Interesting items from the Interwebs, from all over the world.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Grit To Great - Linda Kaplan Thaler & Robin Thaler
How perseverance, passion, and pluck take you from ordinary to extraordinary. The authors are also the authors if The Power of Nice. They acknowledge right off the bat that grit is a "somewhat old fashioned term" that means " sweat, not swagger" and "character not charisma" They chronicle their own start of the Kaplan Thayer Group advertising agency, that has grown to $3 billion in Billings, and over 800 employees.
Also the four ingredients of grit. Guts, resilience, initiative, and tenacity. At the end of every chapter are some action steps called Grit Builders, which are steps to take to put the information into practice. In the chapter titled the talent myth, the two talk about how they did a presentation and gained the business of fast food giant Wendys. The book is actually full of personal examples of using grit to accomplish goals. In the chapter, Lose the safety net, they tell the story of Nik Wallenda and his tightrope walking, and actually interviewed him.The chapter titled, Get into wait training, talks about psychology and delayed gratification and waiting. "It's on these moments of boredom or inactivity that we can be our most creative, solve problems, engage with the world around us, and train ourselves to accept that we don't always have to feel busy to be fulfilled." This is very good advice for all of us. This book reminded me of similar booms by Malcolm Gladwell that talk about what success is, and what it's not. And how some people are surprised that success is not what people think.
I enjoyed reading about success others have had using grit to become great. It is encouraging to hear about success among seemingly ordinary folks that seem to be nothing special on the outside, but have grit on the inside.
I have been provided a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Re: [New post] CTT | You Say Calvinism, I Hear Gospel?
Respond to this post by replying above this line
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Spurgeon on Arminianism
"If you believe that everything turns upon the free-will of man, you will naturally have man as its principal figure in your landscape." And again he affirms the remedy for this confusion to be true doctrine. "I believe that very much of current Arminianism is simply ignorance of gospel doctrine." - Spurgeon
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Inerrancy of Scripture
Start with the belief that Scripture is inerrant That is the basic foundation.
Perfect, true, trustworthy, unchanging, pure, inspired, Word of God.
If there is something that you read in one book of the Bible that seems to contradict somewhere else, guess who is wrong?
If you start with inerrancy, it has to be you.
Your exegisis is wrong. It's you.
Context is so important. Who is it written to? Why is it being written? What time period? What came before and after this?
What do other parts of the Bible have to say on this same subject or area?
Many people spend time and energy trying to find one little area that they can say "Aha, I found the mistake. " Some people have made it their life's work. But, if we accept inerrancy in the beginning and all throughout, there is no need to look for any discrepancy, because there is none.
Whatever we see as a contradiction, or mistake, has to be because of us. None of us: understand God's word fully.
Mark Twain famously said "It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, It's the parts I do understand."
And so if goes with us. Some, even some Christians, get so hung up on one little fact that seems like a contradiction, that they miss the parts that are clear to everyone.
When Jesus said "You must be born again" and "Go and sin no more." These are pretty clear commands.
Inerrancy of Scripture
Start with the belief that Scripture is inerrant That is the basic foundation.
Perfect, true, trustworthy, unchanging, pure, inspired, Word of God.
If there is something that you read in one book of the Bible that seems to contradict somewhere else, guess who is wrong?
If you start with inerrancy, it has to be you.
Your exegisis is wrong. It's you.
Context is so important. Who is it written to? Why is it being written? What time period? What came before and after this?
What do other parts of the Bible have to say on this same subject or area?
Many people spend time and energy trying to find one little area that they can say "Aha, I found the mistake. " Some people have made it their life's work. But, if we accept inerrancy in the beginning and all throughout, there is no need to look for any discrepancy, because there is none.
Whatever we see as a contradiction, or mistake, has to be because of us. None of us: understand God's word fully. Mark Twain famously said "It's not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, It's the parts I do understand."
And so if goes with us. Some, even some Christians, get so hung up on one little fact that seems like a contradiction, that they miss the parts that are clear to everyone.
When Jesus said "You must be born again" and "Go and sin no more." These are pretty clear commands.
Spurgeon on Catholisism
"Look at the priests; look at the cardinals; look at the popes; look at the purple robes they wear; look at their scarlet robes; see the encrusted jewels; look at the luxurious palaces in which they live; look at the eleven thousand halls and chambers in the Vatican, and the unbounded wealth and glory gathered there; look at the gorgeous spectacles in St. Peter's at Rome, casting even the magnificence of royalty into the shade.
Go and see these things, or read the testimony of those who have seen them. Shamelessly Rome wears the very raiment, the very hues and colors, portrayed on the pages of inspired prophecy. You may know the harlot by her attire, as certainly as by the name upon her brow."
