Enabling Power of the Gospel?: A Response to Dr. Leighton Flowers

I’ve listened to a fair amount of Dr. Leighton Flowers.  Not only have I spoken to him three times on his podcast, but I’ve also engaged him in discussion on the subject of Calvinism via Facebook.  One thing I’ve heard him say quite regularly is something along the lines that the power of the gospel message is that it enables people (all people) to believe when it is brought to them.  So recently I asked him to provide me with some Scriptures that he believes teach this view.  Keep in mind that his view is raised in opposition to the Reformed or Calvinistic view that God effectually calls His chosen people through the gospel message.

Following is the list of verses that Dr. Flowers provided.  Several of these verses are similar in character.  Therefore, rather than comment on each verse, I will provide a response to Dr. Flowers’ use of these texts as a whole.  That being said, I will provide specific comments on two of the verses in the list.  I encourage you to read these verses and ask yourself, “Do these verses teach that the revelation of God somehow enables all who hear it to believe, or is Dr. Flowers reading that into the text?”

 

Ps. 18:30 “This God – his way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.”[1]

Ps. 119:130 “The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.”

Prov. 30:5 “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”

Isa. 55:11  “so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”

Matt. 7:24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.”

Lk. 11:28 “But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’”

Jn. 8:31-32 “So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’”

Jn. 20:31 “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

Acts 28:23-28 “When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers.  From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.  And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved.  And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: ‘Go to this people, and say, ‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.’  For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’  Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.”

Rom. 1:16-18 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’”

2 Cor. 5:20 “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.  We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

2 Tim. 3:15-17 “And how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Heb. 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

1 Pet. 1:23 “since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.”

 

What these passages teach us, at least in part, is the necessity of revelation – special revelation.  That is, if someone is to believe the message of Christ, they must first hear that message.  I cannot believe X if I have not heard of X.  The same concept is expressed by Paul in Romans 10.  This, however, is not the same thing as saying that the message itself enables people to believe, only that they must come in contact with the message if they are to believe.

Some of these verses speak of the blessings upon those who obey God’s word, but they do not speak of this enabling concept put forth by Dr. Flowers.  A call to be reconciled, or a statement on the blessings of obedience to the word, is not the same thing as the word having some enabling effect on people.  Dr. Flowers has to assume that.

Dr. Flowers assumes, as do non-Calvinists in general, that if there is a call to believe in the word, that of necessity means that man is morally able to do so.[2]  Yet, in John 6:35 Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”  Here is a verse that falls in line with these other verses Dr. Flowers referenced.  However, two verses later, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (v. 37).  So here we see that the Father’s giving results in the sinner’s coming to Jesus.  Again, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.  And I will raise him up on the last day” (v. 44).  There is an inability of man expressed in this verse that is only overcome by the effectual drawing of the Father, ultimately leading to the glorification of the one drawn (raised up on the last day).

I want to now provide a specific comment on Romans 1:16 and 1 Peter 1:23. First, Romans 1:16.

The power that Paul speaks of here is not a mere enabling of sinners to believe, but a saving power.  As Paul says, it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”.  It is a power unto salvation.  The power of the gospel is that it reveals the righteousness of God through faith.  It destroys the idolatrous ways of the Gentiles and the legalistic ways of the Jews.  Yes, it is through faith; one must believe.  But that is not the same thing as Dr. Flowers has been asserting regarding enabling.  Again, he must assume this.

We see a similar statement in 1 Corinthians 1:21, “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”  Here Paul is again saying that God saves those who believe in the gospel, essentially what he asserts in Romans 1:16-18.  Yet, in 1 Corinthians 1:22-24, we again find the effectual calling of God:

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” [Emphasis added. Cf. 1:30-31]

God has a chosen people in the world (Jew and Gentile).  To them, Christ is seen as the power and wisdom of God for salvation.  Look, power is used of the gospel again.  Yet, as is obvious to any honest reader, this has nothing to do with a general enabling to all who hear.

Finally, 1 Peter 1:23.  I have to wonder if Dr. Flowers views the statement, “born again through the living and abiding word of God,” as the enabling power of the gospel he speaks of so frequently.  If he does, then he must believe that everyone who hears the gospel is saved because all who are born again are saved, and he believes that all experience this enabling power when they hear God’s word.  If he doesn’t view this statement as the enabling power of the gospel, then I have to wonder why he referenced it.  Again, all this verse teaches us is the necessity and power of God’s word in bringing salvation.  Any concept of enabling all people who hear God’s word is wholly absent from the text.

Now, let me say something to avoid any confusion regarding the Calvinist view of the gospel and its power.  Dr. Flowers has said essentially the following on other occasions:

“We Traditionalists actually believe in the sufficiency of the Bible to lead people to salvation.  According to the Calvinist, the Bible can’t lead a reprobate or non-elect person to salvation.  It doesn’t have the sufficiency to do so.  God has to do an extra work of grace.  They have to be regenerated, made alive, and then the Bible is sufficient.  The Traditionalist perspective is that, since the word is brought by the Holy Spirit, it’s the means by which anybody can be saved.  So we have a higher view of Scripture than Calvinists do.”[3]

There is much that is misrepresentative of Calvinism in this statement, but I will attempt to be brief.  First, the reason why Reformed/Calvinist churches are historically known for placing the Scriptures at the center of their worship services is that they whole-heartedly believe in the sufficiency of God’s word to accomplish that which God wills (Isa. 55:11, to reference one of Dr. Flowers’ verses).  Second, when Dr. Flowers says that, according to the Calvinist, “the Bible can’t lead a reprobate or non-elect person to salvation,” he’s operating on his supposition.  A reprobate is someone that God has justly passed over in the administration of His redemptive grace, leaving them to justice for their sins.  However, Dr. Flowers doesn’t believe the Bible can lead a reprobate or non-elect to salvation either, because he doesn’t believe in the reprobate/non-elect; at least, not in the Reformed perspective.  Further, if God does this “extra work of grace,” then they’re not reprobate/non-elect.  Rather, what we Calvinists affirm is the consistency of God in His redemptive plan.  We see this, for example, in Ephesians 1:3-14:  The Father chooses a people to the praise of His glorious grace; the Son dies in their place, accomplishing the grounds of their redemption; the Holy Spirit applies the redemptive work of Christ, sealing them as a promise of their glorious inheritance.  Lastly, tying the previous two points together, Calvinists believe that the Spirit sovereignly works through the proclamation of the gospel to sanctify and save God’s people.  You see, we don’t believe that the gospel enables people, we believe that the gospel effectually saves people.  In fact, the Baptist Catechism, Q/A #3 reads:

Q. How may we know there is a God?

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God; but His Word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners. [Emphasis added.]

I will end this post with two Scriptures that sum this up well.

1 Thess. 1:4-5 “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction….”[4]

2 Thess. 2:13-14 “But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.  To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

[I want everyone to know that Dr. Flowers and I have had friendly conversations on this, often inflammatory, debate in the past.  I may have strong disagreements with his perspective, and at times am troubled at some of the things he says, but I view him as a brother in Christ, and I believe he views me as a brother in Christ.  I have not attacked Dr. Flowers in this post, but have sought to explain why I disagree with his theological perspective.

Grace and peace…]

 

 

[1] All Scripture quotations are from the ESV, 2001.

[2] Moral inability is different from physical inability.  Non-Calvinists often confuse the moral inability expressed by Calvinists as a physical inability, leading to straw man characterizations of the Calvinist perspective.  For example, using an analogy that involves a man beating his deaf dog because it repeatedly disobeys his commands is a misrepresentation of the Calvinist perspective, as it references a physical inability, not a moral inability.  I use this analogy as an example because Dr. Flowers has used it before.  This either means that Dr. Flowers is still confused on the difference between moral and physical inability or that he is purposefully misrepresenting the Calvinist view.  All I know is he shouldn’t be confused over it because he’s been corrected several times before.  Another problem with Flowers’ analogy is that the dog is neutral; it hasn’t committed any positive disobedience; it’s merely ignorant of the commands of its owner (I’m thankful to Sean Cole for pointing this out).  Instead, a moral inability illustration would involve a dog who can hear just fine and who knows better but continually disobeys his master anyways due to an innate dislike of the master (or of humans in general).  You could even add that the dog is rabid to better communicate the sinful nature and its corruption.  Of course, even with moral inability being introduced, it’s still a woefully trivial analogy when compared to the testimony of Scripture regarding the sinful disobedience of man to his holy Creator.  Again, man’s inability to do that which is pleasing to God is a moral inability.  That is, they cannot because they will not or desire not do.  They cannot because they prefer the life of the flesh and therefore do not will or desire to do that which is pleasing to God (e.g. Rom. 6:20; 8:5-8; Eph. 2:1-3).

[3] This is taken from his podcast episode, “REFORMING THE SBC: 500 Year Anniversary of Calvinism?”, starting at time-stamp 0:29:45. https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/soteriology-101/e/52038496

[4] There’s the word “power” used again in relation to the gospel.  Again, this is a saving power, not a mere enabling power.

In Accordance With the Scriptures

It should be readily accepted that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are at the heart of the Christian faith.  After all, if there was no crucifixion, then there is no atonement made for the forgiveness of our sins, and if there was no resurrection, then the crucifixion was unsuccessful.  This is why the Apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”  Rather explicit, isn’t it?

Okay, but what about the Bible?  Is it really all that important to view the Bible as foundational to the Christian faith?  Isn’t it enough to simply tell people to rest in the resurrection of Christ, especially in light of all the attacks against the trustworthiness of the Bible?  Unfortunately, some professing Christians would say “Yes”.  But this is not the Apostle Paul’s answer.

