Abraham, the Ancient Christian

There is a heresy which has been going around at least since the time of J. N. Darby in 1830, that says that people in the Old testament were saved in a different way from the people in the New Testament. Sometimes it is said that Israel was saved by following the Law. Other times, it is said that they were saved by faith in the sacrifices. This doctrine is associated with various forms of the hermeneutical system created by Darby (and made popular by C. I Scofield) known as Dispensationalism.

Both forms of the doctrine are wrong.

Orthodox Protestants all agree that a Christian is saved by grace through faith, not by obedience to the Law, even in part. This is stated repeatedly in Scripture, such as Acts 13:39, Romans 3:28, and the whole Epistle to the Galatians. Where the Dispensationalist is wrong is his assertion that Old Testament believers were saved in a different way. The Apostle Peter, himself a Jew, said, "We [Jews] believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they {i. e., the Gentiles] will" (Acts 15:11).

And to be more specific, the Apostle Paul, another Jew, tells us, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed'" (Galatians 3:8). Notice that Paul doesn't say just "faith," which might allow for faith in a different object. Rather, he explicitly states that Abraham received the Gospel! That is why Jesus could say, "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see My day. He saw it and was glad" (John 8:56).

Would the content of the Gospel to Israel have been more obscure? Sure. We understand that the Gospel was given under types and shadows (Colossians 2:17), so that Old Testament faith was more difficult to attain. That is why the New Covenant, the Gospel in the New Testament, is described by the Epistle to the Hebrews as far superior: the types and shadows have been removed, so that the reality is displayed in all its glory!

Can Kids Sin? The Age of Accountability

There are things in the Bible that can make a man uncomfortable. That is no criticism. It represents historical situations without modern parallel. We simply have no comparable experiences in our lives. We no longer live on farms, where we face the daily reality of, for example, the butchering of animals for our food. Meat is something we get in plastic wrap from the grocery store. We are completely separated from how that meat was prepared before that point.

One issue in particular is the Conquest, the period of time in which the nation of Israel, after having been rescued from bondage in Egypt, is called by God to take the Promised Land from its inhabitants. And not just to impose their rule over those inhabitants, as we think of a conquest, but rather to eliminate them: "We captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors" (Deuteronomy 2:34; cp. 3:6, etc.). However, that action was only as God had commanded them: "But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

This offends our sense of justice, because God judges even the children to destruction. How can God do such a thing and remain just?

The problem is that we think of children as innocent. And, comparably speaking, that is true. Children haven't committed murder, for example (and even that is no absolute). We are justified in saying that, for example, abortion is evil, because it is exactly that, a genocide of the innocent. The relatively innocent. This has led to a manmade doctrine called "the age of accountability," according to which there is some age under which God does not hold a person accountable for sin.

The problem with applying that to God is that He doesn't judge on the basis of relativity. In His omniscience, He knows what is in the heart of every person, whether it is expressed in action or not. We cannot do the same because we are not omniscient. In addition, we judge as one sinner looking upon on another. That is why we are able to think only in terms of relative innocence. But God's commands to Israel show that He holds all humans to His holy standards, regardless of age, gender, or social status.

God, however, in His absolute knowledge and holiness says that even infants have wicked hearts (Psalms 51:5, 58:3). Therefore, He alone is just in determining to destroy the wicked, even children, in pursuit of His purposes. The doctrine of an age of accountability accuses God of injustice for the inclusion of children in His judgment on the Canaanites.

What the modern mind rarely grasps is that what Israel did to Og and his people or Sihon and his people is what He could properly do to every human in existence. Is it unjust that He exercised His justice in those cases but does not in our modern world? Of course not. That isn't injustice; it is mercy.

Autonomy: The Error of Atheists and Nominal Christians

When Christians talk about atheism, most would say that the fundamental error of the atheist is his denial of the existence of God. After all, that is the meaning of the word. However, they are mistaken. As we see in Romans 1:18, there is no one who doesn't know that God exists. An atheist pretends that God doesn't exist.

Rather, the fundamental error of atheism is its belief in human autonomy. The atheist must convince himself - and others, if possible - that God doesn't exist, and then he will be free to live his life as he desires. This is exactly what Satan offered to Adam and Eve in the temptation: "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). In this context, "knowing" does not mean merely "knowing about," but "deciding." Satan convinced Adam and Even that rebelling against God and His word would leave them free to decide what was right and wrong for themselves.

That assertion was false. Whether Satan himself believed in what he was offering, I do not know. Often a liar starts to believe his own lies.

The Bible says otherwise: "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Proverbs 21:1). This is a statement from the pen of Solomon, the greatest king that Israel would ever know. However, he confesses that, regardless of whatever intentions he might have had, his actions were always those determined by God.

The Glory of Solomon

My question to the atheist is this: If a rich and powerful king came to realize that he was always under the providential hand of God, how can you rationally believe that you are independent of that same God?