Charles Spurgeon
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
We will not bow
We will not bow down."
by John MacArthur
"You know, I ran through my Bible the other day, just looking for everywhere I could find the term "bow down." Bow down, bow down. It's all over the Old Testament. People bowed down before a superior. There are many of those illustrations. Look at the life of Joseph and you'll remember how his brothers bowed down to him.
But the faithful people didn't bow down. The unfaithful people bowed down to idols. They bowed down to monarchs. They bowed down to godless kings. Faithful people didn't bow down. Mordecai didn't bow down. Daniel didn't bow down; his friends didn't bow down. Jesus didn't bow down. Paul didn't bow down.
There will be a barrage of persecution. These are going to be very challenging days. We will not bow. We will be gracious and we will be loving, but we will render to God what is God's."
– John MacArthur
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Choose this day
Choose You This Day Whom You Will Serve!" Free Will? Part 2 of Arminian Proof Texts.
God was not looking for His people to make a free will choice when He spoke through Moses and Joshua in Deuteronomy 30:19 and Joshua 24:15, He was pointing up the impossibility of serving Him as Joshua was inspired to follow up in Joshua 24:15-19:
"15 ¶ And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
17 For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed:
18 And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God.
19 And Joshua said unto the people, YE CANNOT SERVE THE LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins."
At every point God commanded Israel to obey His law perfectly He also spoke the truth of how a man is justified to them in a mystery:
Deuteronomy 30:10-15,
"10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;" etc.
These passages are parallel passages, in context, and both relate a law and Gospel distinction.
Both instances which seem to be commandments to keep God's covenant perfectly by 'choosing to' were impossible commandments, and so God was not wishing for the people to make an imaginary 'free will choice' to do so since He told them they would not (De 31:16.)
The other commandment allude to in both passages was to be apprehended by faith; a faith which is the gift of God, and an obedience which is a result of God writing His law within the hearts and minds of His elect; the only way any commandment can be obeyed.
Jesus speaks directly to the impossibility of doing 'good things' in accordance with the law of God to obtain anything more than the law already promises:
Matthew 19:16-26,
"16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, WITH MEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE; BUT WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."
The apostle Paul was inspired to draw from Deuteronomy to reveal the Lord's true intent when He asked the people to 'choose life,' and what 'life' the law of God promises by strictly adhering to it:
Romans 10:5-11,
"5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Moses described the righteousness obtained by strict adherence to the law by reiterating how men would 'live by them.' That is, each member of the covenanted community of Israel, if they strictly adhered to the law, would live a longer life and not die as a consequence of law breaking.
This is the ONLY life promised to men by strictly adhering to the law of God (which is impossible, as the scriptures, and the experience of the saints both prove.)
The promise of keeping the law; keeping God's covenant; was temporal and not eternal.
But the righteousness which is of faith (Romans 10:5-11) says the same thing Moses and Joshua were inspired to say to the Israelites, which could be said like this:
"You cannot serve the Lord even if He was to bring a rule book down from above for you to follow it and do it; so don't ask Him for that! Believe that He can justify a man without the deeds of the law as He preached before to Abraham. If you ask Him for some rule to follow, you are asking the God who created all things for the worst possible thing you could ever ask; a thing impossible to obtain by your strictest adherence to it!
It is a request made in self righteousness!"
'Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed' and the essence of Romans 10:5-11 could rightly be stated, 'But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,
Whosoever *simply* believeth on him shall not be ashamed.'
In other words, those who have been justified without the deeds of the law preach the Gospel.
This is the meaning of the above verses applied in context, there is no other, and this is why the free will proponents corrupt the word of God and cannot prove their imaginary free will from these passages.
This is why they need to repent and believe the Good News.
Man does not have free will, and both the Deuteronomy and Joshua passages in their immediate and greater contexts prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt; far beyond making a simplistic case for free will by merely grabbing proof texts from the Bible.
Man is justified by faith in Christ without the deeds of the law.
2nd Corinthians 2:14-17,
"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
~David Hobson.
Choose You this day
"Choose You This Day Whom You Will Serve!" Free Will? Part 2 of Arminian Proof Texts.
God was not looking for His people to make a free will choice when He spoke through Moses and Joshua in Deuteronomy 30:19 and Joshua 24:15, He was pointing up the impossibility of serving Him as Joshua was inspired to follow up in Joshua 24:15-19:
"15 ¶ And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
17 For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed:
18 And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God.
19 And Joshua said unto the people, YE CANNOT SERVE THE LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins."
At every point God commanded Israel to obey His law perfectly He also spoke the truth of how a man is justified to them in a mystery:
Deuteronomy 30:10-15,
"10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;" etc.