At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15 (vv. 1-5) Paul says the following about the gospel:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [emphasis added]

According to Paul, both the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior are according to the Scriptures.  This is to simply say that the Old Testament Scriptures foretold of these gospel events.  Paul does not merely rely on eyewitness encounters, but on the Scriptures that foretold of this redemptive event.  We actually see in the book of Acts that this was in fact the approach Paul took in some of his preaching encounters.  Acts 13:32-38 reads as follows:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’  And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’  Therefore he says also in another psalm, ‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’  For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption, but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.  Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. [emphasis added]

You see, the Apostle Paul did not preach the historical fact of the resurrection in isolation from the Scriptures, which he here, and elsewhere (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16-17), affirmed to be God’s very word.  Rather, he emphasizes the resurrection as the fulfillment of God’s promise.  Paul does not merely rest his proclamation of the resurrected Christ on the fact that he was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ, but that what he had witnessed was rooted in and founded upon the Scriptures.  The ultimate authority here is not the resurrection itself, but the Scriptures which give theological meaning and understanding to the resurrection.  According to Paul, the Scriptures and the resurrection go hand-in-hand.

You cannot in one breath belittle the Bible by denying its infallibility and then in another breath affirm the resurrection as the foundation of the Christian faith.

Why do I write this?  Well, as many are already aware, Andy Stanley, of Buckhead Churh (and several off-site campuses) in Atlanta, GA, has essentially affirmed this very thing in a sermon titled “The Bible Told Me So”.  In this sermon he essentially denies the infallibility of the Bible, claims it is not the foundation of the Church, but tells people that the resurrection is the foundation.  My purpose here is not to provide a critique of his sermon.  I simply provide this post as a quick rebuttal to Stanley’s central affirmation.  For a full critique by Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries, please go here (starts at 00:41:30).

Jesus’ Parables as Judgment: A Response to Leighton Flowers’ View of the Purpose of the Parables

You can view a PDF of this post here: “Jesus’ Parables as Judgment: A Response to Leighton Flowers’ View of the Purpose of the Parables”

Professor Leighton Flowers has recently written an article titled, “The Messianic Secret,”[1] wherein he explains his understanding of the purpose of the parables.  According to Flowers, the reason Jesus spoke in parables was to prevent the Jewish people from coming to repentance and faith, so as to bring about the crucifixion, otherwise the crucifixion would not have taken place.  While I will not address every single point and Scriptural reference in his article – and I don’t necessarily disagree with everything he says in the article – I do want to respond to a few of his key points.  Before I do so, however, let me first briefly explain my understanding regarding the reason Jesus spoke in parables.

Why Jesus Spoke In Parables

I believe the primary reason Jesus spoke in parables – though I do believe there exists a two-fold nature to the purpose of the parables – was to enact a form of judgment on the Jewish people.  Let us give consideration to Matthew 13:10-17 in making this point:

¹⁰ Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” ¹¹ And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. ¹² For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. ¹³ This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. ¹⁴ Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
¹⁵ For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

¹⁶ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. ¹⁷ For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

To these close disciples of Jesus – those who had ears to hear and eyes to see – the parables were a means of explaining the kingdom of God.  To those who did not have ears to hear and eyes to see, but hardened their hearts at the teachings of Jesus, the parables were a means of judgment, confirming them in their rebellious way.  Note that Jesus explicitly says that he speaks in parables “because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”  He does not say that he speaks in parables so that they won’t see and hear and understand; it’s that they already don’t see and hear and understand. Verse 15 makes clear that the people’s hearts had already grown dull, that they had already closed their eyes, otherwise they would see and hear and understand and turn and be saved.  But that is not what they wanted.  Note, the parables did not harden the people or prevent them from understanding so that they would not repent and believe (and otherwise thwart God’s redemptive plan).  Their hearts were already hard, and they had already failed to understand the truth of Jesus and his redemptive mission.  John MacArthur’s words are spot-on:

While the parables do illustrate and clarify truth for those with ears to hear, they have precisely the opposite effect on those who oppose and reject Christ.  The symbolism hides the truth from anyone without the discipline or desire to seek out Christ’s meaning.  That’s why Jesus adopted that style of teaching.  It was a divine judgment against those who met His teaching with scorn, unbelief, or apathy.[2]

MacArthur goes on to explain this two-fold nature of the parables:

In short, Jesus’ parables had a clear twofold purpose: They hid the truth from self-righteous or self-satisfied people who fancied themselves too sophisticated to learn from Him, while the same parables revealed truth to eager souls with childlike faith – those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness.  Jesus thanked His Father for both results: ‘I thank You, father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.  Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight (Matt. 11:25-26).[3]

Two final points need to be made before moving on to consider some of Flowers’ points.  First it is important to keep in mind that Jesus did not always teach in parables.  There are plenty of times in the Gospels where we find Jesus teaching in a more straight-forward and didactic manner (e.g. Mk. 1:14-15; Lk. 4:14-30).  The Sermon on the Mount is perhaps the best example of this.  Even though it concludes in a brief parable, “the substance of the message, starting with the Beatitudes, is delivered in a series of direct propositional statements, commandments, polemical arguments, exhortations, and words of warning.”[4]

Second, there are times when Jesus used parabolic language – the use of provincial imagery meant to communicate a spiritual truth/reality – and the intent was not to hide the truth, but to reveal and clarify the truth.  Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman are good examples of this (Jn. 3-4).

In summary, Jesus used parables to teach those with ears to hear and eyes to see, as well as to confirm those with hard and unbelieving hearts in their rebellion.  The parables were not used to keep people from repenting and believing, because the people were already unrepentant and unbelieving.  Further, Jesus did not always teach in parables, but often taught in a straight-forward and didactic manner.

Responding to Leighton Flowers

Early on in the article Professor Flowers references 1 Corinthians 2:8-9 in support of his perspective.  I find this very interesting, considering the context in which this passage is found.  First, let’s look at Flowers’ words and then I’ll respond:

As the Apostle Paul noted, “We speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8-9). Jesus knew that had they believed in Him before the right time then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, the Lord graciously taught in parables “to those on the outside…so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” (Mark 4:11b-12).

In essence, Flowers is asserting that God actively blinded or hid the wisdom of his redemptive plan from these rulers so that he could bring about the gospel – the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  This, however, is the exact opposite of the meaning of the text.  Paul is not addressing the concept of hiding the truth, but of revealing the truth.  The truth was hidden from them, not because God was actively hiding it from them, but because they themselves did not understand it (i.e. a spiritual inability to understand the things of God).  It’s not that the truth had not been made known to them, but it’s as Paul goes on to say, these things are revealed by God through the Spirit.  We understand these things because we have received the Spirit of God (vv. 10-13).  So why did the rulers not understand this mystery of God?  Because God was actively hiding it from them?  No, it’s because “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (v. 14).  This point is all the more striking when we consider the fact that Paul just spent numerous verses speaking of the unique/effectual call of God’s chosen people (1:17-2:5).  To make this a general call is to flip Paul’s teaching on its theological head, stripping it of all its polemical and pastoral power.

Further, in regards to Flowers’ reference of Mark 4:11-12, Mark basically quotes several Old Testament passages that speak of the people’s hearts already hard, their eyes already unseeing, their ears already plugged, and of the need for God to give them an understanding heart, seeing eyes, and hearing ears (Deut. 29:4; Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2).  In short, it is a word of judgment on the people.  Flowers seems to think that this passage undercuts the concept of the inability of man and God’s effectual calling.  It does no such thing.

Here is another example of Flowers’ understanding of the purpose of the parables:

Jesus is not attempting to persuade everyone to come to faith in great numbers as we see following Pentecost when Peter preaches (Acts 2:41). Quite the opposite seems to be the case, in fact. To accomplish the redemptive plan through Israel’s unbelief, we see Jesus actively instructing His apostles not to tell others who he is yet (Matt. 16:20; Mark 8:30; 9:9).

In other words, Jesus used parables in order to prevent the vast majority of the Jews from repenting and believing, because if they did so, then they would not have crucified him.  Again, Flowers’ attempt here is to undercut the concept of the moral inability of man and God’s effectual calling, while putting forth his perspective of judicial hardening.[5]  Is this actually what we find though?  I think not.

First, the fact that Jesus went around preaching repentance and faith, sending out his disciples, and identifying himself as the Messiah at times, disproves Flowers’ first assertion (e.g. Mtt. 4:17; 10:5-14; Mk. 1:14-15; Lk. 4:15-21; 10:1-12).

Second, the reason Jesus hid his identity was not to prevent the vast majority of Jews from repenting and believing so as to accomplish God’s redemptive plan of the cross, but to prevent the Jews from attempting to carry out their false concept of the Messiah – a ruler of an earthly kingdom who would free them from Roman suppression.  Even his close disciples were confused about the Scriptural witness of the Messiah (Mtt. 16:21-28).  It took Jesus’ supernatural ability to open the minds of the disciples so that they could understand the Scriptures (Lk. 24:44-47).  So Flowers is correct to assert that it was for the purpose of bringing about the redemptive plan, but he’s in error to think that the crowds would have repented and believed in him if his true identity had been broadcasted.  It’s at this point, regarding the fact of Jesus not broadcasting his identity as Messiah and Jesus’ use of parables, that Flowers seems to conflate the two.  He says the following:

Moreover, Jesus purposefully speaks in parables in order to prevent the Jewish leaders coming to faith and repentance (Matt. 13:11-15; Mark 4:11-13). When great numbers began to believe Jesus was truly prophetic, notice how Jesus responded: “’Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.’ Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by Himself” (John 6:14-15). Earlier in the same gospel we learn that “many people saw the miraculous signs He was doing and believed in His name. But Jesus would not entrust Himself to them” (John 2:23b-24a).

Flowers seems to be asserting here that the reason Jesus spoke in parables was to conceal his identity as the Messiah.  Yet, the parables were primarily about the nature and expansion of the kingdom, not the person and work of Jesus.[6]  Further, John 6:14-15 only confirms the point that Jesus hid his identity as the Messiah, not to prevent the Jews from repenting and believing, but to prevent them from attempting to carry out their false ideas of the Messiah’s mission.  Lastly, Flowers seems to be implying that “Jesus would not entrust Himself to them” has something to do with Jesus concealing his true identity and speaking in parables so as to prevent mass conversions.  This is not the case, however.   Rather, Jesus did not entrust himself to them because he knew their hearts (Jn. 2:25), which means he knew their true intentions and motives.  This again confirms that Jesus was preventing them from attempting to carry out their false view of the Messiah’s mission, not that he was keeping them from truly repenting and believing.  Needless to say, this paragraph by Flowers is somewhat muddled, and it seems that he may be mixing categories.