However, I am saddened to say that this error is not limited to professed atheists. Far too many professing Christians make the same essential assumption as the atheist, that we can decide for ourselves what belongs to God and what does not. Many of us divide life into a "religious" part and a "regular" part, with God in control of the first part, but with our having autonomy in the second. I am sorry, snowflake, but there is no such division: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31). God claims all of your life, not just whatever dregs you are willing to give Him. If you are claiming autonomy in part of your life, then you are professing the same lie as Satan and the atheist, no matter what title you claim for yourself.

Jesus made the same point to the Pharisees: "He said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.' And He said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. But you say, If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do'" (Mark 7:6-13).

Are Children Culpable for Sin?

I run into a lot of people who deny the sinfulness of children. Some of them claim that there is an age of accountability, below which children are not accountable for their actions. When asked for the biblical evidence for that, such people merely turn purple and claim that I am wicked for questioning them. Others claim that sin is only recognized in those with the mental capacity to recognize the nature of the child's actions. Again, where does the Bible say any such thing? The answer is usually something to the effect of, "Well, it just has to be that way."

On the contrary, there are several Scriptures which teach the exact opposite, such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

The one I want to look at now is Proverbs 20:11: "Even a child makes himself known by his acts, by whether his conduct is pure and upright."

Notice that Solomon here doesn't even say that we see the nature of the child, but rather that his nature is revealed by his actions. That is exactly the same as the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:18-20: "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." Both passages tell us that external actions are not what makes the sinner, but rather the heart that produces those actions. We are not sinners because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners.

And Solomon tells us that the heart of the child, whether it is upright or sinful, is also revealed in his actions. That necessarily precludes any supposed sinlessness in children. That doctrine is manmade sentimentality, not a biblical principle.

This is my question to anyone who holds that children aren't sinful, or are not culpable for their sin: Why don't you kill your children before your age of accountability? After all, if they are truly held to be sinless, then killing them now would guarantee that they would go to heaven, wouldn't it? The fact that you don't do so demonstrates to me that you don't really believe what you're saying. And that is often the case. A person's theology of the heart is often better than is his theology of profession.

Is There Injustice in God?

A lot of people, both among professing believers and among unbelievers, express moral objections to the commands of God to the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites - man, woman, and child - during their conquest of the Promised Land. For example, we read in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 God's commandment: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them."

And we have the record of Israel's partial obedience to the commandment: "We captured all his [i. e., King Sihon of Heshbon] cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors" (Deuteronomy 2:34). The same thing happened in the defeat of King Og of Bashan: "We devoted them to destruction, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, devoting to destruction every city, men, women, and children" (Deuteronomy 3:6).

Is that harsh? I think any sane person would say so. But does that mean that it was unjust? That I must deny!

The problem with the objections to the Canaanite pogrom is that these objectors have an unbiblical view of man.

According to the Bible, all human beings (excluding only Adam and Eve before the Fall, and Jesus) are sinners, rebels in our hearts against our Lord and Creator, the triune God in Heaven (Romans 3:23). And the consequence of sin is death: "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine: the soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). This is the point of error in the argument of those who accuse God of immorality; they fail to understand the wickedness of men or its consequence.

However, we notice that, though all are sinners, not all die at any particular time. That is certainly true. God restrains His justice for a time - for most. And that is the issue. After giving them 400 years to change their ways (Genesis 15:16), God chose to apply His justice to the pagan residents of Canaan through the Israelites at that time. If He chose to carry out His justice on those people at that time, but restrains it for a time for the rest of the world, is that injustice? No, it's mercy. When the false believer or the unbeliever accuses God of immorality in ancient Canaan, he is really denying the mercy of God to the rest of the world in the rest of history.

And that error is deliberate. Unrighteous men are not ignorant of God. Rather, they "suppress the truth through unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18). They throw up this smokescreen in their minds, so that they can avoid their innate knowledge of the reality of God and our accountability to Him. This is the moral equivalent of the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and sing-songs, "La-la-la I can't hear you," when his parents are chastising him for misbehavior. Does that exempt him from the consequences? Of course not! Nor does this smokescreen from unbelievers protect them from the justice of God.

Contra Modalism: Jesus Cannot Be the Father

Jesus said something in Matthew 24:36 which has had Christians scratching our heads for the two thousand years since: "Concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." Since He is God, how is it possible that He not know something? In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses cite this verse as supposed evidence that Jesus is not God.

The answer has long since been given: Jesus was speaking in His humanity, not in His deity. People often forget that Jesus was, is, and ever shall be, truly human. That is not to say that He is not God. Rather, He unites in one person two separate natures, the divine and the human, each with its proper attributes remaining intact. This is correctly summarized in the Definition of Chalcedon: "One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ." And, as a human with the same limitations as any other human, He would not have had the Father's knowledge of the future. As God, He certainly did, but decided not to reveal that knowledge.

