The Bible as Our Apologetic

I have a real problem with classical apologetics. That is for two main reasons. One is that they lead to a generic deity, not necessarily the God of the Bible. Arguing, for example, from a supposed "first cause" could as easily be fulfilled by Allah or Zeus. The other reason is that they concede, as a starting point, that God does not necessarily exist. That concession is supposedly to establish a common ground with the unbeliever. Common ground with unbelief? What does that Bible say about that? "What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:15). The starting point of the Christian apologist is with something that Scripture denies! And I have even seen R. C. Sproul, a man whom I otherwise respect, go though his apologetics system in order to determine, not that God is necessarily who the Bible says He is, but rather that God probably exists. "Probably exists" means "maybe doesn't exist." How is that a God-honoring apologetic? I don't believe that it is. And that is probably why you never see the Apostles use such an approach. 

What is the biblical apologetic? "I shall have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in Your word" (Psalm 119:42). Do you recall the answers that Jesus made to Satan during His temptation (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4)? Did He try to find common ground with Satan? Of course not! Rather, He rebuked the Devil with Scripture! 

In apologetics, we must remember one thing: the unbeliever, regardless of his claims, does not really believe that God does not exist. On the contrary, he knows perfectly well that God exists, but is suppressing that knowledge (Romans 1:18-22). Thus, there is no need to establish a common ground. The believer and the unbeliever share a common belief in God. The difference is that one is living according to that belief, while the other is living contrary to it. That is why unbelief is inherently irrational and unstable. And exposing that irrationality was Paul's methodology when he preached at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34).

In His word, God has given us the most-powerful weapon possible for our spiritual conflict: "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" (Hebrews 4:12; see also Revelation 1:16 and 2:16). And He guarantees its success: "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" (Isaiah 55:11).

The Fellowship of the Dead Precludes "Soul Sleep"

There the wicked cease from troubling,
     and there the weary are at rest.
There the prisoners are at ease together;
     they hear not the voice of the taskmaster.
The small and the great are there,
     and the slave is free from his master.
- Job 3:17-10 

Regarding the spirits of the deceased, the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses teach distinct, though related, doctrines. SDA's claim that the spirit is unconscious, remaining with the body until the resurrection and judgment. Witnesses, on the other hand, teach the annihilation of the spirit at death, to be recreated at the judgment. This is in contrast to the historic Christian doctrine, which is that the spirit passes to the place of its eternal repose, whether Heaven or Hell, conscious in bliss or torment, until the judgment, when the spirit is rejoined to the body in the resurrection, its eternal state confirmed, and both body and spirit return to its place. 

Both groups argue from Bible verses, often from the more-obscure portions, that address the state of the bodies of the dead, and then commit a bait-and-switch, assuming that those verses also describe the state of the spirit. That is a simple logical fallacy, and is erroneous. 

The verses above are an example. As verse 17 says, the weary are at rest in death, and verse 18 adds that they are at ease. That immediately precludes the Witness doctrine; non-existence is not resting or being at ease. However, what of the SDA's "soul sleep"? 

Notice that the spirits of the dead are at ease together. Being unconscious in their graves would not be being together. Notice also what the weary dead enjoy: freedom from their taskmasters and slavemasters. How does a person enjoy freedom when he is unconscious? The Adventist intermediate state is not that described here (or in the rest of Scripture).

The Electing Love of God

I think that a big part in causing the impotence of the American church is the method of evangelism employed by the members of the church. "Jesus loves you." No warnings about sin or judgment, or God's command to repent. Just a syrupy "Jesus loves you." And that Gospel of Psychotherapy has resulted in Christians who look no different from that sinful world which they haven't repudiated.

That is far from the Gospel of the Bible. In no Scripture do we ever see Jesus or the Apostles saying to an unbeliever, "Jesus loves you."

"Yet He saved them for His name's sake,
That He might make known His mighty power"
- Psalm 106:8

That verse is about God's redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt, a type of the liberation of the Christian from sin and its consequences. Notice that God tells us explicitly that He did so for Himself, not for the sake of Israel. He loved Himself, so He glorified His name. He loved Himself, so He displayed His power. While the Israelites were the beneficiaries of His actions, they were not the cause of those actions. It was God's sovereign choice of election that saved them.

This Gospel has power, because it isn't about God's loving me. It is about God's loving Himself, and, therefore, exerting all of His power, not for me, but His own glory.

Free Grace Justification versus the Cults

The Pelagian cults - by which I mean primarily the Church of Rome, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals - hate the doctrine of salvation by free grace, apart from works. They hate it because it liberates the believer from dependency on their organizational hierarchy. However, their stated reason for opposing it is that it supposedly results in antinomianism, a freedom to sin without the expectation of spiritual consequences.

They will always cite in this regard James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." I have addressed their perversion of that verse here. Mormonism even makes it more explicit in their own scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants 76:52): "That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power."