Conclusion

The purpose of the parables is not so much on the subject of the ability/inability of man, but on the providence of God to accomplish his redemptive purposes in the way in which he ordained them to be accomplished.  It cannot be overlooked, too, that Jesus did not always teach in parables.  It would certainly seem that, for Flowers’ interpretation to hold water, one would have to conclude that he always taught, or at least primarily taught, in parables.  Yet, this is simply not the case.  What is more, Jesus hiding his identity as the Messiah is not the same thing as Jesus teaching in parables.  Flowers seems to conflate the two, which causes some confusion regarding his point and perspective (in my opinion at least).

The primary purpose of Jesus teaching the people in parables was to confirm the unbelieving Jews in their rebellion.  It was a form of judgment on the people.  To those with ears to hear and eyes to see, however, it was a means for Jesus to communicate the truth of his kingdom.

[1] Flowers, Leighton. “The Messianic Secret”. https://goo.gl/ze8jtm. Accessed on January 3, 2016.

[2] MacArthur, John. Parables (Thomas Nelson, 2015), xix.

[3] Ibid., xxi. Emphasis is his.

[4] Ibid., xxi.

[5] Note, judicial hardening is not a concept that contradicts Calvinism.  Judicial hardening is a biblical concept.  Flowers has repeatedly stated that Calvinists believe that mankind is born judicially hardened.  This, however, is not the case, and actually mixes categories.  What Calvinists believe is that mankind is born with a sin nature due to their federal head – Adam.  This means that we are born with corrupt hearts, and therefore our desire from our youth is that of wickedness (this takes various degrees and forms).  We do not desire the things of God; we are enemies of God and by nature children of wrath (note, man is not morally neutral).  This does not mean that man is as wicked as he can be.  By God’s common grace the world of men continues to thrive in its institutions with relative progress (though man’s work continues to be tainted by corruption and sin).  Throughout redemptive history God may judicially harden a nation (or individual) for his redemptive purposes (e.g. Pharaoh and the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt).  Judicial hardening, however, and the state in which man is born are not the same thing.

[6] Of course, the kingdom of God is established through the redemptive work of Christ, but this is not overly clear in his parables, which primarily focus on the kingdom itself.

Rightly Understanding the Nature of Man & Effectual Calling: A Response to Leighton Flowers, Pt. 1

You can read a PDF version of this post here: “Rightly Understanding the Nature of Man and Effectual Calling: A Response to Leighton Flowers”

Lately I have been spending quite a bit of time listening to Leighton Flowers’ podcast and reading through his blog.  He is one of the very few non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention that is actually willing to stick his head out there and dialogue with Calvinists.  For that I give him credit.  I very much appreciate his willingness to speak with me and Dale Stenberg (my fellow partner in crime on the Reformasium Podcast[1]).  I do, however, have great concerns regarding his position on certain theological topics, and I greatly question his abilities in rightly addressing our biblical argumentation.

This article is specifically in response to one of his podcast episodes titled, “Total Inability and the Effectual Calling” (Nov. 10, 2015).[2]  This post will only deal with his statements on total inability.  I plan on providing a second post shortly to address his arguments against effectual calling and his presentation of his view regarding the power of the gospel.

I will provide key quotations of Flowers from this podcast episode and then respond in kind.  These may not be 100% verbatim quotations, but I’ve tried my best to write his words exactly.  In some instances I’ve condensed lengthy quotations for the sake of simplicity (getting to the point).  At the very least, they should be accurate representations of his views.  Leighton Flowers is more than welcome to correct me if I have misquoted or misrepresented him in any way.  That is certainly not my intention, and I will make attempts to fix such errors.  I would of course also encourage anyone reading this to first listen to the podcast episode.

Leighton Flowers: “If someone has the ability to have the mental ascent of the facts being given through the Scripture, and they have the ability to be convicted by that, then they should have the ability to respond to that in faith.”

“Man can understand and place their trust in Buddha, or in Joseph Smith, or in Satan, or whoever, even giving their lives for these people and their systems, but for some reason, according to Calvinists, God decreed for mankind to be incapable of placing their trust in the truth claims of the gospel.  They cannot, by nature, put their trust in it.”

“It’s God’s doing, according to the Calvinist, that man is in the sinful state they’re in and can’t savingly believe in the gospel unless enabled to do so by his effectual calling.”

Response: Leighton Flowers seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the biblical teaching on the nature of man, as well as what Calvinists actually believe and mean with respect to the inability of fallen mankind.  Based on his statements, he seems to think that we are speaking of a physical inability.  I see no other way of understanding the connection he makes between understanding facts and being able to put one’s faith in those facts.  The same goes with his connection regarding being able to devote oneself to these false religions and their leaders, but somehow not being able to devote oneself to Jesus Christ.  In other words, if one is physically able to mentally ascent to the facts of the gospel (i.e. at least have an intellectual understanding of gospel truth), then we ought to conclude that they are physically able to respond to that truth in faith.  Again, if one is physically able to be devoted to Joseph Smith, for example, then how else can we conclude than that they are physically able to devote themselves to Jesus Christ, if they so choose.

This, however, is erroneous to the core.  First, the inability that Calvinists speak of regarding man’s response to the gospel is not of a physical nature, but a spiritual or moral nature.  This has to do with their sinful nature.  Thomas Schreiner brings this out wonderfully in his commentary on Romans, Chapter 8 verse 8:

But Paul’s argument goes further.  Not only do they refuse to submit to God’s law; they ‘cannot’ keep it.  And ‘those who are of the flesh are not able to please God’.  Paul is certainly speaking not of a physical inability to keep God’s law but of a moral inability to do so.  He does not conclude that those of the flesh are not responsible for their sins because of their inability.  Rather, he holds them responsible for their sins even though they cannot keep God’s law.  Paul apparently did not believe that people were only culpable for sin if they had the ‘moral’ ability to keep commandments.[3]

Leighton may want to object that Paul is speaking of man’s inability in relation to the law, not the gospel.  However, the point still stands, because it speaks to man’s nature in and of itself.  Not to mention that this is not the only text that we derive the teaching of total inability from (e.g. Jn. 6:44).  We could also point out that the text says that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God”.  Yet, believing in the gospel is certainly something that is pleasing to God.  Again, Paul is here contrasting those who are in Christ, those who set their mind on the Spirit, with those who set their mind on the flesh – they are hostile to God.  This is fundamentally why they are unable to respond to the truth of God; as hostile enemies of God, they have no desire to do so.  Paul Washer comments on this point as well:

Finally, total depravity does not mean that men do not possess the necessary faculties to obey God.  Man is not a victim who desires to obey but is unable to because of factors beyond his control.  God has endowed man with an intellect, a will, and a freedom to choose.  Man is therefore responsible before God as a moral agent.  Total depravity does mean that man cannot submit himself to God because he will not, and he will not because of his own hostility toward God.[4]

Yet, this is precisely what Flowers overlooks.  The inability in man is not a physical inability (which would include a mental inability), but is a moral inability.  In other words, they act according to their sinful nature, and unless the grace of God opens their eyes to see and their ears to hear, then they will continue in their willful rebellion against their Creator (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16).  So yes, men and women entrust their souls to false religious systems; but that just proves the point.  They do so because they’re enemies of God and choose to serve the lie rather than the Creator (Rom. 1).

Another way of stating this biblical truth that God deals with men according to their moral (and covenantal) standing before God is to say that “God deals with man according to his obligation, not according to the measure of his ability.”[5]  Dr. Robert L. Reymond goes on to say,

Before the Fall, man had both the obligation and the ability to obey God.  As a result of the Fall, he retained the former but lost the latter.  Man’s inability to obey, arising from the moral corruption of his nature, does not remove from him his obligation to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself.  His obligation to obey God remains intact.  If God dealt with man today according to his ability to obey, he would have to reduce his moral demands to the vanishing point.  Conversely, if we determined the measure of man’s ability from the sweeping obligations implicit in the divine commands, then we would need to predicate total ability for man, that is to say, we would all have to adopt the Pelagian position, for the commands of God cover the entire horizon of moral obligation.[6]

Second, Flowers mixes categories, and in so doing, puts the emphasis and focal point of the discussion where it shouldn’t be.  This only muddies the water.  For instance, he says, according to the Calvinist “God decreed for mankind to be incapable of placing their trust in the truth claims of the gospel.”  I find it interesting that he has to bring in God’s decree when Calvinists themselves don’t address the issue of man’s inability from that angle, but from the angle that is presented to us in Scripture – the moral responsibility of mankind.  Flowers seems to want to go where the Scriptures don’t lead us.  It seems like a desperate attempt at producing an emotional response, rather than producing an exegetical response.

Another problem I have with this response by Flowers against the inability of man, is that it assumes a fatalistic determinism.  Yet, Calvinists do not put forth a fatalistic determinism with regard to God’s decree and man’s responsibility.  Rather, what we hold to is known as compatibilism – the belief that God’s exhaustive sovereignty and man’s responsibility/choices are compatible with one another; man’s responsibility is of a moral nature before their Creator.  Several passages serve to demonstrate this compatibility between God’s sovereignty and man’s will (e.g. Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 4:23-28; Phil. 2:12-13).  In other words, Calvinists readily assert the moral responsibility of mankind, and we do so while at the same time affirming the exhaustive sovereignty of God over all things, even in the matter of our salvation.  Why do we do it?  Because that’s what the Scriptures clearly teach.  So Flowers’ presentation is overly simplistic at best and woefully misleading at worst.

