When Are the "Last Days"?

Among those of a certain eschatological bent, the 'last days" of the New testament have been identified repeatedly with events current at that time. Most recently, the covid crisis and the war in Ukraine are cited as evidence that we are now in the last days, and that the rapture will occur any day. 

The problem is that none of those declarations ever give/gave proper consideration to how the phrase is used in the New Testament. "The last days" is treated as if it is disconnected from the rest of Scripture, with no meaning to those who used it, or as if it could be meaningful to its audience, even if it would occur two-thousand years (so far) in their future. 

Consider Hebrews 2:1-2: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." To the author of the epistle, the last days were "these last days," not "those last days," as assumed by the dispensationalist. He considered the phrase to describe the time in which he wrote, not some far future time. He reinforces this intent by relating the last days to the coming of Jesus, i. e., His first coming, not the second. 

The Apostle Peter said something similar in I Peter 1:19-20: "But with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." Peter is referring to two events that were past tense at the time he wrote, the plan for the Son from before the foundation of the world and His manifestation. When did that happen? At his incarnation, which is why Peter uses the past tense of the verb. To him, the last times were past (or continuing), not two-thousand years in the future. 

The Apostle John, the only writer to mention an antichrist, mentions antichrists in I John 2:18: "Children, it is the las hour, and, as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore, we know that it is the last hour." This one verse gives us two key pieces of information. First is that he refers to a belief among Christians of a coming antichrist. He corrects them in two ways, one that the word is plural, not singular, and the second that some of the antichrists had already come. Therefore, he concluded, the time in which he wrote was the last hour. His statements preclude a future Antichrist or last day, yet dispensationalists pass right over it. 

In Hebrews 9:26, that writer again describes the end of the ages: "For then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But, as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Again, He identifies the last days not just with the coming of Jesus, as in the verse at the top, but specifically with His working of redemption. Again, that necessarily happened two-thousand years ago, past tense even when Hebrews was written, not in his or our future. To the same effect is Peter in I Peter 1:20: "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." 

Together, these references are infallible evidence that a future "last day" is unbiblical, the invention of men, not just apart from scriptural support, but in contradiction to the biblical testimony. 

The Law of God Versus Lawless Theology

Many people claim that the moral law of the Old Testament was given for Israel alone, not for the Gentiles. They base their claim on the fact that only Israel received the written law from Moses. 

That claim is wrong. 

In a familiar passage, Genesis chapters 18 and 19, we have the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Even people with no biblical education know the basics of the story. Why were they destroyed? God says of them, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave" (Genesis 18:20). This account is of an event more than four centuries before God gave Moses the Law on Mount Sinai. So, if there was no moral law before Sinai, by what standard did the people of Sodom and Gomorrah sin, and sin so gravely that they would be erased from the face of the earth? 

The antinomian has no answer. His assertion is based on the logical fallacy of a false equivalency, the equating of the Law per se with the recording of the Law. The antinomian is correct in his claim that there was no written record of God's Law, because that privilege was reserved for the nation of Israel: "What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-2). While all men have the law of God recorded in our consciences (Romans 2:15), the Jews have had the additional blessing of the Law in written form. Thus they were doubly blessed, doubly accountable, and - ultimately - doubly punished (Isaiah 40:2). 

The problem for the antinomian is that, without God's law (I John 3:4), there is no objective standard of right and wrong, and, therefore, no standard by which to proclaim that a person is a sinner. Yet, even the antinomian claims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). He tries to have it both ways, sinfulness without law.

I suggest that is why the American church has become so impotent in the face of a depraved and self-destructing culture. She has repudiated the one thing given by God to construct a godly society, his Law. The cry of today's average evangelical is, "Any law except God's Law!," and that is what we have received, a godless society, just like they wanted.

Is the Love of God Universal?

"Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished" (Proverbs 16:5). 

I continue to deal almost daily with people who proclaim that God loves everyone, or even that God loves everyone equally. This is supposed to be an appeal to the wicked, making them confident in trusting God. Yet such people never seem to consider how it sounds to the wicked: "God loves you unconditionally, in your wickedness." It is a statement to the unbeliever that his wickedness costs him nothing, because God is happy with him as he is. I don't doubt that is why there is so much unrepented wickedness in the church, especially sexual immorality and illegitimacy. God loves them; therefore, God loves their wickedness. If any Christian calls the wicked to repentance, he faces this prior false information, making true evangelism an even greater uphill battle.