However, the truth is the opposite of their assertion. True good works can only be the result of free grace. That is because the natural man is incapable of doing meritorious works: "No one does good, not even one" (Romans 3:12). The Pelagian puts the effect for the cause, and thus puts the supposed righteousness of the sinner in the place of the real righteousness of Christ (Mark 10:18), which is imputed to the repentant sinner by grace through faith alone, to make him righteous (II Corinthians 5:21). In other words, by teaching a doctrine of salvation that is impossible, the Pelagian blocks men from knowing true salvation! Surely there can be no greater sin (Matthew 23:13).

Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell explains the difference: "A penitent sinner is one who has been a transgressor, but is now just; the laws of God are now put within his mind and written on his heart, and his moral condition is evidently one which renders the supposition of punishment incongruous and contradictory. Such a man is as unfit for the atmosphere of Hell as an impenitent transgressor is unfit for the atmosphere of Heaven. There is obviously, therefore, no principle of reason or nature, as there is, unquestionably, none of revelation, which teaches that a man may be penitent and [yet] perish - that he may be driven into final punishment with the love of God in his heart and the praise of God upon his tongue" ("The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

He is expressing the same idea that God does in Ezekiel 33:12: "The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins."

Is the Church Teaching the Lie of Satan?

We often talk about Europe as a "post-Christian culture." Then the conversation often moves to America, which is already "post-modern," and moving in the same direction as Europe. The so-called "nones," those who say they have no religion, are increasing as a proportion of the American population. The church has less and less influence in social issues.

Why is that?

In Europe, we see portions that have never known the biblical Gospel, because they were controlled by the Catholic Church. As that organization, not truly a church, lost political power, people were freed from its power, but had no spiritual reality to take its place. In the areas that had known the Gospel because of the Reformation, its influence had been undermined by the influence of higher criticism, and the failure of the

churches to exercise discipline in the face of  bald unbelief. As state churches, they were expected to include the entire population in their membership, and depended on state subsidies for their finances. They simply surrendered to the spirit of unbelief.

Here in America, evangelicalism has always been stronger than in Europe. The separation from the state and a voluntary membership has enabled the churches to exercise discipline - when they chose. While some church organizations have given in to the same higher criticism that conquered Europe, others have maintained their faithfulness to the Gospel and our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

However, now that evangelical remnant is decaying from the inside out. Prominent place has been given to mysticism, mainly through the Pentecostal movement, so that faith has become subjective rather than a faith in objective historical truths and events. A pietistic mentality has taken over, in which one's private spiritual experience takes precedence over the objective facts of the historic Christian faith. And a growing Prosperity movement has come to equate faith with personal success.

In other words, we witness with our eyes the professing evangelical movement's giving itself over to the very promise with which Satan brought down Adam and Eve: "God knows that when you eat of it [i. e., the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). The deception of Satan was his promise to Adam and Even that betraying the God who made them would make them autonomous, with the authority to decide good and evil for themselves, rather than receiving their definitions from God.

And this is what has deprived the American evangelical movement of influence and effect. If personal prosperity and sovereignty are valid, then the truth of God is just an optional alternative. There can be no grounds for calling to account either individuals or officials who stand for wickedness. Wickedness and righteousness become equally valid. The salt has lost its savor: "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet" (Matthew 5:13).

My message of warning is less to the apostates in American society than it is to the remnants of the church: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Revelation 3:15-19).

The Apostle Paul versus Catholic Saints

"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith" (Philippians 1:21-25).

The verses above are an expression of the ambivalence that Paul felt about the approach of death. The epistle was probably written a few years before his martyrdom in 68AD. Did he know that it was approaching? We don't know. If he did, he doesn't explicitly say so, either here or in any of the other extant Pauline letters. But, at least hypothetically, he was considering a coming time when he would be spiritually absent. That knowledge produced a conflict within him. He gloried in the thought of being with Jesus in Heaven. However, he was also aware of the frailty of the churches that would be left behind, such as this one in Philippi.

The thing I want to focus on is something that Paul does not say. Even though he is concerned about the aid that will be needed by these Philippian Christians, he does not say, "Oh, well, the problem is solved, because you will be able to pray to me in heaven, and I will be able to intercede with Jesus for you, just as I do in this earthly life." Yet, that is what the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches teach about the dead saints in Heaven, especially Mary.

If their doctrine of saints were true, then Paul's dilemma would not exist. Therefore, we can know that Paul did not believe anything comparable to the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of saints. It is just simple but necessary logic.

Dispensationalism Bows to the Kingship of Satan

I recently came across this interview with Jerry Falwell, Jr., the son of the late-founder of the Moral Majority, that bogeyman of liberals back in the Reagan era. In it, Falwell is quoted as saying, "It’s such a distortion of the teachings of Jesus to say that what he taught us to do personally — to love our neighbors as ourselves, help the poor — can somehow be imputed on a nation. Jesus never told Caesar how to run Rome." I am appalled by the statement, and I think that the elder Falwell would have been appalled, too.