With regard to this compatibility, Louis Berkhof remarks:

There is not a single indication in Scripture that the inspired writers are conscious of a contradiction in connection with these matters.  They never make an attempt to harmonize the two.  This may well restrain us from assuming a contradiction here, even if we cannot reconcile both truths.[7]

I might add that the only place where such an attempt is made is in the person of Paul’s interlocutor in Romans 9, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault?  For who can resist his will?’”  I don’t think Flowers recognizes it, but this is in essence the objection he raises as well.  So I will supply the same response that the apostle Paul did:

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?  Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?  What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In conclusion, I would very much like to ask professor Flowers his understanding of God’s sovereign outworking of the gospel itself.  Does he believe that God sovereignly decreed that Christ be crucified for the forgiveness of sinners?  If so, then how does he, according to his theological system, work in the many sins of man that were necessary in bringing about that redemptive plan?  If he asserts that God merely foresaw the sinful acts of man, then he places the cart before the horse, essentially asserting that man committed these sinful acts before God even decreed Christ’s crucifixion, and ultimately it would put the redemptive plan itself in the hands of man, not God.  So, what of passages like Acts 4:23-28?  I would very much like to see professor Flowers address such passages, and if he has already, then I’m sure I will come across them in due time, and most certainly provide some response to them.

---

[1] Reformasium Podcast “Lively Discussion from a Reformed Perspective” www.reformasium.com

[2] “Total Inability and the Effectual Calling” Podcast episode by Leighton Flowers. http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/soteriology-101/e/total-inability-and-the-effectual-calling-41204682. Accessed on December 16, 2015.

[3] Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans (MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 412-413.

[4] Washer, Paul. The Gospel’s Power & Message (MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 117. Emphasis is his.

[5] Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 454. Emphasis his.

[6] Ibid., 454-455. Emphasis his.

[7] Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (MI: Eerdmans, 1941), 106.

Introducing the Reformasium Podcast: Lively Discussion from a Reformed Perspective

My dear brother in the Lord, Dale Stenberg, and I recently started our own podcast, called Reformasium.  The focus of the podcast is to equip the Christian in the pew – the laymember – in the areas of evangelism and apologetics.  We’ll of course discuss other matters, but that’s where our heart is and what we seek to edify the Church in.  Please check out the Reformasium website to find out more and listen to our first episode!  Be sure to check out the “Meet the Hosts”, “About the Pod”, and “Our Beliefs” pages.  We pray that you will be edified and God will be glorified.

Book Review: The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & Protestants – Do the Differences Still Matter? (by Dr. James R. White)

I just finished reading Dr. James White’s book, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Bethany House Publishers, 1996), and it couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.  The sub-title of the book, Catholics & Protestants – Do the Differences Still Matter?, is a question that apparently still needs to be addressed, though this should not be so.

With the recent visit of Pope Francis to the United States a lot of discussion surrounding this very issue has ensued.  No doubt, the large number of so-called Protestants that welcomed Pope Francis with open arms and open hearts is the major cause for this frenzy.  But is all the uproar really necessary?  Should there really be protests at such partnerships?  Can’t Protestants and Catholics finally put their differences aside and once and for all join hands?

If one truly understands the issues at hand — what it is that the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically teaches in relation to what the Bible teaches — the answer to these questions must of necessity be “No”.  For the sake of the truth of the Gospel we cannot embrace the Pope as a fellow brother in the Lord and welcome him with open arms.  The differences are simply to great.  The cost of compromise accords with the degree of the differences — eternal punishment in Hell.

Now, there will likely be people who read this post who disagree with my position.  To them I simply say, read this book!  If you value truth, honesty, and the word of God, then read this book so as to become educated in that which truly divides Roman Catholics from those who hold the Bible as their ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.  For those who are already familiar with the differences, and who claim to hold to the Bible as their ultimate authority, and yet rejoice in the Pope (in particular) and Roman Catholics (in general), I can only conclude that you have betrayed your commitment to the Bible as God’s ultimate authority.  One cannot truly hold to the Bible as their ultimate authority, believing what it so clearly and bountifully teaches us in matters of faith and practice, especially with regard to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet welcome the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church he officially represents.  Truth and falsehood do not go hand-in-hand; they cannot be equally yoked (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

I suppose now would be a good time to supply a review of James White’s book.

Anyone who is familiar with Dr. White knows the great effort he takes to accurately represent his opponents and to focus on those things that truly matter.  He has demonstrated this honesty countless times in his numerous debates and books.  This book is no different.  In the preface of his book, Dr. White clarifies his approach:

This book arises out of a sincere attempt to follow in the Apostles’ footsteps with reference to the glory of God and the truth of the Gospel.  My motivations are transparent.  I love God and I love the Gospel He has revealed in Jesus Christ….

To believe in the God who has revealed himself in Christ is to be a lover of truth.  How can we claim to follow the One who called himself ‘the way, the truth, and the life,’ if we do not take such a claim seriously?  And if we believe in truth, we must be diligent in making use of the means God has given us to know and apply His truth.  This requires that we be students of His Word, the Bible, constantly seeking to learn more about its teachings and to bring our own beliefs into line with it.  It is also imperative that we think as clearly and logically as we can.  God is not honored by muddled thinking. (p. 14)

Dr. White’s deep concern for the Gospel is evident throughout, as he’s constantly examining the teachings of Rome according to the infallible, God-breathed Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15-17; cf. Tit. 2:9).

In Chapter 2, “Cutting Through the Fog,” Dr. White dispels the fog (i.e. confusion and distraction) that is often created by Protestants and Catholics alike.  Often times misrepresentation, emotionalism, focus on side-issues, and the like, create a hazy scene that is difficult to navigate through.  Such practices must be forsaken and discernment needs to be implemented if we are to focus on those matters of greatest significance.  The essential issue here is the Gospel of peace, and it’s this very thing that Dr. White addresses in the following chapter.

Chapter 3, “The Essential Issue: The Gospel of Peace,” is the heart of this book.  Everything else ought to be read in light of its contents.  This is the main issue, and the question is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church possesses this Gospel of peace.  Peace with God, and how one may obtain it, is no light matter.

Lest we lose our focus, let me remind you of the issue at stake: peace with God.  People on both sides of the Roman Catholic/Protestant debate who are honest realize that these arguments have to do with nothing less than people’s eternity destiny (sic).  If you take nothing more from this book than the content of this chapter, I will have accomplished what a Christian author desires to do: communicate the core truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (p. 39)

The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a brief examination of key Scriptures that teach us about this Gospel that brings us peace with God, and how this is achieved by grace through faith (e.g. Acts 10:36; Rom. 3:24-26, 28; 4:4-5, 16; 5:1).

A discussion of such issues, however, necessitate a discussion of the question of authority.  That is, who defines this Gospel?  How can we know for certain what the Gospel truly is?  The next five chapters are devoted to this issue of authority, each chapter having its own unique emphasis:

Chapter 4: “Who Defines the Gospel?”

Chapter 5: “Sola Scriptura: God Speaks Clearly”

Chapter 6: “The Thousand Traditions”

Chapter 7: “Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition”

Chapter 8: “The Claims of the Papacy”

Due to the recent visitation of Pope Francis, I will simply provide a brief overview of Chapter 8.

Early on in the chapter Dr. White supplies a dogmatic declaration from the Church of Rome regarding the office and person of the Pope.  It reads as follows:

We, therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy. (First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution, ‘Pastor aeternus,’ April 24, 1870)

With further quotations from Roman Catholic sources, Dr. White goes on to clarify that the official teaching of Rome regarding the Papacy is that Christ bestowed on Peter primacy of honor, jurisdiction, and rulership, and that such primacy applies to Peter’s successors (the bishops of Rome).  Further, it is the belief of the Roman Catholic Church that this view has “been the ancient and constant faith of the Christian Church”.  Dr. White goes on to demonstrate the high position the Bishop of Rome possesses in the Roman Catholic Church by quoting Unam Sanctam, a papal bull by Pope Boniface (November 18, 1302):

Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (p. 107)

The remainder of the chapter consists of an examination and refutation of the Church of Rome’s claims regarding the Papacy.  A look at Matthew 16:18-19, the role of Peter in the life of the Church in Acts 15, and some of Peter’s own words regarding himself (e.g. 1 Pet. 5:1-2) follows.  An examination of John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:31-32 are also supplied, noting that Cyril of Alexandria (c. 370-444) provides an interpretation of John 21:15-17 that is in line with the Protestant view, not the Roman Catholic view (p. 113-114).

Dr. White also provides a section on the early Church’s view regarding Matthew 16:18-19, documenting that the early Church primarily viewed “this rock” as referring, not to Peter, but to the faith that Peter confessed, or to Christ himself (pp. 118-122).  While there were Church Fathers who viewed “this rock” as referring to Peter, it does not mean that they believed the bishop of Rome was a Pope (p. 120).  A quote by a Roman Catholic, the Jesuit Maldonatus, is one such evidence:

There are among ancient authors some who interpret ‘on this rock,’ that is, ‘on this faith,’ or ‘on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,’ as Hilary, and Gregory Nyseen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria.  St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets ‘on this rock,’ that is, ‘on myself Christ,’ because Christ was the rock.  But Origen ‘on this rock,’ that is to say, ‘on all men who have the same faith.’ (p. 121; quoted from Dr. Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, p. 335)

The exegetical studies and historical documentation in this chapter alone ought to cause any serious-minded Roman Catholic to give second thought to the lofty claims of the Church of Rome.  At the very least, further investigation should be ensued.

The next four chapters center around the biblical doctrine of justification:

Chapter 9: “Justified Before God: Rome’s View”

Chapter 10: “Justified Before God: By Grace Through Faith Alone”

Chapter 11: “What of the Mass?”

Chapter 12: “The Divine Waiting Room” [i.e. Purgatory]

For the sake of time, and due to the central place of the Mass in the worship of the Church of Rome, focus will be given to Chapter 11.

Once again Dr. White begins the chapter with numerous quotations from Roman Catholic sources, such as the Council of Trent, so as to accurately represent the Catholic position, making it very clear as to what it is the Church of Rome officially teaches with regard to the administration of the Mass.

After providing such documentation, Dr. White summarizes the Roman Catholic teaching on the Mass as follows:

(1) Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist following the words of consecration.

(2) Transubstantiation involves the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, and the change of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the blood of Christ.

(3) Since Christ is said to be really present in the Eucharist, the elements themselves, following consecration, are worthy of worship.

(4) The Sacrifice of the Mass is properly called ‘propitiatory’ in that it brings about pardon of sin.

(5) In the institution of the Mass at the Lord’s Supper, Christ offered His own body and blood to the Father in the signs of the bread and wine, and in so doing ordained the Apostles as priests of the New Testament.