Yet the scriptures say no such thing. Not ever. Not anywhere. If you ask for biblical justification you will usually get one of two verses. The universalist will often refer to I John 4:8: "God is love." But to whom is John speaking there? The first part of the sentence is rarely quoted: "Anyone who does not love does not know God." The love of God is explicitly named as something that the unbeliever cannot know! The other verse the universalist will toss out is Matthew 5:45: "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." See, we are told, God loves both the good and the evil. That is in spite of the observable fact that "love" never appears in the verse. Rather, it is a simple reference to the mixed nature of humanity, with God's people dispersed among the wicked, as is also described in the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). This is not a blessing intended for the wicked. They are merely enjoying their being in the proximity of the elect (Matthew 15:27). If anything, it is a curse, because it increases their judgment (Romans 1:21). 

The real issue is humanism, a philosophical commitment to the inherent goodness and autonomy of man. In the Bible, man is neither good nor autonomous. He is not a creature who can assume God's love, because that love cannot exclude God's love for Himself. That means that God is jealous of His holiness (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29). He hates that which is contrary to His holiness, so that every man is by nature a subject of wrath, not love (Ephesians 2:3). What the unbeliever needs is not to be told that God loves him unconditionally, but that he faces an eternity of wrath, unless he clothes himself in the righteousness of Christ (II Corinthians 5:21), which comes through faith alone. God loves the believer, not because he is naturally good, but because the Father sees the believer in His Son, who alone is inherently and unfailingly good (Romans 5:8). 

King David and the Doctrine of Perseverance

 According to the superscription, David wrote this when he was taken prisoner by the Philistines: "You [God] have delivered my soul from death, yes, my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of life" (Psalm 56:13). It may be this verse which inspired Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, to write centuries later, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 1:24-25). 

Both men exult not in some belief that they must sustain their own faith, as the Pelagian claims, but rather in the knowledge that it is God's power that will sustain them to the end. 

Jesus also talked about this: "My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). 

David and Jude write from their experiences of the faithfulness of God. Jesus, however, writes as the God who is faithful. It is on that faithfulness that the perseverance of the true believer depends and is guaranteed. 

I have been told by both Catholics and Mormons that it is arrogant to be sure now of my eternal life. They both claim that no one can be sure until he arrives at his eternal destination. They consistently refer to Matthew 24:13: "The one who endures to the end will be saved." But neither one ever considers how the believer endures. As cited above, the Bible tells us that it is God's action that gives endurance, not the willpower of the believer. And God can never fail. Therefore, the believer has a sound foundation for his assurance, just as the Apostle John tells us: "I write these things to you [Christians] who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" (I John 5:13). The possession of eternal life is something that the true believer has now, not something for which he merely hopes.

A Simple Refutation of All Forms of Unitarianism

 

In their opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, Arians and Modalists unite in denying the deity of the Son. Arians, represented primarily by the Jehovah's Witnesses, claim that Jesus was a fully-created being, whether  a mere human or an angel, but definitely not God. Modalists, represented primarily by Oneness Pentecostals, on the other hand, say that Jesus was God, but His deity was that of the Father, not the inherent deity of the Son.

Both are unbiblical. 

In I John 5:20, that Apostle tells us, "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Contrary to the claims of both Arians and Modalists, John tells us that the Son, named as such twice in that verse, is God. His statement precludes any claim that Jesus was merely a creature, or that the Son was merely a body inhabited by the deity of the Father.

 

Surrender to Unbelief Is Treason Against Christ

 "In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Romans 8:37). 

"Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 15:57). 

"Everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5:4-5).

Does the reader notice any parallels among these three verses? In each, the respective Apostles tell us that the Christian life is one of victory. Victory over whom? Over the world, used here of the unbelieving world. 

Another thing that I would expect a reader to notice is the contrast between these verses and the expectations of the average American evangelical. Under the influence of dispensationalism and pietism, the average evangelical expects his religious experience to be one of suffering and retreat. Now, of course, we know that Jesus warned us to expect such things: "A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you" (John 15:20). But notice that there is no "always" in that verse. Yet, always has become the standard expectation. That one verse is given sustained application, while the three above get buried. 