Fist, let me say that Junior's statement is consistent with his dispensationalist hermeneutic. Senior's political activism was inconsistent with that same hermeneutic. I am not suggesting any hypocrisy on the part of Falwell.

Falwell, Jr.

However, I must question the rationality of the statement. Mr, Falwell, how can you say that Jesus advocated a morality only for individuals, that He did not also intend for us to live collectively? That would be like saying that the Sixth Commandment forbids me to murder, but places no obligation on society to strive to prevent or punish murder!

In addition, has Falwell not read the Old Testament? I often wonder that when addressing dispensationalists. If he has, then he is deliberately ignoring the statements in the Law and the history books that God judges a society for its injustices. He doesn't merely judge individuals. When the Assyrians destroyed the Northern Kingdom, or when the Babylonians destroyed the Southern Kingdom, are we to imagine that there were no godly residents in either country who suffered together with their societies? That would not be a rational expectation.

I refer to this tendency among dispensationalists as "surrenderism," a presupposition that the Bible, Christianity, and the Church are doomed to fail, so we are to make no more than token efforts to apply God's word to all of life. That attitude is the opposite of the first instruction that God gave to humanity: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:28). Instead of subduing and exercising dominion, the dispensationalist will have us remain behind our church doors, doing nothing more than talk about selected portions of Scripture, while the world goes to Hell.

When is an Apostle Not an Apostle?

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (i. e., Mormons) claim to have special authority because they have a supposed continuing apostolic office. The former claims apostolic authority for the Pope and his bishops on the basis of "apostolic succession," while the latter claims to have actual apostles. They both claim that such authority is required to provide binding religious tradition. They both challenge Protestants with the query, "Where is your authority?" (see the same challenge by the Pharisees to Jesus in Mark 11:28 and Luke 20:2).

Protestants on the other hand, respond with our own query to Rome and Salt Lake: "Where is your authority for your apostolic claims?"

While that Protestant challenge is to illegitimate claims, Paul faced the same challenge to his own legitimate apostleship. We see his answer in I Corinthians 4:9-13: "I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things."

Let me make a lesser application of this text before making my main point. The Apostolic Office of Rome (i. e., the papacy) and the apostles of the Mormons rule over their constituents, living extravagantly and lording it over the lesser members of their organizations. For Paul, to be an Apostle was to suffer, not to prosper. Only one of the biblical Apostles died a peaceable death (compare Acts 12:2).

However, the main point I want to bring from that passage is that Paul describes the Apostles, he together with the Twelve, as the last of God's special exhibits. Their office was a temporary one, not one essential to the continuing life of the Church. The claims of Rome and Salt Lake are contrary to the claims of the true Apostles, and the plan of Christ, the true head of the Church.

Election and the Warrant to Believe

Anyone who looks at the topics that I explore in this blog would have to be deliberately obtuse not to notice that I am a Calvinist. That is, I hold to salvation only by the sovereign grace of God, with no admixture of human cooperation. A man chooses to believe in God, but only because the Holy Spirit gives him a new heart and draws him to believe.

In general, the objections to the doctrines of grace are not particularly clever. They are more comparable to the exalted notions of a person stoned on marijuana, that are actually moronic.

Among those clever responses is that it will cause a poor sinner to turn away from Jesus because he doesn't know whether he is elect. No one thinks that way. On the contrary, the Bible tells us that no one seeks God (Romans 3:11), unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). In other words, the Arminian uses an impossibility to make his case. By itself, that is sufficient proof that Arminianism is false.

Instead, for the affected sinner who doubts his election, the answer is not to repudiate the doctrine; that would be to call God's Word an embarrassment. Rather, the sinner is not to look at all to election; it is not for men to meddle in who is elect and who is not.

Rather, here is the biblical warrant for the sinner to know that he has the right to come to Jesus for salvation.

"Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to Me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant" (Isaiah 55:1-3). Is he a sinner, wearied by the load of sin, and exhausted by all his efforts at self-improval and self-forgiveness? Has he been left unsatisfied with his diet of human religions and philosophies, but without relief? Then he is the one that God has called to come to Jesus to receive true salvation by free grace alone, without works. 

"Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts" (Zechariah 1:3). The very God of Heaven binds Himself to be receptive to the repentant sinner who comes to Him for succor. He is the father to the prodigal sinner: "While he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate" (Luke 15:20-24).

"Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). Again, has he grown weary of the burden of sin and religious rules, or fighting to keep from acknowledging God? Then Jesus Himself invites him to come, and promises to relieve him of that burden. 

Thus, it is not on the basis of election that any man can know whether he is welcome to approach the throne of God. Rather, it is the invitations of the Father and of Jesus to come to Him which give every man a warrant to know that he is welcome - a golden ticket, if you will. Run to Him quickly! "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8).