(6) The Sacrifice of the Mass is properly offered for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, not only for the living but for the dead as well.

(7) Finally, anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God. (p. 164)

What follows is a biblical examination of the Roman Catholic teaching that the Mass involves transubstantiation and is a propitiatory sacrifice.  Since the main, “go to” passage of Roman Catholic apologists for the Mass is John 6 (especially vv. 53 and 57), Dr. White spends a good deal of his time examining this text in its context, to include those sections that are often overlooked by the Roman Catholics, thus supplying proper context to accurately interpret Jesus’ words found in vv. 53 and 57.  In short, an honest study of the greater context demonstrates that “eating” and “drinking” are utilized as a metaphor for Jesus’ previous words “coming” and “believing” (pp. 169-172).  Dr. White concludes, “The literal meaning, given the parallelism already firmly established in this passage, has to refer to the union of the believer by faith with Jesus Christ, not a participation in the Roman Catholic Mass” (p. 172).

The final section in this chapter focuses on the effectual nature of Christ’s sacrifice, examining closely Hebrews 9 and 10 (see especially 9:12, 14, 24-28 and 10:10-14).  The following are key points from this section:

Rome teaches that believers can approach this ‘re-presentation’ of the sacrifice of Christ a thousand times or more in their life and still die ‘impure,’ needing yet to undergo the suffering of atonement in Purgatory before being able to enter into the presence of God. (p. 177)

Christ did not need to ‘suffer often.’  His one act of suffering is sufficient, since He was able to ‘put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.’ The old sacrifices could not put away sin and therefore had to be repeated.  Repetition demonstrates insufficiency. (p. 177)

The repetitive nature of the Mass stands in stark contrast to the completedness of the Cross. (p. 179)

Chapter 13, “When Sola Scriptura Is Rejected,” is an examination of the kind of doctrines man can develop when they reject the perspicuity and ultimate authority of the Bible. In this case, the Marian dogmas.  Dr. White looks at the teachings of Rome regarding the immaculate conception of Mary, the distinctions Rome places on the terms dulia and latria, and the exaltation of Mary.

The discussion of the exaltation of Mary in Roman Catholic theology is by far the most disturbing, as it clearly demonstrates (numerous quotes are given) the unbiblical devotion that the Church of Rome gives to Mary, even to the point of directly associating her with the accomplishment of our salvation.  For example, Pope Pius X (February 2, 1904) is quoted as referring to Mary as “the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces” (p. 215), and Pope Pius XII (October 11, 1954) as referring to her as “His [Christ’s] associate in the redemption” (p. 215).  Karl Keating is quoted as referring to Mary as “the Mediatrix of all graces” (p. 217).  Perhaps most shocking to anyone who seeks to believe that which the Scriptures teach, especially with regard to Christ and the Gospel, are the following words by St. Alphonsus Ligouri (The Glories of Mary):

But now, if God is angry with a sinner, and Mary takes him under her protection, she withholds the avenging arm of her Son, and saves him.

St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds, that ‘when we have recourse to this divine Mother, not only we may be sure of her protection, but that often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, than we should be if we called on the name of Jesus our Saviour,’ and the reason he gives for it is, ‘that to Jesus as a judge, it belongs also to punish; but mercy alone belongs to the Blessed Virgin as a patroness.’ Meaning, that we more easily find salvation by having recourse to the Mother than by going to the Son.

And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when ‘the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary’?

The holy Church herself attributes to the merits of Mary’s faith the destruction of all heresies: ‘Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.’ (pp. 216-217)

If only Mary could destroy the heresy of the Marian dogmas that Rome has espoused.  It is suspicious indeed how the Church of Rome can place such central emphasis on the place, role, and merits of Mary in their theology, yet somehow the apostles themselves, those who walked with Jesus, who were taught by Jesus, and who actually lived during the time of Mary, never taught such things.  It is completely lacking from their writings; writings, I might add, that are God-breathed.

Well, the book concludes with one more chapter, “Sola Gratia,” a summary of sorts, emphasizing yet again that the biblical Gospel is the Gospel of God’s sovereign grace, all to the glory of God.  This is the Gospel that Rome does not possess, as is clearly demonstrated throughout the pages of this book.

Of special note is the mention of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) in this final chapter.  This seems to be, at least in part, why Dr. White took up the duty of writing this much needed book.  The spirit of Evangelicals and Catholics Together continues, as has been recently witnessed with the visitation of Pope Francis to the United States.  Yet such a spirit is a deceiving spirit, as it calls for the blurring of lines, the muddying of water, the ignorance of Church history, and rejection of the Gospel itself, without which no one will have peace with God.

This book may have been published in 1996, nearly twenty years ago, but it continues to speak to our times, calling for a fresh and continued examination of the things that truly matter — the Gospel itself — especially in relation to the teachings of Rome.  Let the reader understand, there is indeed a dividing line that exists between Catholics and Protestants, and that dividing line is the very Gospel that bleeds on every page of Scripture, the redeeming blood of Jesus our Savior running from Genesis to Revelation.  We must not, indeed we cannot, back down from this issue.  The spiritual battle rages on, but Christ has the victory, and all those who have truly placed their faith and hope in Him and His perfect and sufficient work alone (life, crucifixion, and resurrection) have the victory in Him.

Soli Deo Gloria!

The Gospel & Apologetics…& You! (A Lesson Outline)

The purpose of this lesson is to present a few fundamental principles regarding evangelism, and then to call God’s people to action by providing examples of apologetic encounters and, most importantly, a sample presentation of the Gospel. Much more could be said, however, and for that reason I have supplied numerous resources at the end of this outline for your consideration and study.

I. Evangelism: The Gospel & Apologetics In the World’s Marketplace
We live in the context of various -isms of the world (Evolutionism; Materialism; Postmodernism; Roman Catholicism; Islamicism; Mormonism; etc.). We must respond to these -isms with the truth of God’s word.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5

Acts 17:2-3

1 Peter 3:13-18

The mission of the Church is the making of disciples of all nations, and this is achieved through the proclamation of the Gospel and the defending of the Gospel by exposing the folly of all other worldviews.

II. Apologetic Encounters

Two Principles for a Sound Apologetic: Know the Bible (fundamental doctrines and key Scriptures); challenge the consistency of the unbeliever

Theological Consistency: A true/biblical view of God leads to a true/biblical view of man, which in turn leads to a true/biblical view of Christ and the Gospel.

Framework for Thinking About Jesus: Jesus is:

God –> man (through the incarnation) –> Messiah/Christ (Prophet, Priest, King) –> Mediator

Giving an Answer (examples):

1. “Jesus can’t be God, because in John 20:17 Jesus referred to God as his God and our God. How can God have a God above Himself?” (see Jn. 1:1-18; Heb. 2:10-18)

All of John’s Gospel account must be read and interpreted in the light of the prologue (1:1-18).  John clearly teaches the Deity of Jesus in the prologue, so it is erroneous to think he contradicts himself later in the account.  Further, the Son of God took on flesh – He became a man like us – in order to properly represent His people (those He came to save).  Lastly, this verse does not contradict a proper understanding of the Trinity, but it does pose a problem for other (unbiblical) views, like Modalism.

2. “The only place in Scripture where ‘faith alone’ is mentioned is in James 2:24, and there it says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.” (see Jms. 2:14-26; 1:22-25)

Context, context, context.  In 2:14-16 James is addressing the issue of true saving faith in contrast to a mere profession of faith.  He’s not addressing how one is declared righteous before God, but how that reality is evidenced in the Christian life.  It is not enough to merely say you believe in God (even the demons believe and shudder); rather, one must evidence their faith by good works.  Paul presents the same concept in Ephesians 2:8-10 (good works are a natural result of true, saving faith, which is the work of God in the sinner).

3. “If there was a God, and if He was good and all-powerful, then there wouldn’t be all of this evil in the world.”

Most often it’s atheists who sound this objection.  Challenge their objections with the consistency of their atheistic worldview.  Good and evil don’t categorically exist in such a worldview.  Therefore, if such a worldview is true, why even bother worrying about “good” and “evil”.  That’s just the way things are (naturally so).  They know God exists, but suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18ff), and that’s ultimately why they raise the question (further suppression of the truth).  Point them to the evil of their own hearts (e.g. Mk. 7:21-23).  Point them to the greatest evil ever committed – the crucifixion of the sinless Son of God – and how God brought the greatest good out of it – eternal life for undeserving sinners (e.g. Rom. 3:21-26; 5:6, 8; Gal. 3:13).  Then call them to repent of their hostility towards God and to believe in the Gospel of Christ, for it is only in Him that refuge from the coming wrath of God toward sin is to be found.

IV. A Gospel Presentation
Simply put, the Gospel is the good news about what God has done in and through Jesus Christ to reconcile sinful man to Himself.

God  There is only one true God and He has revealed Himself to us in His word (the Bible). He is the holy and just Creator of all things, sovereignly ruling over His creation. All praise, honor, and glory are due Him.

Man  God created man (men and women) in His image and likeness, meaning we share certain characteristics with God and manage the earth under God’s kingship/rule. However, we have sinned against God by breaking His holy commandments, seeking instead to live life in our own rebellious and idolatrous way. Man is therefore separated from Him, spiritually dead (turned off to the things of God), and will one day physically die, because the result of sin (breaking God’s law) is death. Since God is holy and just, there will come a day when He will judge mankind for their sins.

Christ  In light of the previous two truths regarding God and man, what we need is a holy and righteous mediator (one who reconciles two parties). Jesus, the eternal Son of God who became a man in order to properly represent us, is this holy and righteous mediator between God and man. He did what we could not do. He lived in perfect obedience to God’s law, suffered and died on the cross in the place of sinners (bearing their sin, guilt, and judgment), rose in victory from the grave (defeating sin and death), and now sits at the right hand of God the Father where He reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords. There is salvation in no one else, for God has provided no other means by which we may be saved from the coming judgment. Peace with God is only found in Him.