I would suggest that the expectation of continuous retreat is a self-fulfilling expectation. It has become a mark of orthodoxy to abandon our world to the unbelievers. However, as I think the verses above tell us, that is a false orthodoxy!

Never Known versus Fallen from Faith

As I have said before, the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is very precious to me. I am very conscious of my weakness, so I am glad that my unfaithfulness never cancels the faithfulness of God (II Timothy 2:13). That is an important distinction: my perseverance is because Of God's faithfulness, not mine. So the common caricature of the doctrine as an expression of pride is no more than a pejorative, void of any true basis. 

We find this short statement from Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.'" Notice that He is talking about men who claim to be His people. Yet He rejects them, because He had never known them! That is an important statement. They are professing believers, members of the visible church. Yet He doesn't say to them, "I now kick you out." Rather, He tells them, "I never knew you." So, while they had claimed to be believers, members of the visible covenant community, the profession of Jesus was that their profession had been false. They had never been members of His invisible church, regenerate and redeemed. The Apostle John put this in more-explicit form in I John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." 

Are there men who go to church and claim to be Christians, who, later, fall into grievous sin or even deny the faith that they had once professed? Of course. Does that mean that true Christians can become unbelievers? Absolutely not. Rather, they have demonstrated that their profession was a lie, and that Jesus had never known them.

Jesus Alone the Hope for the Human Conscience

Guilt is our emotional response to affliction of conscience. That is, when we are aware that we have done wrong, and are deserving of punishment, guilt is the emotion that haunts us, sometimes briefly, sometimes for an extended period, sometimes even for the rest of our lives. The severity and longevity of guilt depends on the severity of our wrong act and the sensitivity of each person's conscience. it is also possible to feel guilty when we shouldn't, as the conscience either blames us erroneously for someone else's action, or for something which should be considered wrong (I John 3:20).

The conscience is something that must be trained. That is especially obvious with children. However, it is a lifelong process, familiarizing ourselves with the Scriptures, so that our sense of right and wrong is brought more and more into conformity with God's standards. That training would have been unnecessary if not for the Fall of our first parents. While they had been created with God's standards as an inherent part of their psyche (Romans 2:15). However, in response to the false offer of Satan (Genesis 3:5), they chose to set their own standards of right and wrong above God's, and, thus, rendered themselves and all of their posterity (except Jesus) incapable of aught but sin. We still have enough of our created nature to know that our sin deserves punishment, no matter how much we strive to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18-22). Thus, we experience guilt.

How do we free ourselves from guilt?

"If guilt is the response of the soul to the justice of punishment, the only way in which its sting can be extracted is by an arrangement which shall make the punishment cease to be just and give the sinner a right to escape from the evils which conscience forecasts. By no other conceivable method can peace and tranquility, in conformity with the principles of eternal rectitude, be imparted to the mind" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"). 

In order to shed our guilt, we must know that the justice due our sins has been satisfied. The unbeliever can never know this, apart from self-deception, because he goes into Sheol, the realm of death, with his burden of sin on his own shoulders. However, the believer can experience this deliverance in this life, because he, unlike the unbeliever, can know that the justice due his sins has been satisfied, but in the person of a surety, Jesus Christ, on the cross. 

"For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, He said, 'Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but a body have You prepared for Me;  in burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no pleasure.' Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God, as it is written of Me in the scroll of the book.' When He said above, 'You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings' (these are offered according to the law), then He added, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will.' He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:1-10).

Know the Bad News, then Recognize the Good News

"The law must be applied with power to the conscience, or the preciousness of grace will be very inadequately known. The superficial piety of the present day is owing, in a large degree, to feeble impressions of the malignity of sin" (James Henley Thornwell, "The necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The comment above was part of a long article in the Southern Presbyterian Review in 1849, but would be even more properly written in our current days. If anything, American evangelicalism has degenerated far past that described by Thornwell in his own time. What would he say about "churches" with female ministers, gay marriages, and that serve as laughingstocks to the world.

His diagnosis is correct. As the church has come to despise God's law, she has lost sight of the sinfulness of sin and its insult to the God she claims to serve. If the word is used at all, "sin" is left undefined, and only in occasions of unfortunate poverty and ignorance. Never is any person called a "sinner," because that is harsh and unloving.

A false Gospel that says only that "God loves you" to everyone leaves everyone satisfied with sin. God loves everyone unconditionally, so there is no need to repent. Church discipline is unheard of in our day.