These passages are parallel passages, in context, and both relate a law and Gospel distinction.
Both instances which seem to be commandments to keep God's covenant perfectly by 'choosing to' were impossible commandments, and so God was not wishing for the people to make an imaginary 'free will choice' to do so since He told them they would not (De 31:16.)
The other commandment allude to in both passages was to be apprehended by faith; a faith which is the gift of God, and an obedience which is a result of God writing His law within the hearts and minds of His elect; the only way any commandment can be obeyed.
Jesus speaks directly to the impossibility of doing 'good things' in accordance with the law of God to obtain anything more than the law already promises:
Matthew 19:16-26,
"16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, WITH MEN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE; BUT WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE."
The apostle Paul was inspired to draw from Deuteronomy to reveal the Lord's true intent when He asked the people to 'choose life,' and what 'life' the law of God promises by strictly adhering to it:
Romans 10:5-11,
"5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Moses described the righteousness obtained by strict adherence to the law by reiterating how men would 'live by them.' That is, each member of the covenanted community of Israel, if they strictly adhered to the law, would live a longer life and not die as a consequence of law breaking.
This is the ONLY life promised to men by strictly adhering to the law of God (which is impossible, as the scriptures, and the experience of the saints both prove.)
The promise of keeping the law; keeping God's covenant; was temporal and not eternal.
But the righteousness which is of faith (Romans 10:5-11) says the same thing Moses and Joshua were inspired to say to the Israelites, which could be said like this:
"You cannot serve the Lord even if He was to bring a rule book down from above for you to follow it and do it; so don't ask Him for that! Believe that He can justify a man without the deeds of the law as He preached before to Abraham. If you ask Him for some rule to follow, you are asking the God who created all things for the worst possible thing you could ever ask; a thing impossible to obtain by your strictest adherence to it!
It is a request made in self righteousness!"
'Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed' and the essence of Romans 10:5-11 could rightly be stated, 'But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,
Whosoever *simply* believeth on him shall not be ashamed.'
In other words, those who have been justified without the deeds of the law preach the Gospel.
This is the meaning of the above verses applied in context, there is no other, and this is why the free will proponents corrupt the word of God and cannot prove their imaginary free will from these passages.
This is why they need to repent and believe the Good News.
Man does not have free will, and both the Deuteronomy and Joshua passages in their immediate and greater contexts prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt; far beyond making a simplistic case for free will by merely grabbing proof texts from the Bible.
Man is justified by faith in Christ without the deeds of the law.
2nd Corinthians 2:14-17,
"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
~David Hobson.
SDG
Like
Choose you this day Part one
"Choose You This Day Whom You Will Serve!" Free Will? Part 1 of Arminian Proof Texts.
It has been some 2000 years since the New Testament was written and men and women who should know all the Scriptures are still willfully ignorant of what they say, still use them to prove their own fantasies, and still wrest them to their own condemnation.
Joshua 24:15 Is the account of Joshua giving final warning to the Children of Israel after they were ready to receive their allotments of the promised land; a reiteration of something God told both Moses and Joshua privately in the tabernacle of the congregation as recorded in Deuteronomy 31:14 seven years prior.
In Deuteronomy 30 the Lord spoke through Moses the same warnings after the procession on the Mountains Gerizim and Ebal; the blessings and cursings (De 27:12-13.)
Deuteronomy 30:11-21 to 31:1*,
"11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
1 ¶ And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel."
Immediately after God spoke these things from Deuteronomy 27 through the summarization of these warning recorded in Deuteronomy 30:11-21 to 31:11 God called Moses (who was about to die) and Joshua (who was to lead them into the promised land) into the tabernacle of the congregation and told them the following, as recorded in Deuteronomy 31:14-21:
"14 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation.
15 And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.
16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.
21 And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware."
After Joshua had led the Children of Israel through the promised land he reiterated the following very memorable warning obviously mindful of what God had told them (Moses and Joshua) in the tabernacle not more than 7 years prior:
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." - Joshua 24:15*
*Both Deuteronomy 30:11-21 to 31:1 and Joshua 24:15 are misused passages for many who wish to prove free moral agency (free will) in the Bible (e.g. Arminians, Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc.)
God not only knew they would serve other Gods after they took the promised land, God also commanded them to abstain from worshiping other Gods in the promised land knowing full well they would, and knowing they would break His covenant during the taking of it by not killing off the inhabitants they were commended to.
God had ordained all of this.
So much for 'Choose you this day!,' or any of the above to prove free will in the Bible.
But these things were recorded to prove the opposite, and something far more relevant and comforting to the believer:
Daniel 4:35 "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?"
The answer to "What doest thou"? Anything He wants to.