Command/Response  The question remains, “How does this become good news for me?” Do you recognize that you have lived a life of sin against God, thus deserving His just wrath and judgment? Are you broken over these things? Do you desire to be forgiven of your sins and reconciled to God? Then repent and believe the gospel. To repent is in essence to have a radical change of mind regarding sin and God. It’s a change from loving sin and hating God to hating sin and loving God. To believe means to trust in the promises of God as revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s to believe that Jesus is who the Bible says He is and that He has done what the Bible says He has done. Believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior and you will be saved!

Resources for Further Study Articles:

“Preparations for Evangelism: Seven Disciplines for a Faithful and Effective Witness”
https://goo.gl/3z755G

“The Gospel (Good News) of Grace”
https://goo.gl/W4MLC1

“Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism: A Brief Case for the Exclusive Nature of the Gospel & Salvation”
https://goo.gl/a4Fc1o

“Justification: Infused or Imputed Righteousness?: A Biblical Case for the Reformed View in Contrast to the Roman Catholic View”
https://goo.gl/x3wZ9y

“’Is Jesus Really God?’: Defending the Eternal Glory of Jesus Against the Objections of Islam”
https://goo.gl/BvPGgP

“’Who Invented the Trinity?’: Defending the Triune Nature of God as Revealed in His Word”
https://goo.gl/rEJGCX

“The Trinitarian Nature of Christianity: A Doctrinal Overview & Scriptural Compilation”
https://goo.gl/T3kZKU

Books: See the above article, “Preparations for Evangelism” for a list of recommended books.

YouTube Videos:

Jeff Durbin Answering ‘The Problem of Evil’
https://goo.gl/KTrkWP

Jeff Durbin Engaging Cults and False Religions with the Gospel
https://goo.gl/u8NQzN

Jeff Durbin Engaging Mormons on the Street
https://goo.gl/WRGCsY

Alpha & Omega Ministries YouTube Channel
https://goo.gl/fTYdv4

Kurt Eichenwald’s Attack on the Bible Soundly & Thoroughly Refuted

Newsweek’s recent article on the Bible, The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin, has garnered a lot of attention, both on the web and the media.  It has especially grabbed the attention of some leading evangelical apologists and theologians who decry the article as nothing but a caricature and misrepresentation of the facts; and indeed, that is exactly what it is.  Any Christian who is at least vaguely familiar with Church history, the transmission of the text of Scripture, and the fundamentals of the faith will find the article, written by Kurt Eichenwald, difficult to take seriously.  But there is a sense in which we must take this article seriously.  This is nothing but a “hit piece” intended to cast further doubt on the Bible and muzzle the voice of Christians in our nation.  As Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. noted in his article, “He [Eichenwald] has an axe to grind, and grind he does” (Newsweek on the Bible–So Misrepresented It’s a Sin).  Eichenwald’s accusations are essentially the same as what you will likely hear on the web and in college halls every day.  That’s why we must be quick to answer, ready to silence the foolishness represented in this article.  Leave it to Dr. James White to help us in this area of apologetics.  Dr. White provides a sound and thorough refutation of Eichenwald’s gross misrepresentations, both of the Christian community and the Bible itself.

Part 1

Part 2

Video: Full Interview of Dr. James White on Textual Criticism by Steven Anderson

Steven Anderson, a King James Only advocate, interviewed James White as part of a video documentary on the (supposed) corruption of non-KJV translations.  The documentary only contains a very brief segment of the 2.5 hour interview that took place between them.  The following video is the full interview.

Video: Dr. James White on How to Reach Muslims with the Gospel

Dr. James R. White presents to Apologia Church a lecture on how to reach Muslims with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Infant Baptism: New Wine in Old Wineskins?

I am a Baptist, (namely, a Reformed Baptist),[1] not because I was raised to be so, nor because I’ve neglected to study the theological issues that divide Baptists and those of other denominations.  No, I am a Reformed Baptist by conviction.  That means, I’ve studied the issues and can confidently say that I am convinced of what I have believed as being thoroughly biblical.  And while I have the highest respect for my Paedobaptist brethren, especially those of the Presbyterian denomination, I cannot bring myself to accept the practice of infant baptism as an apostolic, biblical teaching/practice.  It is, to paraphrase the words of Christ, pouring new wine into old wineskins (Mtt. 9:17).  Alan Conner, in his book, Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?, notes this as a crucial point in the debate over infant baptism and covenant membership.

Covenant Membership the Key Issue

The general view set forth in these Confessions [i.e Heidelberg Catechism; Second Helvetic Confession; Westminster Confession of Faith] is that the infants of believers are in the New Covenant, are members of the church, and therefore, should be baptized.  If this principle of infant membership is found in the New Covenant, then infant baptism has a strong ally.  But, if the New Covenant presents a different principle of membership, one based on personal faith in Christ and actually possessing the blessings of the New Covenant, then infant baptism comes up against a powerful foe.  Without the principle of infant membership, the view of infant baptism expressed in the Confessions above would suffer a major and perhaps irrecoverable blow.

New Wine in Old Wineskins?

Credobaptists believe that baptizing infants based on the principle of membership in the Old Covenant is similar to the faulty practice of trying to ‘pour new wine into old wineskins.’  The concept of membership in the New Covenant cannot be poured back into the old worn out wineskins of the Old Covenant.  We believe that those who practice infant baptism do not take seriously enough that the New Covenant is, in fact, a ‘New’ Covenant, not like the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-32).  We affirm that there are important elements of both continuity and discontinuity [added emphasis] between the Old and New Covenants.  Yet, the practice of infant baptism is based upon a mistaken view of continuity in the area of covenant membership.

We also believe that the principle of membership taught in the New Covenant is at the heart of its essential ‘newnewss.’  No longer is membership in the New Covenant defined by the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant.  For, as Paul taught, ‘be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham’ (Galatians 3:7) and ‘it is not the children of flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants’ (Romans 9:8).  These ‘children of promise’ are determined not by physical lineage, but by the sovereign choice of God who chooses Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:9-13).  The New Covenant ‘children of God’ are not those ‘born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:12-13).  Thus, Old Covenant membership was based on physical birth, whereas in the New Covenant it is based exclusively on spiritual birth from above (John 3:3,5).

If these convictions are true to the teachings of the Bible, then membership in the New Covenant is restricted to those who have faith, and they alone should receive the covenant sign of baptism.  This is a clear departure from membership in the Old Covenant, but it is one made necessary by the fact that new wine requires new wineskins.

The rest of Conner’s book is essentially an argument or justification for the above quote.  Throughout, he demonstrates the clear biblical shift from an emphasis on the physical principle, characteristic of the Old Covenant, to the spiritual principle, characteristic of the New Covenant.  This is a book that every Reformed Baptist should read.  Of course, I do believe that paedobaptists should take the time to read such books as well, so as to better understand the Reformed Baptist position and conviction.

Happy reading…

 

[1] I do not mean merely a Calvinistic Baptist (i.e. a Baptist who’s “Reformed” convictions extends no further than the Doctrines of Grace).  I know that there are those who would say that Baptists can’t truly be Reformed or Covenantal, because we don’t practice infant baptism.  To that I reply, why do you have such a small view of Reformed/Covenantal theology?  Infant baptism, as important as it may be in paedobaptist Covenant Theology, is not the be-all-end-all of the Reformed faith.  What is more, this often comes from the lips of one who knows little to nothing of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, and the various arguments that exist for it.

Scriptures Identifying Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah

Wondering what you should study next in your Scripture readings?  Well, here’s a good suggestion: Scriptures Identifying Jesus as Yahweh.  This is taken from James White’s book, The Forgotten Trinity (Chapter 9, endnote 2).  A study of these Scriptures that identify Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah will certainly prove useful in evangelism/apologetics, especially with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims.  No doubt, such a study will also strengthen our faith and edify our worship.

A Word on the Difference Between Reformed Paedobaptist Covenant Theology & Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology

I do believe that more and more contemporary Baptists are learning that Covenant Theology lies in much of Baptist history (e.g. London Baptist Confession of 1689).  However, many may still be wondering how Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology differs from Reformed Paedobaptist Covenant Theology.  Obviously, Baptists don’t believe that infants of believers are members of the NC and therefore proper recipients of the ordinance/sacrament of baptism.  However, wherein do Reformed Baptists differ in their covenantal hermeneutic that leads them to part ways with their Reformed Paedobaptist brethren on this issue?  The quote provided below is an excerpt from Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive (2013, pp. 80-81).  It provides a summary of a key hermeneutical and theological difference between Reformed Paedobaptist and Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology.

However, understand that there are two perspectives/groups within the category of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology.  There is the more historical Covenant Theology that was espoused by our 17th,18th, and even 19th Century Baptist forefathers and is codified (so to speak) in the 1689 Confession.  Then there’s what is commonly called “20th Century Baptist Covenant Theology”.  The latter is closer to Paedobaptist Covenant Theology, but without the paedobaptism (though I admit that this is somewhat of an oversimplification), whereas the former really stands apart from Paedobaptist Covenant Theology.  Of course, Reformed Baptists from both of these perspectives agree on far more than they disagree.  The areas of primary difference regard the nature of the Mosaic Covenant and the way in which the Covenant of Grace plays out in redemptive history (follow this link for a chart that somewhat captures this difference).  While the following quote is from a book that espouses the “20th Century” version of Baptist Covenant Theology, I do hold to the more historic perspective (although at this time I am still learning a lot regarding this perspective).  Still, the following quote will assist one in understanding a key way in which Baptist Covenant Theology differs with Paedobaptist Covenant Theology.  For a fuller understanding of the more historic Baptist Covenant Theology, please see the two links provided after the quote.

Other paedobaptist definitions of a covenant include O. Palmer Robertson’s description of a covenant as ‘a bond in blood sovereignly administered.’  Robertson is trying to emphasize the fact that diatheke [the Greek word for ‘covenant’] in the NT describes a divine covenant as a unilateral oath or ‘testament’ of God to his subjects, sealed by blood.  This is certainly an improvement over the older contract or suzerainty ideas.  It also allows for each covenant’s content to be determined by contextual revelation instead of assumed elements from other covenants.  However, even with this improvement, Robertson transfers the organic idea of ‘believers and their seed’ from the Abrahamic Covenant into the New Covenant, thus inferring the legitimacy of infant baptism by including the children of believers in the New Covenant.  This inclusion of children is necessitated by calling the Abrahamic Covenant ‘the Covenant of Grace’ itself in stead of a ‘covenant of the promise’ which is fulfilled in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.  This inference from the Abrahamic Covenant into the New Covenant violates the hermeneutical principle of relying on the NT to interpret how the OT is fulfilled in it (Galatins 3:16, 26-29).