The result is to use Thornwell's words, a feeble church, and people with a superficial piety.

That wasn't the way Jesus lived: "I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). And His cousin and favorite Apostle tells us: "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (I John 3:8). When was the last time a minister called out sin as being the influence of the devil, rather than ignorance or poor economic conditions? And what does the Bible say about that silence? "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18).

Rather, this is how the Bible defines sin: "Sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). And this brings us back to the problem identified by Thornwell. If minsters do not preach on the Law, then their congregants never learn God's standard of right and wrong. And if Christians have no standard, then we have no standard to present to our world: "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Timothy 1:8-10).

Paul the Apostle

Sanctification: We Shall Be Like Him

"The justification of a sinner introduces him into a state in which he can no more be left to the dominion of sin and the possibility of the curse than Christ can lose His glory or God be unfaithful to His promises and oath" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

In its simplest, justification in Scripture refers to the declaration of "Not Guilty" on the sinner redeemed by the blood of Christ, applied through faith alone: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Look also at verses 4-5: "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved." See also Acts 15:11 and Romans 3:24. These references are far from exhaustive. However, Thornwell's point above is that our justification is the beginning of God's work in us, not the totality. And the Apostle Paul gave us the same assurance: "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

The problem with modern Christians is that we talk about being saved from the wrath of God. And that is, indeed, a wonderful thing which is taught in Scripture: "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God" (Romans 5:9). Jesus by His blood has brought us into peace with His Father, who had been offended by our sin (Romans 5:1). But that was never intended to be the end of His work.

What were we told when Jesus was born among us? "She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). This was the promise given to Joseph about the unexpected pregnancy of his betrothed wife. Notice the promise. It is not just that Jesus would save His people from the curse for their sins, as glorious as that is, but from the sins themselves!

We know that this is a gradual process in this life. We grieve as we find in ourselves attitudes of wickedness that are inconsistent with our profession of Christ. Yet, we are also encouraged by the promises of Scripture that we are no longer possessed by sin, and someday, when we see Him face to face, we shall finally be as sinless as our Savior is: "Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is" (I John 3:2).

Love Versus Antinomianism

Dispensationalism has had an unfortunate longterm impact on Evangelicals, at least in America. Folks of that persuasion love to quote the second half of Romans 6:14, while glossing over the first half: "Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." People walk around repeating, "not under law but under grace," like a mantra to keep away evil spirits. Yet, the first half of the verse shows that Paul is talking about a source of power. The Law does not, and cannot, enable us to live righteously; Only grace can do that. There is nothing in that verse about dismissing the Law of God as a rule of life (see I Timothy 1:8-10). Yet, the dispensationalist will deny even that, because, he repeats, "we are not under law but under grace."

But let's consider another verse: "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it" (II John 1:6).

So, we have a logical dilemma. If the dispensationalist is correct, that "we are not under law but under grace" means that the Law has no application to the Christian life, then what about love? John says that love - i. e., to one another, verse 5 - means keeping the Law. "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (I John 5:3).

The Whole World Under the Law

I often hear people claim that the moral law of the Old Testament was only for Israel. Now, if we were talking about the ceremonial law, I could see it. But when it is said of the moral law, then the person is saying that it was alright for non-Israelites to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery. I cannot accept that. Furthermore, it would mean that non-Israelites were not sinners, because sin is defined as the breaking of the Law (I John 3:4).

There are two errors that lead people to make this conclusion.

The first is dispensationalism, which teaches a rigid discontinuity between grace and law, such that they cannot coexist. Law was for pre-Christian Israel (or even continues to be for Israel), while grace is for Christians. This is a wrongful use of Romans 6:14, "You are not under Law, but under grace." However, that verse is about the power to resist sin, not to define sin.

The second is really a logical problem, because it involves confusing the written Law with the Law itself. It is true that the Gentiles did not have the written law. However, it is a fallacious leap of logic to take that to mean that they didn't have the Law at all. On the contrary, Paul also tells us, "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). The experience of conscience by a person without knowledge of the written Law is due to that same moral Law written in his heart. The conscience can be suppressed, of course, but that only shows that the written Law is advantageous, Paul's exact point (Romans 3:2). 