And this is of great comfort to the believer because if men and women decided the future by their pretend free will choices, this world would be ordered by God's creatures and not Him; a frightening thought.
~David Hobson.
Divine Providence
"Nothing is more strengthening to faith, stabilizing to the mind, and tranquilizing to the heart of a Christian, than for him to be enabled to discern his Father's hand guiding, shaping, and controlling everything which enters his life; and not only so, but that He is also governing this world, and all people and events in it."
~ Arthur Pink, "Divine Providence"
Monday, September 21, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Preaching to Myself
One of the reasons I enjoy speaking and teaching is that I need to hear it. When I am teaching or speaking, most of the time I am preaching to myself. I am talking about a subject I need to learn more about. Whether it's forgiveness, or obedience, or loving your enemies, or many other things that are in the Scriptures, I need to hear them.
I need to have God speak to me through His word. We all do. I am a sinner, totally depraved, saved only by God's grace. A grace that is greater than all my sin.
There is no limit to the sin that I am capable of.
You say how can this be? How can God cover all of my sins? They are many. Every evil thought, every evil act, is covered.
It's called forgiveness. He has covered all of my sin, past, present, and future. It has been forgiven, it is complete, it is finished.
When Jesus died on the cross and rose again, it was for all of the sins of all of His people, the elect, as John Macarthur says" stretching back into the past from the beginning of time, and on into the future." Amen to that.
No more needs to be added, it is only by God's grace and nothing else. It is His perfect, unfailing love for me and no good within myself. Jonathan Edwards said "We contribute nothing to our salvation but the sin that made it necessary."
We can not reach God's standard on our own. Jesus said if you hate your neighbor you have already committed murder.
It is impossible. It is only through Jesus Christ's, substitutionary atoning death on the cross, and His imputed righteousness that we can be saved.
- T. Meiers
Secret Freedom
We have been shown this tremendous freedom from the slavery of sin. Sometimes we don't understand once we tell people why they don't "get it."
Our responsibility is to tell others and make disciples, and step out of the way, die to self, like John the Baptist, I must become less so He can become more.
The Holy Spirit will convict and bring others to repentance, and lead them to confession of sins, justification in Christ, and begin the process of sanctification.
We gather to worship, to learn, to fellowship. (Definition of fellowship, I aways thought it was coffee and donuts after the service. I grew up in a church that said "after the service we will have a time of fellowship." But, it's everything's we do, Greek meaning, it's what we are doing right now.)
The church is for the people of God. If an unbeliever comes in, hopefully they will see the love of Christ manifest, and the Holy Spirit will speak to their hearts, and change their heart of stone to a heart of flesh.
(I love that analogy, a stone cold, dead, still, unfeeling heart, to a warm, alive, beating, loving and living heart of flesh.)
Then we scatter to evangelize. To change our little part of the world.
Ever since our children were small, my prayer has been that they would go out into this world and influence what and who they can, wherever they are, in their part of the world. And now, our oldest is a college student living on campus, meeting and influencing others and carrying on that legacy.
We are all born in sin, it's in our nature, its our default, our natural tendency. Just look at a baby, the most selfish creature ever.
They will let you know if they are hungry, or tired, or their needs are not being met. Some of us are still selfish. We can be very selfish, if things don't go exactly the way we had planned them, or they way we think they should. This is why we need God to change our hearts.
- T. Meiers
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
Faith Statement
Complentarianst - God designed man and woman for specific roles to compliment and to be a help mate to each other
Reformed saved by grace alone, not by any works of man
Cessationist- the gifts of tounges ceased after the Apostlistic age bended
There are no more Apostles alive.
5 points of Calvinism
Total Depravity
Unconditional Love
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Monergism - We do not add anything to our salvation, but it is all God's work. As opposed to synergism, which states that we need to cooperate with God in our salvation.
Natural man in his sinful state is depraved and corrupted completely. Every word, deed, thought, and motive is tainted by sin.
Christ's substitutionary and complete atoning death and resurrection did not merely make possible my salvation, but accomplished it. Thus "It is finished."
Infralapsarian
Premillennialism
Five Solas
Scripture Alone - The only Foundation
Christ Alone - The Only Mediator
Grace Alone - The Only Method
Faith Alone - The Only Means
Glory to God Alone - The only Ambition
Believe in the story of Creation as written in Genesis 1
Believe in innerancy of Scripture.
Belief in "traditional" marriage between one man and one woman for life, as defined in the Bible
Believe in Doctrine of Imputation, in which Adam's sin was imputed to mankind
The elect's sin was imputed to Christ on the cross, and Jesus' righteousness was imputed to the elect, which is called Imputed Righteousness.
