The Incorruptible Seed of the Believer's Perseverance

"Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God." -I Peter 1:22-23 

Peter here addresses believers, not men in general. He refers to our obedience to the truth, our sincere love, our pure heart, and out having been born again. So his word choices preclude the possibility that he is talking to false professors or other hypocrites. He has in mind only true believers. I want to make that point to preclude some of the common quibbles made to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints. I am not defending the belief that every person who professes to be a Christian is guaranteed an eternity in Heaven. 

We are born again, Peter tells us, with a seed which cannot perish. The KJV uses the word "incorruptible," the same word that Paul uses in I Corinthians 15:52 for the resurrection body, because it can never again experience death. That tells us that the born again believer, from his first moments, has a spirit of the same resurrection nature as his body will be on the unknown day when our bodies rise again from the grave! 

Human Moral Inability and the Gospel

 "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). 

I have written many times about the doctrine of total depravity. This is the doctrine of total inability, which is closely related, but distinct. Total depravity is the condition, while total inability is the result. That is, sin has affected every faculty of our humanity, the result of which is that there REMAINS no native ability in us to perform any moral good. The two things are often equated, but I am treating them separately, because I think that Scripture addresses them separately. 

It is a common error of supporters of free will that the doctrine of total inability is an invention of John Calvin, based on a misreading of the writings of Paul. I deliberately chose the verse above from Jeremiah to show that both aspects of that accusation are wrong. Total inability is an invention of neither Paul nor John Calvin. 

Rather, we see in the prophet his concern that men are unable to obey God from any ability in ourselves. As he faced the coming prospect of the exile of Judah in Babylon, he lamented that Judah could not reform himself. So, he pleaded, "correct me" (verse 24), because I cannot correct myself. That is, speaking on behalf of his people. 

As theologian John Frame has said, "Although fallen persons are capable of externally-good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, I. e., pleasing to God (Romans 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from His ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is, therefore, incapable of contributing anything to his salvation."

That is the connection of this doctrine to the gospel. The inability of men to display the righteous nature that God requires would naturally doom all men to eternal judgment (Hebrews 12:14), would display, not injustice on God's part, but rather hopelessness on the part of men. Instead, God established a righteousness which is by faith alone, the imputation of the perfect righteousness of a surety, an alien righteousness, granted to every sinner for whom He died on the cross, Jesus of Nazareth (Isaiah 26:12, John 6:37-39, II Corinthians 5:21). 

The Oneness Sect and Baptismal Regeneration

Some Oneness (maybe all) claim that Acts 2:38 is "the Gospel," and the verse is always mentioned alone. The problem is that, if that were true, the Gospel would be a Gospel of works, contrary to the next verse, which calls the Gospel, not a work, but a promise. In other words, if Acts 2:38 is true according to the Oneness interpretation, then Acts 2:39 can only be false. 

On the other hand, we are explicitly told elsewhere that justification is by grace through faith, not by any human works (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is consistent with Acts 2:39, but not with the Oneness version of Acts 2:38. 

What is wrong with the Oneness interpretation? Well, the problem is that they insert a form of works righteousness, salvation by baptism, into a verse that says so such thing. 

If I say, "I took an aspirin for a headache," would any rational person understand me to mean that I took an aspirin to give me a headache? Of course not! Rather, "for" there means "because of," not "in order to." And the reference to baptism for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 is grammatically identical. 

Therefore, Acts 2:38 proclaims baptism as a recognition of the justification that comes by faith alone, just as verse 39 tells us. It is only the bad Oneness distortion of the verse that could be seen to indicate otherwise.

Diotrophes and the Doctrine of the Visible Church

The Westminster Standards distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. For example, we can read question and answer 61 in the Larger Catechism (see questions 61 through 65): "Are they saved who hear the gospel and live in the church? All that hear the gospel and live in the visible church are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible." I agree with this statement as consistent with the Word of God. 

In contrast, we have the doctrine of the Anabaptists and some Baptists that the church has only one form, and consists only of the regenerate. They thus deny the existence of the visible church as described by the catechism. I consider this to be a false and dangerous doctrine. First, it is not a power given to men to judge the heart, such that we could infallible mark who is and who is not regenerate. And second, it creates chaos in the government of the church. And third, it is unbiblical. 

The Apostle John tells us of a man in the church, Diotrophes. We would call him an elder or overseer. "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will being up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church" (III John 1:9-10). 