Further, the New Covenant membership is defined in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and the NT explanation (Hebrews 8-10) as those who receive the law (the Ten Words in historical context) written upon the heart (regeneration), the forgiveness of sin (justification), and the personal knowledge of God (reconciliation).  This separates the New Covenant fulfillment of the promised Covenant of Grace from the Abrahamic Covenant which included the organic seed of Abraham who mostly were unregenerate.  To infer the organic idea from the Abrahamic Covenant into the New Covenant is a violation of biblical theology and contextual exegesis.  This is why such luminaries as B.B. Warfield and John Murray claim the authority for infant baptism to be found ‘by good and necessary consequences’ from the OT.  This violates the final authority and clarity of the NT.

Following the same hermeneutic as John Owen’s model, [who ‘conceived the New Covenant to be an effectual and unbreakable covenant for its true members’; p. 79] Baptists have defined a covenant as an oath, bond, or promise of God whereby man may be blessed.  In other words, each divine covenant is a promise of God to man, the content of which must be determined by the revelation explaining each covenant.  Reformed Baptists are careful not to expand the definition and content of a biblical covenant ‘by good and necessary consequence’ when Scripture defines each covenant by its own content.  This separates us from our Reformed paedobaptist brethren on Covenant Theology because of our hermeneutics.

Reformed Baptists look upon the OT covenants as progressive ‘covenants of the promise’ fulfilled in the effectual and unbreakable New Covenant, so defined by NT Scripture.  Thus, ‘the New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.’

See also the following:

“A Difference Between Reformed Baptist & Paedobaptist Covenant Theology”

“1689 Federalism Compared to Westminster Federalism” (Video)

 

“Why Bill Nye Lost the Creation Debate” (by Paul Jenkins)

Well, I was planning on writing up a more thorough analysis of the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate sometime soon.  I still might; but a lot of what I intended on discussing has already been written by Paul Jenkins, blogging over at Laodecia Press.  In his article, “Why Bill Nye Lost the Creation Debate,” Jenkins highlights a number of “face palms” that Nye committed during the debate, such as demonstrating an ignorance of the Bible, which was sure to be discussed at some point during the debate,  and various inconsistencies in his own worldview.  Basically, Jenkins picks up on the foundational issue of the debate, showing how the naturalistic presuppositions cannot hold water.  In the end, while atheists/evolutionists might want to further the good of our society, as Nye repeatedly stated as his concern, their worldview simply won’t allow it.  I conclude with these words by Jenkins:

Ham rightly framed the debate as not only impacting our view on origins, but also knowledge, morality, science, marriage, and life itself. If you believe that you are just really old soup, there is no transcendent purpose to your life. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. There is no truth, no objective, unchanging morality, no foundation for logic, and no foundation for the scientific method – namely the uniformity of nature.

Some Thoughts on the Bill Nye & Ken Ham Debate

While I could comment generally on the debate as a whole, my focus will be on a few things that Bill Nye said in the debate that really stood out to me (problematically).  I am sure to watch this debate numerous times, however, and therefore may write another post that is more in-depth and thorough at a later time.

First, what seems to be Nye’s primary concern is that the U.S.A. keep on producing scientists that will be able to further the technological and sociological progress for the future good of our nation.  His main contention seemed to be that those who hold to the biblical model of creation will only hinder this future progress.  There are, however, two problems with Nye’s concern.  First, Ken Ham clearly demonstrated that creationists can be and are good scientists that further the progress of discovery and invention for the good of society.  No doubt Ham could’ve listed more Scientists than he did if time permitted.  Apparently, Nye thinks that one must hold to an atheistic evolutionary worldview in order to think critically, research, discover, invent, develop, advance, etc.  Such is absolutely ridiculous, and as far as I see it, is nothing but evolutionary snobbery.  Second, and more foundational, is that Nye’s atheistic evolutionary worldview cannot substantiate such a conviction and concern for science, society, and the future.  What do I mean?  Simple.  When Nye says that we need to be working toward the progressive good of our future, he is assuming that there is a purpose or meaning to life!  He is assuming that we’re hear for a reason, and that reason is to progress toward the good (whatever that may be)!  But why Nye?  If evolution is true, then we’re the product of mindless matter, blind chance.  We are an accident, and there’s no purpose or meaning to life.  We’re simply here.  I’m thankful that Nye wants to further the progress of science and technology for the good of our society, but he’s got one foot in the Christian’s biblical worldview when he says that.  According to the Bible, God created all things, and therefore there is purpose or meaning to life (Gen. 1:1, 26-27; Ps. 33:6-9; Rev. 4:11).  It is this biblical foundation that allows for consistent scientific endeavor.

Second, when speaking about “survival of the fittest,” Nye said it has to do with those who “fit in” with nature.  I can’t help but think that this amounts to saying that not every human being is equal in dignity.  The more one “fits in,” the more dignity that person has.  Those who are more dignified will continue to survive, whereas those who are less dignified will eventually disappear.  It is of course a natural conclusion from the evolutionary worldview, but that’s the problem!

In conclusion, let us remember what the thesis of the debate was: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?”  In answer to the question, the creation model of origins tells us that we are not here by blind chance and mindless matter, but by God’s sovereign power and decree.  Therefore, in contrast to the atheistic evolutionary worldview, life actually has meaning or purpose.  This is all the more reason to strive toward furthering our scientific and technological progress in the future for the good of society, and all to the glory of God (Rev. 4:11).  The ultimate reason why man embraces evolutionary thinking is because they hate the idea of being accountable to God; but they can only fool themselves for so long (Ps. 14:1; Rom. 1:18-23; Heb. 4:13; 9:27; Rev. 21:8).  What the evolutionary worldview gives us is not progress, but destruction: destruction of the family; destruction of unborn babies; destruction of moral standards; and given enough time (though we need not wait millions or billions of years for this one), destruction of society as we know it.  In short, any good that evolutionary scientists do for society, they do it by standing on the biblical worldview, whether they realize it or not.

Creation/Evolution Debate: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye (Tonight)

As many already know, tonight (2/4/2014) is the widely anticipated debate between Ken Ham (young earth creationist) and Bill Nye (atheistic evolutionist).  I want to direct people’s attention to Creation Today.  They will be having a pre-debate discussion/show and a post-debate discussion/show.  You can view these HERE.  The actual debate can also be viewed at that same link.

Let us pray for our brother Ken Ham, and pray that the Lord will use this debate to demonstrate the foolishness of evolution (e.g. Ps. 14:1; Rom. 1:18-23) and to save many souls for His glory.

Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism: A Brief Case for the Exclusive Nature of the Gospel & Salvation

The following is my post in response to a Discussion Board question posed in my Theology I class as an assignment.  I have decided to post it here because I believe it to be a very important issue in the church today.  You can tell how important I believe this to be simply by the length of the post.  We are required to post a minimum of 300 words.  I have over 2,000.  You can view a PDF of this post HERE.

Can a person be saved by Christ if all they have is universal [i.e. general] revelation?

I believe the answer to this question is rather simple, as it is explicitly taught in Scripture.  The answer, simply put, is NO.  People must come in contact with the gospel if they are to be saved.  Yet, it troubles me how often I have come across (evangelical) Christians who respond with a YES.  In this post I hope to defend the exclusive characteristic of the gospel and salvation—that people must have a knowledge of Christ as revealed in the gospel, and believe in this gospel if they are to be saved.  I would recommend the following books for anyone wanting to engage in further study on this issue:

Faith Comes by Hearing (edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson)

Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to Be Saved? (by John Piper)

Is Jesus the Only Savior? (by Ronal Nash)

The following post consists of a brief look at Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-20 as supporting the exclusivist position, followed by further arguments for the exclusivist position.  Real quickly, inclusivism is the belief that general revelation (nature; constitution of man; history)[1] is sufficient to save, whereas exclusivism is the belief that people must come into contact with the saving knowledge of the gospel to be saved.  I personally do not like this terminology, as “exclusivist” has negative connotations.  In reality, the gospel is inclusivistic in one sense (for all people; the free offer of the gospel), but exclusivistic in another sense (the only means of salvation, and people must come in contact with it).  In this post I have tried to focus on what I have perceived to be foundational and critical issues.

Psalm 19

Verses 1-6.  There are at least four essential things that need to be noticed in this passage.  First, we do find that something of the glory of God is communicated to mankind by means of this general revelation: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (v. 1).  However, we are not told what exactly this knowledge consists of.  Second, this is a non-verbal revelation, and only so much can be communicated non-verbally.  Third, notice that David (the psalmist) uses “God” in this passage.  This word is not unique to the one true God and can be used to refer to the gods of the nations.  Fourth, there are no spiritual blessings mentioned in this passage.

Verses 7-14. Again, there are at least four essential things to notice in this passage.  First, we are now dealing with verbal revelation (the law of God).  More knowledge can be communicated verbally, than non-verbally.  Second, David does not use “God” in this passage, but he uses “LORD” (i.e. Yahweh), the covenant name of God.  This name is unique to the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Third, spiritual blessings are mentioned in this passage as the result of this special revelation (e.g. “reviving the soul;” “making wise the simple;” “rejoicing the heart;” “enlightening the eyes”).  Finally, in verse 14 the LORD is specifically referred to as the Redeemer.