Reject: Synergism - in which we in any way have to cooperate with God for our salvation. It shows Christ's substitutionary atonement was not enough on it's own.
Reject: Armenianism - in which man can resist the will of God and has free will to usurp God's infinite will, thus making man more powerful than God. It is saying Christ's death and resurrection made salvation possible but not complete.
Reject: Pelagianism - the belief that original sin did not taint human nature, and that mortal will is still capable of choosing God on his own, without special divine aid.
Not Arbitrary or Reversible
One of the things that is crystal-clear in Ephesians 5 is that the
roles of husband and wife in marriage are not arbitrarily assigned,
and they are not reversible any more than the role of Christ and the
church are revers-ible. The roles of husband and wife are rooted in
the distinctive roles of Christ and his church. The revelation of
this mystery is the recovery of the original intention of covenant
marriage in the Garden of Eden.
You can see this most clearly when you ponder what sin did
to headship and submission and how Paul's teaching here in
Ephesians 5 is so perfectly suited to remedy that corruption.
When sin entered the world, it ruined the harmony of marriage
not because it brought headship and submission into existence,
but because it twisted man's humble, loving headship toward
hostile domination in some men and lazy indifference in others.
And it twisted woman's intelligent, willing, happy, creative,
articulate submission toward manipulative obsequious-ness in
some women and brazen insubordination in others. Sin didn't
create headship and submission; it ruined them and distorted
them and made them ugly and destructive.
Recovering Roles from the Ravages of Sin
Now if this is true, then the redemption we anticipate with the
coming of Christ is not the dismantling of the original, created
order of loving headship and willing submission, but a
situation that he has ordained, and we ask him to change it.
I am only drawing out an analogy here, not an exact comparison.
The church never confronts Jesus with his imperfection. He
has no imperfections. But we do seek from him changes in the
situation he has brought about. That is what petitionary prayer is.
So wives, on this anal-ogy, will ask their husbands to change some
ways he is doing things.
All Husbands Need Change
But the main reason we can say that wives may and should seek
their husbands' transformation is that husbands are only similar
to Christ in the relationship with their wives. We are not Christ.
And one of the main differences is that our character and habits
need to change, and Christ's don't. We are like Christ in the
relationship, but we are not Christ. Unlike Christ, we are sinful
and finite and fallible. We need to change. That is a clear and
universal New Testament teaching. All men and women need to
change.
Wives Are Loving Sisters in Christ
Another factor to take into account is that wives are not only
wives, but in Christ they are also loving sisters. There is a unique
way for a submis-sive wife to be a caring sister toward her imperfect
brother-husband. She will, for example, from time to time,
follow Galatians 6:1 in his case: "If anyone is caught in any
transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit
of gentleness." She will do that for him.
And not only Galatians 6:1, but other passages as well. For
exam-ple, both of them—spiritual husband and spiritual
wife—will obey Matthew 18:15 as necessary, and will do so with
the unique demeanor called for by headship and submission: "If
your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between
you and him alone."
The Danger of Nagging
All of this has to be balanced by the danger of nagging. It is a sad
thing when a woman longs
Wives Changing Husbands
Now we turn to the wife's desire for her husband's change. This
chapter is not about what headship and submission are. But to
make clear what I am saying about how we help each other
change, I have to touch on what headship and submission are
not. I have already said that a husband's headship is not
identical to Christ's headship. It is like it. Similarly, therefore,
the wife's submission to the husband is not identi-cal to her
submission to Christ. It is like it.
When Ephesians 5:22 says, "Wives, submit to your own
husbands, as to the Lord," the word as does not mean that Christ
and the husband are the same. Christ is supreme; the husband is
not. Her allegiance is first to Christ, not first to her husband.
The analogy only works if the woman submits to Christ
absolutely, not to the husband absolutely. Then she will be in a
position to submit to the husband without com-mitting treason
or idolatry.
What this implies is that a wife will see the need for change in her
husband. He is not perfect like Christ is. He is flawed.
Therefore, the wife may and should seek the transformation of
her husband, even while respecting him as her head—her leader,
protector, and provider. There are several other reasons I say this.
The Analogy of Prayer
One reason is the function of prayer in the relationship between
Christ and his church. A wife relates to her husband the way the
church should relate to Christ. The church prays to Christ—or
to God the Father through Christ. When the church prays to
her Husband, she asks him to do things a certain way. If we are
sick, we ask him for healing. If we are hungry, we ask for our
daily bread. If we are lost, we ask for direc-tion.
Piper on marriage
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by
the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church
to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that
she might be holy and without blemish.
In Christ's relationship to the church, he is clearly seeking the
transformation of his bride into something morally and
spiritually beautiful. And he is seeking it at the cost of his life.