So, we have John's warning of this man Diotrophes, a member of the church government in the congregation to which this epistle was written. John's warning is that Diotrophes is a false teacher who uses his power to put good men out of the church, an abuse of church discipline. 

The issue that this account presents for the doctrine we are considering is that the bad guy, Diotrophes, is a member of the church, while the good guys, whose names we are not given, are not members, due to their excommunication. If the denial of the visible and invisible church distinction is correct, then the Anabaptist must claim that Diotrophes is the true Christian while the friends of John are not. But that would be exactly opposite of John's warning to Gaius! 

On the other hand, the traditional Protestant doctrine, that of the Westminster Standards, easily resolves the situation: As a false professor, Diotrophes may be a member of the visible church, but he cannot be a member of the invisible church. And of the rest, regardless of the illegitimate action of Diotrophes, the friends of John are true believers, and, therefore, members of the invisible church, even though their membership in the visible church may have been canceled by the unlawful use of excommunication. 

"Progressive Christians" and Reinterpreting Scripture on Sodom and Homosexuality

"Progressive Christians" hate what the Bible says about homosexuality, so they rewrite it. For example, we have the story of Sodom, from which we get the word "sodomy," which tells the story of two angels who visit Sodom in the guise of men, in order to save Abraham's nephew Lot from the soon-coming judgment of God on that city and its neighbors. We know the story well. When the men of the city learn of the presence of these visitors in Lot's home, they demand access to the men for sexual relations (Genesis 18:16-19:29). 

According to the progressives, the judgment on Sodom is not due to the effort at homosexual molestation, but rather for the violation of God's standards of social justice. In support of the view, they cite Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride , excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." That would seem clear, would it not? 

In isolation, maybe. But that is not a legitimate use of Scripture. 

The passage continues: "They were haughty and did an abomination before Me. So I removed them when I saw it" (verse 50). I attended a church at one time, where the pastor preached as described above, but stopped before reading this verse. I have no doubt that is the usual strategy of such progressives. 

We also have the fuller testimony of another portion of Scripture, this time in the New Testament. In II Peter 2:4-10, that Apostle tells us, "If God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, He condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if He rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for, as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority." 

So, the progressive elevates the possible meaning of one verse over the explicit statements of several other passages. Their effort to replace biblical authority with a cultural fad lies exposed. And traditional Christian belief regarding the immorality of same-sex relations is sustained. 

Dispensationalism versus God's Claim of the World.

"From the rising of the sun to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering. For My name will be great among the nations" (Malachi 1:11). 

Part of what convinced me of postmillennialism is passages in Scripture like the one quoted above. God has claimed as His privilege to be worshiped, not just by Israel, and not even by a few Gentiles mixed in, such as Ruth, by rather by all the nations (see the Great Commission, Matthew 28:18-20). I think that there is great significance in the fact that this declaration occurs in the last book of the Old Testament, the last Scripture written before the coming of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. "For I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and My name will be feared among the nations," He announces through the prophet (Mal. 1:14). 

There is a great failure among God's people to grasp God's plans for the conversion of the world, and to carry out our duties under that plan. Instead, we have surrendered the world to the realm of Satan, and congratulated ourselves for upholding the other-worldliness of the Kingdom of God. Yet that is the error of Gnosticism, the belief that the material world is evil, and only spiritual things belong to God. This is what dispensationalism has done to the American church. 

Prophet Malachi

God is the Potter, and Men Are the Clay

"The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom" (Proverbs 16:4). 

This verse amazes me, because it turns a complex and difficult topic into one simple sentence. It tells us that God, Jehovah, is the Creator, and that He has made all things, including the wicked, not for our own purposes, but for His. Paul uses the image of the potter to convey the same concept: "You will say to me, then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:19-21; see also Jeremiah 18:1-17). Paul's "vessel for dishonor" is the same as Proverbs' "wicked." 

Such Scriptures leave no ground for imagining human autonomy. The God of the Bible is no pagan deity who molds people like pinballs to bounce their own way through life at their own whim or mystical karma/fate. In fact, it is exactly this rejection of autonomy which is the real justification for unbelief. the unbeliever desperately desires to imagine that he is the captain of his own fate, and his imagination is cast down if he ever acknowledges that God is God and the man is not.

We see the same thing in the addict of free-will theology. He, too, retains from unbelief the assumption of his own autonomy. "God didn't create us to be robots," he protests. No, God made us to be His servants; it is sin that makes us robots. Yet, the free-will theologian has nothing to say about his enslavement sin. That, he never says out loud, is preferable to being enslaved to the God who made him.