Romans 1:18-20

There are a few things we must take note of in this text as well.  Obviously, Paul’s focus is on general revelation (v. 20).  Now, what does Paul say this general revelation reveals?  The wrath of God.  Now, I think it’s rather obvious that general revelation does not inherently reveal the wrath of God.  In other words, there’s nothing inherent in the nature of general revelation that necessitates it revealing God’s wrath.  Rather, the wrath of God is revealed from nature because sinful mankind suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness.  In other words, mankind instinctively knows that God exists and that He is the Creator of all things.  However, they live in continual disobedience to Him.  Therefore, mankind knows, instinctively, that they are worthy of God’s judgment.  It’s as if nature testifies against them!  Further, the knowledge of God revealed in nature is minimal: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived….”  While man may garner some understanding of what God is like by observing nature (just think of the ancient Greek philosophers), such knowledge is minimal and open to all sorts of twisting within man’s religions (again, just think of the ancient Greek philosophers).  What little knowledge of God is revealed in creation is suppressed by fallen mankind.  Yet, just because it is in the sinful nature of mankind to suppress such truth (e.g. Eph. 2:1-3) doesn’t mean that they are not held accountable, no matter how minimal the revelation.  Notice also that there are no salvific blessings mentioned with regard to general revelation, which is the same thing we saw in Psalm 19:1-6.

But this is Paul’s point!  Remember what Paul just stated before this passage: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (vv. 16-17).  This is Paul’s thesis of his letter.  Romans is essentially an apologetic for missions (preaching the gospel among the nations, especially to those who have yet to hear; cf. Rom. 10:14-17; 15:23-24).  In short, Paul is making the case that mankind is hopeless apart from the saving knowledge of the gospel.  I will attempt to develop this in more detail below.

Further Arguments for Exclusivism

1. General revelation is insufficient to save, first and foremost, because it is rooted in or founded from the very beginning (of creation), prior to the need of redemption.  This may very well be one of the most overlooked characteristics of general revelation by inclusivists.

Some within the inclusivist perspective have questioned, in an attempt at ridiculing the exclusivists, “What kind of God would reveal enough knowledge of Himself to condemn mankind, but not to save it?”  At first glance such a question may seem to have some merit.  However, there is a fundamental flaw present within.  It assumes that general revelation, which exclusivists belief is enough to condemn and not save, was given sometime after the Fall of man.  This, of course, is not the case.  What is revealed in general revelation today is what was revealed in general revelation from the moment of creation; and, of course, there was no need of redemption when God created.  Indeed, He made all things very good (Gen. 1:31).  It’s not until Genesis 3 that man sins and so casts all of humanity after them into spiritual depravity.  Now special revelation is necessary (e.g. Gen. 3:15, 21), for special revelation communicates that knowledge of salvation not present within general revelation.  In short, it was never God’s intention that general revelation communicate knowledge unto salvation.

2. General revelation fails to respond to the sinful nature of mankind.  Of course, as already noted, general revelation was never intended to “respond” to mankind’s problem of sin and condemnation.  But this is why it is not sufficient to save.  According to Scripture, mankind is evil, corrupt, wicked, darkened, hard-hearted, by nature children of wrath, etc. (e.g. Gen. 6:5, 11-12; Jer. 17:9; Mk. 7:20-23; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19).  What fallen, sinful mankind needs is a radical, powerful transformation; they need to be born again (Jn. 3:3-5).  Yet, it is not in the power of general revelation, as glorious as it may be, to do such a thing.  Rather, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, specifically because the righteousness of God received by faith is revealed in it (Rom. 1:16-17).  Further, the Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of the gospel to bring about regeneration, repentance, and faith (e.g. 1 Thess. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13-14); but this cannot be said with regard to general revelation.  In short, general revelation does not communicate the saving knowledge of the gospel, and therefore does not have the power to save.

3. The Scriptures specifically teach that men and women must come into contact with the gospel if they are to believe and be saved.  Perhaps one of the most striking passages is Romans 10:13-17 (please read).  The text is rather straight-forward; people must call on the name of the Lord in faith if they are to be saved.  But Paul then notes what must logically take place for this to happen: People can’t call on the Lord if they haven’t believed in Him; they can’t believe in Him if they haven’t heard of Him; they can’t hear without a preacher; and a preacher can’t preach unless he is sent.  Then comes the capstone of the text, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (v. 17).  In short, people must come into contact with the gospel if they are to be saved.  Note these other passages as well:

1 John 1:1-4 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.” (Emphasis added.)

2 Timothy 2:8-10 “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal.  But the word of God is not bound!  Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (Emphasis added.)

Before drawing to a close, let me briefly respond to what seems to be a common question posed by inclusivists to exclusivists.  I have heard and seen it asked (in various ways), “What about Old Testament saints?  If people have to come in contact with the gospel to be saved, then how were they saved?”  Simple, they were likewise saved by the gospel.  Let us not forget that the Israelites were God’s specially chosen people from among the nations.  They were surrounded with special revelation (e.g. prophets; the tabernacle along with its sacrifices).  Their revelation of the gospel certainly wasn’t as full as it has been since the first advent of Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the gospel.  In fact, Paul explicitly tells us that they were saved in the same way (Rom. 3:19-26; note especially v. 26; cf. Gal. 3:8).  Whereas they looked forward to the promises of God as revealed by the prophets and the tabernacle sacrifices (etc.), we look back to the finished work of Christ recorded for us in the New Testament.

Concluding Remarks

I believe a fundamental problem that leads to the inclusivist position is the denial of God’s sovereignty in salvation.  Many within the inclusivist perspective speak as if God owes salvation, or at least a “chance” at it, to mankind, as if God would be unjust not to make it universally accessible.  Such, of course, goes against the very concept of grace.  Grace cannot be merited or demanded, otherwise it is no longer grace.  Second, those within the inclusivist perspective typically have a less-than-biblical view of mankind.  They typically believe man to be better than he is actually presented in the Bible.  I get the sense that many inclusivists view mankind as victims in the world (or God’s court), rather than suspects.  People think that mankind deserves salvation, but we don’t.  That’s what’s so amazing about it, that God would choose to save any (amazing grace!).  Finally, I believe many inclusivists have an unbalanced view of God’s character, often focusing on His love, to the exclusion or minimization of His other attributes (e.g. holy; righteous).

The reason I wrote so much is because of the great importance of this subject, and because of the many supposedly evangelical, conservative Christians that believe salvation can be found outside of explicit faith in Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel.  We must stand up and defend and proclaim the exclusive nature of the gospel and salvation.  People must hear the gospel if they are to be saved, and Christ has commissioned His church to take it to the world (e.g. Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 24:44-49).  The gospel is the means by which God saves!

---

[1] Please note that history can include special revelation.  After all, the Christian faith is a historical faith; that is to say that it is grounded in historical events (e.g. the exodus; crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus).

The Trinity & Deity of Jesus in the Writings of Ante-Nicene Fathers

[This is the first installment for the new section on my Apologetics Page, “Bible Inserts”.  You can view a PDF of this post there.  It is intended to be printed as a half-sheet, placed in your Bible, and used as an apologetics guide or reference for evangelism.]

Introduction
The following is a brief selection of the Ante-Nicene (before Nicaea) testimony to these fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, thus demonstrating that the doctrines of the Trinity and Deity of Jesus were not later inventions of the church at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), as is frequently asserted by various cults.[1]

Ignatius: (Wrote in the early 2^nd Century)
“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, vii.)

“…because you are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit….” (Epistle to the Ephesians, ix.)

“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, xviii.)

“…when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, xix.)

“I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise,…he is truly of the family of David with respect to human descent, Son of God with respect to the divine will and power….” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, i.)

“…in accordance with faith in and love for Jesus Christ our God…. heartiest greetings blamelessly in Jesus Christ our God.” (Epistle to the Romans, Salutation.)

Polycarp: (Wrote in the early 2^nd Century)
“…and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.” (Epistle to the Philippians, xii.)

Hippolytus: (Wrote during the late 2^nd Century to early 3^rd Century)
“These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews glorified the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognise the Son. The disciples recognised the Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mtt. 28:19) And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.” (Against the Heresy of Noetus, xiv.)

“Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name.” (Against the Heresy of Noetus, xvii.)

 

---

[1] All quotations, except those of Hippolytus, are from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3^rd Edition, by Michael W. Holmes.  The Hippolytus quotations are from Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5.

Jesus is the Savior: A Brief & Often Overlooked Argument for the Deity of Jesus

The testimony of the Scriptures to the Deity of Jesus is explicit and full.  Nonetheless, many cults and others wish to make an attempt at disproving His Deity (i.e. God in the truest sense of the word).  It is not my purpose in this post to look at such attempts and respond to them.  I have taken up some of that with regard to the claims and arguments from Muslims (though many of their arguments would likewise be found on the lips of others like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons) on my Apologetics Page (always in progress).  In this post I simply want to lay out a brief argument for Jesus’ Deity that I believe often goes without consideration, or is rarely brought up.

Argument: God (Yahweh) says that He alone is the Savior.  After all, only God, who is all-powerful and the giver of grace and mercy, can save spiritually depraved and corrupt sinners.  Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus is repeatedly referred to as our Savior.  It rightly follows, therefore, that Jesus is indeed God in the flesh.

Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD [Yahweh], and there is no savior besides Me.”

New Testament Testimony Regarding Jesus:

1 Timothy 1:15 “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.”

Titus 2:13 “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and savior, Christ Jesus.” [“God” actually refers to Jesus in this text as well!]

Titus 3:6 “[The Holy Spirit] whom He [the Father] poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

2 Peter 1:1 “…To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” [“God” also refers to Jesus in this text.]

2 Peter 3:18 “but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity.  Amen.” [Note how we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, and how glory is due to Him, both now and for all eternity (cf. Rev. 5).  Such language is blasphemous if Jesus is not God.]

Engaging with Islam: An Online Resource to Help You Defend the Faith Against Islam (by Samuel Green)

If you’re interested in learning about Islam, especially for the purpose of defending the truth of the Bible and sharing the gospel with Muslims, then I encourage you to go check out Engaging with Islam, a site put together by Samuel Green, an Australian evangelist who focuses on ministering to Muslims and preparing Christians to do the same.  This site has a lot of helpful resources (pdf and video), as well as numerous links to other helpful sites (Christian and Muslim).  One of the key features of the site is a training course that Green developed for the purpose of familiarizing Christians with the beliefs, practices, and history of Islam, so as to be more prepared and equipped to engage Muslims with the truth of the gospel.  I’m currently making my way through this training course right now, and so far it has been very enlightening.