Let's think for a moment about the implications of this passage
on how a husband thinks and acts with a view to changing his
wife. We will come to the wife's desire to change her husband
shortly.
The first implication is that the husband, who loves like Christ,
bears a unique responsibility for the moral and spiritual growth
of his wife—which means that over time, God willing, there will
be change.
Treading on Dangerous Ground
I realize that at this point—no matter how I come at this—I am
tread-ing on dangerous ground. I could be playing right into the
hands of a selfish, small-minded, controlling husband who has
no sense of the difference between enriching differences between
him and his wife and moral and spiritual weaknesses or defects
that should be changed. Such a man may distort what I am
saying into a mandate to control every facet of his wife's
behavior, and the criteria of what he seeks to change will be his
own selfish desires cloaked in spiritual language.
This is no laughing matter. I have had to deal with husbands
who were pathological in their understanding of a wife's
submission. One woman told me, as we were sorting through
their dysfunctional rela-tionship, that her husband demands that
she get permission for
Thursday, September 17, 2015
R.C. Sproul on Grace Alone
Reformed Theology
The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
R. C. Sproul
Shortly after the Reformation began, in the first few years after Martin Luther posted the Ninety-Five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg, he issued some short booklets on a variety of subjects. One of the most provocative was titled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In this book Luther was looking back to that period of Old Testament history when Jerusalem was destroyed by the invading armies of Babylon and the elite of the people were carried off into captivity. Luther in the sixteenth century took the image of the historic Babylonian captivity and reapplied it to his era and talked about the new Babylonian captivity of the Church. He was speaking of Rome as the modern Babylon that held the Gospel hostage with its rejection of the biblical understanding of justification. You can understand how fierce the controversy was, how polemical this title would be in that period by saying that the Church had not simply erred or strayed, but had fallen-that it's actually now Babylonian; it is now in pagan captivity.
I've often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I can't answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church.
Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage of the Will. When we look at the Reformation and we see the solas of the Reformation-sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia-Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of sola fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone.
In the Fleming Revell edition of The Bondage of the Will, the translators, J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, included a somewhat provocative historical and theological introduction to the book itself. This is from the end of that introduction:
These things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognised by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther's day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimise and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? (1)
Historically, it's a simple matter of fact that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the leading Protestant theologians of the first epoch of the Reformation stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points they had their differences. In asserting the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them these doctrines were the very lifeblood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther's works says this:
Whoever puts this book down without having realized that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith alone, which became the storm center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformers' theology but this is not accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed by Augustine and others, that the sinner's entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only, and that the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a more profound level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration. (2)
That is to say, that the faith that receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God. The principle of soli fide is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Do you hear the difference? Let me put it in simple terms. I heard an evangelist recently say, "If God takes a thousand steps to reach out to you for your redemption, still in the final analysis, you must take the decisive step to be saved." Consider the statement that has been made by America's most beloved and leading evangelical of the twentieth century, Billy Graham, who says with great passion, "God does ninety-nine percent of it but you still must do that last one percent."
What Is Pelagianism?
Now, let's return briefly to my title, "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church." What are we talking about?
Pelagius was a monk who lived in Britain in the fifth century. He was a contemporary of the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Church history if not of all time, Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. We have heard of St. Augustine, of his great works in theology, of his City of God, of his Confessions, and so on, which remain Christian classics.
Augustine, in addition to being a titanic theologian and a prodigious intellect, was also a man of deep spirituality and prayer. In one of his famous prayers, Augustine made a seemingly harmless and innocuous statement in the prayer to God in which he says: "O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command." Now, would that give you apoplexy-to hear a prayer like that? Well it certainly set Pelagius, this British monk, into orbit. When he heard that, he protested vociferously, even appealing to Rome to have this ghastly prayer censured from the pen of Augustine. Here's why. He said, "Are you saying, Augustine, that God has the inherent right to command anything that he so desires from his creatures? Nobody is going to dispute that. God inherently, as the creator of heaven and earth, has the right to impose obligations on his creatures and say, 'Thou shalt do this, and thou shalt not do that.' 'Command whatever thou would'-it's a perfectly legitimate prayer."
It's the second part of the prayer that Pelagius abhorred-when Augustine said, "and grant what thou dost command." He said, "What are you talking about? If God is just, if God is righteous and God is holy, and God commands of the creature to do something, certainly that creature must have the power within himself, the moral ability within himself, to perform it or God would never require it in the first place." Now that makes sense, doesn't it? What Pelagius was saying is that moral responsibility always and everywhere implies moral capability or, simply, moral ability. So why would we have to pray, "God grant me, give me the gift of being able to do what you command me to do"? Pelagius saw in this statement a shadow being cast over the integrity of God himself, who would hold people responsible for doing something they cannot do.