The problem is that both of the groups described above cherry-pick the verses that they apply to this topic. The crucial one that they both ignore is Romans 3:19: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." The first half of the sentence talks about those under the Law, and the second half tells us that it is "the whole world." And it is on that basis that every human being, not just Israel, is a lawbreaker under the judgment of God, and thus needing redemption in Jesus Christ.

Apostle Paul Refutes the Antinomian: Gentiles and the Law

"Let Israel be glad in his Maker;
     let the children of Zion rejoice in their King!
Let them praise His name with dancing,
     making melody to Him with tambourine and lyre!
For the Lord takes pleasure in His people; 
     He adorns the humble with salvation.
Let the godly exult in glory;
     let them sing for joy on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their throats
     and two-edged swords in their hands,
to execute vengeance on the nations
     and punishments on the peoples,
to bind their kings with chains
     and their nobles with fetters of iron,
to execute on them the judgment written!
     This is honor for all His godly ones.     
      Praise the Lord!"
- Psalm 149:2-9

In debates between Seventh-Day Adventists and evangelicals, I often see the evangelicals argue that the judaizing of the Adventists is wrong because, they claim, the Law was only for Israel. I don't know whether that doctrine originates in dispensationalism, but I do know that it is just as wrong as the Adventists' holding on to Old Testament food laws.

These antinomians appeal to comments in Paul, such as Romans 2:14: "Gentiles, who do not have the Law." Yet, they pass over what he says just before that: "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law" (verse 12). So, the Gentiles, who are not under the Law, yet sin. What is the definition of sin? "Sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). So, what constitutes sin is defined by the Law. Therefore, the question must be, If the Gentiles are not subject to the Law, as the antinomian asserts, then how can he be said to sin? The antinomian cannot answer.

However, the same passage gives us the solution: "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the Law is written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15). Therefore, the Gentiles certainly do have, and have always had, the Law. They have simply not had the written Law. The standards of right and wrong applied to the Gentile just as they applied to the Jew. However, the Jew had two advantages: first, he had the law written, and thus was not dependent on his fallen conscience to direct his life; and second, he had the ceremonial Law, which pointed him to the coming Messiah who would redeem him from his sins and their consequences. Not having the written Law, the Gentiles were without the hope of forgiveness and sanctification. 

To show the Old Testament foundation for Paul, I direct your attention to the Psalm above. It starts with the pleasure that God has in His redeemed people. However, it also tells us of the judgment on His enemies. How can the antinomian see any justice in that vengeance if God had provided no means for the Gentiles to know moral truth?

Perseverance, Apostates, and the Church

In arguing against the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, Arminians point to people who used to profess the Christian faith, but who have now fallen into gross sin, or who have even repudiated the faith they once professed. And there certainly are such people.

However, the Bible addresses that issue: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (I John 2:19). In the previous verse, John had warned his audience of antichrists, apostates who now denied the basic doctrines of Christ. He addresses the obvious hypothetical question, How could Christians become such enemies of the faith? And his answer is that such people were never true Christians in the first place.

This verse teaches the doctrine of the visible church. That is, the church as an organization of people who profess the Christian faith, without addressing the true condition of their hearts. This is contrasted with the invisible church, which is all of those throughout history who have truly been born again, without regard to their membership in any particular organization. The two overlap, but they are not identical, as John explains. 

Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell explained the distinction this way: "[I] restrict the 'church,' in its proper sense, to the congregation of the faithful. None can be truly members of it but those who are members of Christ. [I] accordingly maintain with Calvin, with Luther, [and] with Melancthon, that hypocrites and unbelievers, though in it, are not of it. They are insolent intruders, whom it is the office of discipline to expel" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church"). The Westminster divines also addressed the subject in the Larger Catechism, questions 62 through 65.

There Can Be No Salvation Which Does Not Result in Good Works

Both Catholics and Mormons caricature the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone as meaning that works don't matter, so that a person can consider himself saved, no matter what profligacy he exhibits in his life. According to their understanding of salvation, assurance of eternal life must remain a carrot hanging on a stick, never received in this life, but rather only spurring a person on in an effort to achieve salvation at death. What a horror!

First, let's note that their attack isn't just on biblical Protestants, but rather on the Scriptures themselves. In them, the believer receives this assurance: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" (I John 5:13). Not "might have eternal life," or "that you may hope." The Apostle John explicitly states that the true believer can have that assurance in this life.