I bring up this verse now because of its impact on the modalist doctrine of Oneness Pentecostalism. That sect claims that Jesus is the Father incarnated. Yet, He explicitly distinguishes between Himself and the Father in this verse, showing that the modalist doctrine is false. The Law of Non-Contradiction tells us necessarily that A cannot be both B and not-B at the same time. Yet, that is what the Oneness theologians would have us believe.

The Sovereignty of God: Over Dice, Over Mice, and Over Men

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33)

We humans can have hopes for the future, or even plans for the future. However, what we cannot have is knowledge of the future. There is virtually an infinity of factors that will affect what happens tomorrow, and even more so as you consider further into the future. It is common to apply our human limitations. God cannot decide what will happen in the future, can He?

The problem is that such an assertion applies human limitations to God. They do not, and cannot, apply. Unlike men, God is omniscient. That is, He knows exhaustively all things, past, present, and future. And that is not only what will be, but what might be, every possible outcome from every possible contingency. "I distinguish the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come, saying: ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" (Isaiah 46:10). Notice that He asserts not just passive knowledge, but rather determinative knowledge. He knows for a certainty will will happen because all things happen according to His prior determination of them.

That is the fundamental difference between the knowledge of God and the knowledge of men. It isn't a difference of quantity, with God's knowing more and man's knowing less. Rather, God's a priori determination and exhaustive knowledge are inherently joined. This is repeated throughout the scriptures.

"In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10).

"In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

Men cannot know the future, because the universe is autonomous of man. However, God can know and determine all things because no one and nothing is autonomous of Him.

Which brings me to the Proverb quoted above. Nothing could be more contingent than the casting of lots. In fact, we do so, i. e., throwing dice, exactly because the result is random, and cannot favor either party. However, as I noted above, nothing can be autonomous from God. Therefore, there can be no such thing as chance to Him. And if He determines even the rolls of dice, than which nothing can be freer from the human perspective, then neither can men expect to be autonomous from His sovereignty in our own choices, even the most powerful among us: "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will" (Proverbs 21:1).

Sin and Guiding Principles

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverbs 16:25). 

Our society has become very mystical. Just listen to how we express ourselves. It is rarely "I think" now. Everything is prefaced with "I feel," instead. Movies advise us to "follow your heart." The heroes in the Star Wars movies - of which, I admit, I am a fan - are told not to think, but to let "The Force" guide their actions. 

I think that is a very dangerous way to live.

Look at the Proverb that I quoted above. Doesn't it address exactly that kind of subjectivist mentality? It warns that following feelings will lead to a deadly consequence. Why is that? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9). 

Subjectivism, the feelings-based worldview, is based on a false, unbiblical supposition, that the heart is necessarily and naturally good. Therefore, in a confused and disturbed world, we are supposed to be able to rely on that internal compass, just as we can rely on a physical compass in a wilderness where every direction seems the same.

However, as Jeremiah tells us, the heart is not good. It isn't even neutral. Rather, it is given over to wickedness. Jesus explained this to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:18-20: "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." Rather than as a source of guidance, it is our heart which produces every error and wicked act that we commit. To follow your heart is, just as Solomon said in the Proverb, to follow a path to death.

Picture it this way, to return to my compass analogy. If a hiker were trying to find his way through the wilderness with a compass that was broken somehow, such that it always pointed the wrong way, what would be his fate? Lost, starved, probably dead. The same is true for any man who follows his heart.

The Illusion of Autonomy from God

"The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps" (Proverbs 16:9).

It is the essence of unbelief to imagine that a man is, or can be, autonomous from God. Ever since the Fall, the heart of every man has chafed against the awareness that God made us, sustains us, and exercises absolute dominion over us. In fact, that is exactly the case that Satan made to Adam and Eve, leading to their fist sins.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.He said to the woman, 'Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?' And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil'" (Genesis 3:1-5).

Satan made a disingenuous offer to Adam and Eve: "Rebel against God and serve me, and I will give you authority to decide good and evil for yourselves." Adam and Eve accepted his offer, and came under the dominion of Satan. However, they never received the promised autonomy, because Satan didn't have it himself to give it to them. He, too, can only act as God permits him to act (Job 1:12). Does Satan imagine himself to be autonomous? Possibly.

Yet, Solomon, the wisest and richest king Israel ever knew, denied that he was autonomous from God. He admitted that he made plans to do this or that, but it was the purposes of God that always prevailed.

And this is my question: If an absolute ruler, with massive wealth and unquestioned power, yet confessed that his actions were always at the sovereign and prior command of God, who are you, O Man, to claim that you are sovereign, determine your own life and morals, and will yourself to salvation, eternal life, and sanctification? What presumption!