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God's law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It's the result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin, and in sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.
This is precisely what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam's sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God. Pelagius said that grace--and here's the key distinction--facilitates righteousness. What does "facilitate" mean? It helps, it makes it more facile, it makes it easier, but you don't have to have it. You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact people who do it. Augustine said, "No, no, no, no . . . we are infected by sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being-so much so that no human being has the moral power to incline themselves to cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is one that Augustine would describe as the inability to not sin. In simple English, what Augustine was saying is that in the Fall, man loses his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his own evil inclinations.
In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Florence, the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism-because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.
Now what is called semi-Pelagianism, as the prefix "semi" suggests, was a somewhat middle ground between full-orbed Augustinianism and full-orbed Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism said this: yes, there was a fall; yes, there is such a thing as original sin; yes, the constituent nature of humanity has been changed by this state of corruption and all parts of our humanity have been significantly weakened by the fall, so much so that without the assistance of divine grace nobody can possibly be redeemed, so that grace is not only helpful but it's absolutely necessary for salvation. While we are so fallen that we can't be saved without grace, we are not so fallen that we don't have the ability to accept or reject the grace when it's offered to us. The will is weakened but is not enslaved. There remains in the core of our being an island of righteousness that remains untouched by the fall. It's out of that little island of righteousness, that little parcel of goodness that is still intact in the soul or in the will that is the determinative difference between heaven and hell. It's that little island that must be exercised when God does his thousand steps of reaching out to us, but in the final analysis it's that one step that we take that determines whether we go to heaven or hell-whether we exercise that little righteousness that is in the core of our being or whether we don't. That little island Augustine wouldn't even recognize as an atoll in the South Pacific. He said it's a mythical island, that the will is enslaved, and that man is dead in his sin and trespasses.
Ironically, the Church condemned semi-Pelagianism as vehemently as it had condemned original Pelagianism. Yet by the time you get to the sixteenth century and you read the Catholic understanding of what happens in salvation the Church basically repudiated what Augustine taught and Aquinas taught as well. The Church concluded that there still remains this freedom that is intact in the human will and that man must cooperate with-and assent to-the prevenient grace that is offered to them by God. If we exercise that will, if we exercise a cooperation with whatever powers we have left, we will be saved. And so in the sixteenth century the Church reembraced semi-Pelagianism.
At the time of the Reformation, all the reformers agreed on one point: the moral inability of fallen human beings to incline themselves to the things of God; that all people, in order to be saved, are totally dependent, not ninety-nine percent, but one hundred percent dependent upon the monergistic work of regeneration in order to come to faith, and that faith itself is a gift of God. It's not that we are offered salvation and that we will be born again if we choose to believe. But we can't even believe until God in his grace and in his mercy first changes the disposition of our souls through his sovereign work of regeneration. In other words, what the reformers all agreed with was, unless a man is born again, he can't even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it. Like Jesus says in the sixth chapter of John, "No man can come to me unless it is given to him of the Father"-that the necessary condition for anybody's faith and anybody's salvation is regeneration.
✿ Evangelicals and Faith
Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn't that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of "professing evangelical Christians" in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions-or let me say it negatively-neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They're both Pelagian. To say that we're basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking in depth, we would find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We're overwhelmed with it. We're surrounded by it. We're immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.
In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man's basic thesis was, we don't need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America's most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they're correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings-and I say, "I don't see how any Christian person could write this." And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.
✿ The Island of Righteousness
One thing is clear: that you can be purely Pelagian and be completely welcome in the evangelical movement today. It's not simply that the camel sticks his nose into the tent; he doesn't just come in the tent-he kicks the owner of the tent out. Modern Evangelicalism today looks with suspicion at Reformed theology, which has become sort of the third-class citizen of Evangelicalism. Now you say, "Wait a minute, R. C. Let's not tar everybody with the extreme brush of Pelagianism, because, after all, Billy Graham and the rest of these people are saying there was a Fall; you've got to have grace; there is such a thing as original sin; and semi-Pelagians do not agree with Pelagius' facile and sanguine view of unfallen human nature." And that's true. No question about it. But it's that little island of righteousness where man still has the ability, in and of himself, to turn, to change, to incline, to dispose, to embrace the offer of grace that reveals why historically semi-Pelagianism is not called semi-Augustinianism, but semi-Pelagianism. It never really escapes the core idea of the bondage of the soul, the captivity of the human heart to sin-that it's not simply infected by a disease that may be fatal if left untreated, but it is mortal.