However, more-generally speaking, can we not see an aspersion cast on the Holy Spirit in these accusations? What does it say about the attitude of these Mormons and Catholics toward the Holy Spirit, if He can reside in a person whose life is given over to wickedness? Is it that the Holy Spirit is wicked? Or is He merely impotent in His influence? Either way, I think such aspersion must cast doubt on the salvation, not of Protestants, but rather of these Mormon and Catholic accusers.

The true Protestant view is stated well by Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell: "It is precisely because faith is the exercise of a renewed soul that it is incompetent to those who cherish the love of sin; true faith includes in it the renunciation of the flesh as well as the reception of the Savior. The very purpose for which it receives Christ is that it may be freed as well from the dominion as from the guilt of sin. Salvation, the blessing to be obtained, means nothing, unless it includes holiness" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church").

Roman Worship of Saints, a Remnant of Roman Paganism

The worship of saints is a well-known characteristic of Roman Catholicism. Yeah, they quibble about calling it "worship," but their argument is unconvincing. However, when they say that it is an ancient practice, they are completely correct.

Most Americans are exposed to Roman mythology at some point during our educations. We know about Jupiter and Juno, Neptune, Pluto, etc. What most Americans don't know, however, is that the big-name gods were not the focus of the devotion of the common people. They were reserved for important people, such as emperors and senators. In their homes, Romans worshiped minor deities called Lares. "Lares were the spirits of one's dead ancestors and there was a cupboard in the home which housed their statuettes and from which they worked to make sure the family prospered. Daily prayers and offerings were made to the Lares throughout the year but elaborate rituals were enacted on special days such as a birthday, wedding, anniversary or departure or return from a journey. When a family moved permanently from one house to another, the Lares and the Panes would move with them." These family spirits had the time and devotion to give to each household when the gods were too busy with things like wars and coronations.

Does this sound familiar?

The Church of Rome promotes praying to saints, often in home shrines, not as mediators to God, she says, but as mediators to the Mediator, Jesus Christ. Why not pray directly to Him? *Shrug* Is He too busy? We need to speak to His secretary? Is it really not matter of trust? I feel no need to pray to saints, because I am confident that Jesus is glad to receive my prayers: "This is the confidence that we have toward Him, that if we ask anything according to His will He hears us" (I John 5:14).

But I digress.

My point here is simply this: As much as Rome talks about the Bible in the explanation linked above, the real basis of saint worship is the hold-over of a custom from pagan Rome.

The Law for All Men, Not Just for Israel

One form of antinomianism holds that the biblical Law is still valid (Matthew 5:18), but is, and has always been, only for Israel.

That is false.

Before I get to the Scriptural evidence against this assertion, let's just think about the logic of it. Israel was given a moral code to define her actions in the eyes of God: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness" (I John 3:4). Yet, according to the theologians of this stripe, Gentiles have no such standard. If sin is defined by the Law, but the Gentiles don't have the Law, does that not imply that Gentiles do not, therefore, have sin? If yes, according to what standard? And, whether one answers yes or no, does that not imply that Gentiles are not under the government of the God of the Bible? Isn't the source of their law their god, by definition?

I can't imagine how these antinomians can answer those questions. However, I don't have to wait for their answers because the Bible is explicitly opposed to any such concept of independence from God's Law. Paul tells us, "When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:14-15). Every man has a conscience, even those who are so wicked as to heave seared their consciences into insensitivity. And, according to Paul, those consciences reflect the Law of God written in our hearts. This is part of the image of God, remaining in us since the creation of Adam, and restored in the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10, 10:16, from Jeremiah 31:33). Of course, that image has been marred by sin, so the law is not recalled perfectly in the heart. In that way, Israel had an advantage over the Gentiles (Romans 3:2). While having the written Law was an advantage to Israel, that advantage falls far short of implying that the Gentiles were not accountable to God's Law. If that weren't the case, then would not the advantage have been with the Gentiles, for then they could never be accused of sin, and, therefore, had no need for a Savior? Yet, we know that is not the case, because Paul is specifically changed with carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8, I Timothy 2:7)! Why carry to the Gentiles something that they didn't need?

"The Middle Way" or God's Way?

