $150 million. Bush's 2005 inauguration cost about $42 million. Clinton's 1993 bash was about $33 million. If you use the inflation rate between Clinton's and Bush's parties, Obama's "should" cost about $46 million.

But, no. Obama's will cost more than triple that amount.

Some people say that we need the extra security because of the huge crowds. Perhaps that's true. Okay, we're spending $15 million on extra security. That means it should be about $61 million. Why the extra $90 million?

The New York Times complained about the exorbitant cost of Bush's inauguration, but they haven't made any similar condemnation of King Obama's party.

I'm not surprised. The media is euphoric, and the masses are hypnotized.

Here we are in one of the worst recessions in history, our government is in debt to a tune of about $10 trillion, and we are borrowing money to throw the most expensive coronation bash in history, and all for a usurper. The party is lasting for days, a train ride that takes the new king from place to place to hear the cheers of the enchanted crowds.

When will this nightmare be over?

That question, of course, is rhetorical. I know when it will end; when people choose the light instead of darkness. Yet, most people love the darkness. Such is the nature of the judgment coming upon this land.

Jesus said, "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." (John 3:19-21)

Some Christians will complain that I'm focusing too much on politics. They would be wrong. This isn't about politics; it's about the spiritual lives of those trapped in darkness, and the physical well-being of those who will suffer because of the brewing political storm. I care about the people, not about politics. I care about the citizens of this land. They reach out for help, for some kind of messiah, but they are given a venomous adder in the guise of political savior.

As long as wickedness prevails in this land, this sickness, this delusion will continue:

"They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace. Were they ashamed because of the abomination they had done? They certainly were not ashamed, And they did not know how to blush; Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time of their punishment they shall be brought down," Says the LORD. (Jeremiah 8:11-12)

God said to Ezekiel:

Son of man, say to her, 'You are a land that is not cleansed or rained on in the day of indignation.' There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured lives; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in the midst of her. Her priests have done violence to My law and have profaned My holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the profane, and they have not taught the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they hide their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain. Her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, 'Thus says the Lord GOD,' when the LORD has not spoken. The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice. (Ezekiel 22:24-29)

We are living in such days. Many Christians don't understand that the political winds are part of the blinding influence. In fact, many of them are among the prophets who whitewash with their "We're all just sinners saved by grace" mantra, thereby giving their congregants a license to sin.

God's words to Ezekiel continued:

I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 22:30-31)

May God not repeat those last words during these days of shadows. I will stand in the gap. Here I am, Lord. Let me be a fire that shines in the darkness, and help me pass that flame from wick to wick so that your remnant will shine.

As long as love lasts, I will raise that light. God help me to be an Oracle of Fire.

My soul, my soul! I am in anguish! Oh, my heart! My heart is pounding in me; I cannot be silent, Because you have heard, O my soul, The sound of the trumpet, The alarm of war. (Jeremiah 4:19)

Will you join me? Will you stand in the gap?

May God help us all.

A Call to Faithfulness

2009-01-17T08:04:00.002-06:00

It's interesting how after just one post on this new blog, I have already been questioned about lacking understanding in God's rule and role in the affairs of men. I deleted that comment, because it was out-of-line, but those who have been reading my blog should know by now that I have full assurance that God will make all things right.

I have no fear. I have no doubts in the ultimate triumph of the God of the Universe, but I am not a determinist who believes that all events are ordained by God. God allows wicked mankind to make wicked decisions. And God allows free will to operate, which often brings about great suffering and sorrow in this world.

If we don't sound a call to action, if we don't answer the call to stand up for what is right and defend the innocent when it becomes clear that a dangerous man threatens to hurt those we are called to protect, we would be among the faithless. We would rightly be called infidels. If we do not rescue those who are being dragged off to slaughter, or at least warn them of the advancing army, we will be accomplices to their murders.

Yes, we will pray for Obama, usurper or not. We will continue living the Christian life, loving our enemies as well as our neighbors, making disciples, and honoring God in every way. But I will not be silent while a murderous usurper rises to power. I will pray for him to either confess his crimes and repent, or be ousted from power.

My blog is a call to faithfulness, not fear. If people think that my warnings about Obama are rooted in fear, then they haven't read my words very carefully or for very long. They are rooted in love for the oppressed, those who will suffer at the usurper's wicked hands. I am not wringing my hands in fear and faithlessness; I am warning people to prepare and pray.

I will continue to call professing Christians to true faith and righteousness. I will continue to oppose the pretenders who hold to a form of righteousness and deny its power. I will continue to call God's warriors to stand up for what is right, to wield the sword of truth, and to destroy the forces of darkness that threaten the innocent.

That's what this blog is all about.

Countdown to Sorrow

2009-01-15T07:14:00.002-06:00

We have five days left. Barring a miracle, on January 20 a usurper will assume to office of president of the United States. If this happens, this great nation will have died. We will have ceased to be a constitutional republic and will become a country of mob rule, like cattle prodded by the political forces and mainstream media.

Barack Obama is not eligible for the office. He has not even proven himself to be a citizen of this country, much less a natural-born citizen, but the wave of popular support and media worship has swept the law of the land aside and trumped it with euphoria over a man who has done practically nothing but run for office.

Why? I can't imagine. There is nothing about him to like, unless you like extreme liberalism, socialism, and abortion. The media crows that he's the first black man to achieve such a pinnacle. But he's not even black. His mother was white, and his father was mixed race, so it's more accurate to call him a white man. (Before you post charges of racism, take note that I voted for a black man in the Republican primary, Alan Keyes. He is a real black man, but the media ignored him.)

Five more days. I'm running out of hope. A miracle is still possible, but God might be wanting to separate the wheat from the chaff. This could be a time of fire, a time when the pretenders are exposed.

What is a Bible-believing Christian to do? Are we to submit to a usurper? Would God have been angry if the Israelites had rallied to Absalom when he usurped David's throne?

I see very dark days ahead. While fake Christians will gladly bow to this idol, as they have to many others, I think true Christians are going to suffer greatly at the hands of this evil pretender.

New Blog for Non-Author Issues

2009-01-14T18:43:00.001-06:00

Lately, I have had quite a few posts on my author blog that haven't been related to my books, so I'm creating this new blog for posts about politics, theology, or anything else that comes to mind.