I heard an evangelist use two analogies to describe what happens in our redemption. He said sin has such a stronghold on us, a stranglehold, that it's like a person who can't swim, who falls overboard in a raging sea, and he's going under for the third time and only the tops of his fingers are still above the water; and unless someone intervenes to rescue him, he has no hope of survival, his death is certain. And unless God throws him a life preserver, he can't possibly be rescued. And not only must God throw him a life preserver in the general vicinity of where he is, but that life preserver has to hit him right where his fingers are still extended out of the water, and hit him so that he can grasp hold of it. It has to be perfectly pitched. But still that man will drown unless he takes his fingers and curls them around the life preserver and God will rescue him. But unless that tiny little human action is done, he will surely perish.
The other analogy is this: A man is desperately ill, sick unto death, lying in his hospital bed with a disease that is fatal. There is no way he can be cured unless somebody from outside comes up with a cure, a medicine that will take care of this fatal disease. And God has the cure and walks into the room with the medicine. But the man is so weak he can't even help himself to the medicine; God has to pour it on the spoon. The man is so sick he's almost comatose. He can't even open his mouth, and God has to lean over and open up his mouth for him. God has to bring the spoon to the man's lips, but the man still has to swallow it.
Now, if we're going to use analogies, let's be accurate. The man isn't going under for the third time; he is stone cold dead at the bottom of the ocean. That's where you once were when you were dead in sin and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air. And while you were dead hath God quickened you together with Christ. God dove to the bottom of the sea and took that drowned corpse and breathed into it the breath of his life and raised you from the dead. And it's not that you were dying in a hospital bed of a certain illness, but rather, when you were born you were born D.O.A. That's what the Bible says: that we are morally stillborn.
Do we have a will? Yes, of course we have a will. Calvin said, if you mean by a free will a faculty of choosing by which you have the power within yourself to choose what you desire, then we all have free will. If you mean by free will the ability for fallen human beings to incline themselves and exercise that will to choose the things of God without the prior monergistic work of regeneration then, said Calvin, free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to a human being.
The semi-Pelagian doctrine of free will prevalent in the evangelical world today is a pagan view that denies the captivity of the human heart to sin. It underestimates the stranglehold that sin has upon us.
None of us wants to see things as bad as they really are. The biblical doctrine of human corruption is grim. We don't hear the Apostle Paul say, "You know, it's sad that we have such a thing as sin in the world; nobody's perfect. But be of good cheer. We're basically good." Do you see that even a cursory reading of Scripture denies this?
Now back to Luther. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received? Or is it a condition of justification which is left to us to fulfill? Is your faith at work? Is it the one work that God leaves for you to do? I had a discussion with some folks in Grand Rapids, Michigan, recently. I was speaking on sola gratia, and one fellow was upset. He said, "Are you trying to tell me that in the final analysis it's God who either does or doesn't sovereignly regenerate a heart?"
And I said, "Yes," and he was very upset about that. I said, "Let me ask you this: are you a Christian?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Do you have friends who aren't Christians?"
He said, "Well, of course."
I said, "Why are you a Christian and your friends aren't? Is it because you're more righteous than they are?" He wasn't stupid. He wasn't going to say, "Of course it's because I'm more righteous. I did the right thing and my friend didn't." He knew where I was going with that question.
And he said, "Oh, no, no, no."
I said, "Tell me why. Is it because you're smarter than your friend?"
And he said, "No."
But he would not agree that the final, decisive issue was the grace of God. He wouldn't come to that. And after we discussed this for fifteen minutes, he said, "OK! I'll say it. I'm a Christian because I did the right thing, I made the right response, and my friend didn't."
What was this person trusting in for his salvation? Not in his works in general, but in the one work that he performed. And he was a Protestant, an evangelical. But his view of salvation was no different from the Roman view.
✿ God's Sovereignty in Salvation
This is the issue: Is it a part of God's gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity's utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformers' thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.
And yet this view is the overwhelming majority report today in professing evangelical circles. And as long as semi-Pelagianism-which is simply a thinly veiled version of real Pelagianism at its core-as long as it prevails in the Church, I don't know what's going to happen. But I know, however, what will not happen: there will not be a new Reformation. Until we humble ourselves and understand that no man is an island and that no man has an island of righteousness, that we are utterly dependent upon the unmixed grace of God for our salvation, we will not begin to rest upon grace and rejoice in the greatness of God's sovereignty, and we will not be rid of the pagan influence of humanism that exalts and puts man at the center of religion. Until that happens there will not be a new Reformation, because at the heart of Reformation teaching is the central place of the worship and gratitude given to God and God alone.
Soli Deo gloria, to God alone, the glory.
---------------------------------
1 [ Back ] J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, "Introduction" to The Bondage of the Will (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming Revell, 1957), 59-60.