 It is rare to find a professing atheist in modern America. Rather, it is fashionable not to express assurednes in either direction. To be outspokenly Christian is disdained as fanaticism, while explicit atheism is considered arrogant. Instead, let us all be somewhere in the middle, Christian by heritage, but not too concerned about truth, or agnostic because we don't want to be dogmatic.

Stuff and nonsense, is my reaction! It is that of Jesus, too: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!" (Revelation 3:15).

God does not offer Himself as one option among many. He isn't an item on a smorgasbord, or an orphan preening in the hope that you will pick Him. That is a shabby view of God! 

The God of the Bible does not plead; He commands: "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). "This is his commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ" (I John 3:23). There is no equivocation here, no middle among three choices. God tells us that it His way, with no other option.

We see here that God gives no consideration to modern moderation, Aristotle's middle way in every decision. This is a shocking concept to the modern American! Who does He think He is? God!?!? And the answer is, yes, that is exactly what He thinks.

There is no "golden mean" here. The options are obedience and disobedience, and the consequences of which option a man chooses."Now therefore fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods ... and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve... But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:14-15).

God's Love: The Fly in the Oneness Ointment

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as He is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because He first loved us."
- I John 4:7-8, 16-19

This passage was written by the same Apostle John who gave us the Revelation. Yet, while that book can often be mystifying, I don't think anyone can say that of the portion I quote here. There is one central point, and he makes it eminently clear: It is, and has always been, God's nature to love. Therefore, we, His people, can express love confidently.

Orthodox Christians hold that the love God shows to us is a manifestation of that same nature of love that He had shared so intimately within the Trinity, the Father's loving the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son's loving the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit's loving the Father and the Son. We have assurance of His love because it is an infinite and eternal love, preceding even our existence.

However, the Sabellian (or Modalist, or Oneness) believes in a monadic deity, a unitary oneness that had no companionship for the unknowable eternity before Genesis 1. He must ask the question, Whom did God love? Since he believes that there was no one else there to be loved, then his answer can only be "no one." And that presents a problem.

We do know from Scripture that it is contrary to God's nature to change: "I the LORD do not change" (Malachi 3:6, compare Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29). Therefore, since the Sabellian God did not have love in eternity past, then neither could He become loving, since that would have been a change of nature. A God without love would not be a redeemer, a sanctifier, or a merciful Father. Therefore, the Sabellian God cannot be the God of the Bible (John 3:16).

Perseverance and God's Warnings Against Apostasy

A house built on sand

God warns His people against apostasy in many places in Scripture, both in the Old And New Testaments. For example, in Jeremiah 2:19, He said to Israel, "Your evil will chastise you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the LORD your God; the fear of Me is not in you, declares the Lord GOD of hosts." And in Hebrews 6:4-6, that writer tells us, "in the case of those who have once been enlightened... and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance."

Those are serious warnings. I think no one would deny it.

The problem comes when Arminians cite such verses as supposed proof that a true believer can fall away from the faith. I oppose that assertion as both unbiblical and destructive of any Christian assurance. It turns the Christian life into agony and terror: Am I saved today? What about tomorrow?

Biblically speaking, that assertion by the Arminians is exactly that, an assertion, and no more. It is opposed by so much more of Scripture. Consider the words of Jesus Himself: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:27-30).

But what about the apostasy references above, and ones like them? Notice the difference between the subjects in the two groups of verses. In the apostasy verses, God addresses the failures of the professing believers. But in the words of Jesus from the Gospel of John, the eye is not on believers, but on the power and love of Jesus.

The difference is the object of faith, whether in my own good works or in Jesus, the only-begotten God. Consider another verse, one that is more explicit than the two I cited above: "When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die" (Ezekiel 18:24). Here the prophet defines the apostate, something that neither Jeremiah nor the writer of Hebrews did above. The apostate person is one who was confident in his own righteousness, and then falls from his own moral status (compare the rich young ruler, Matthew 19:16-22, and the Pharisee in the temple, Luke 18:11).

The Apostle John makes this distinction even clearer: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge" (I John 2:19-20). He, too, refers to two discrete groups of people. "They" went out, i. e., committed apostasy, because they were never truly part of Christ's body. But "you" are held by the Holy One, i. e., Christ. 

Apostasy is not something that can happen from Christ, because it doesn't depend on the believer, but on Christ. Rather, it is something that can only happen to the hypocrite, the one who holds up his own righteousness, and depends on that, only to find it a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:26-27).