Dispensationalism versus God's Claim of the World.

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

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

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

Prophet Malachi

Treason to God as Rational Justification for Eternal Punishment

I get challenged regularly by atheists who object to God because, they believe, they don't deserve Hell. they claim that Hell is overkill for the actions of most human beings. 

Do they have a case? No, I don't believe that they do. 

In his book, The Existence and Attributes of God, Puritan Stephen Charnock addresses this point: "Man would make himself his own end and happiness. As God ought to be esteemed [as] the first cause, in point of our dependence on Him, so He ought to be our last end, in point of our enjoyment of Him. When we, therefore, trust in ourselves, we refuse Him as the first cause; and when we act for ourselves and expect a blessedness from ourselves, we refuse Him as the chief good and last end, which is an undeniable piece of atheism. For man is a creature of a higher rank than others in the world, and was not made (as animals, plants, and other works of the divine power) materially to glorify God, but was made a rational creature, intentionally to honor God by obedience to His rule, dependence on His goodness, and zeal for His glory. It is, therefore, as much a sleighting of God for man - a creature - to set himself up as his own end as to regard himself as his own law." 

This concept was not new with Charnock. rather, he put into his own words the thoughts of the Apostle Paul: "Although they [i. e., unbelievers] knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things" (Romans 1:21-23). 

The two men are describing two different forms of unbelief, of course. While Paul is describing the turning to pagan worship, Charnock is describing the atheist. However, the two forms are fundamentally one, in that they put someone else in the place of our Creator and Sustainer, the triune God of the Bible. All unbelievers have chosen Satan's offer (Genesis 3:5) of autonomy, illusory though it be.

Now the question to the atheist or pagan should be one that either can understand rationally: if a traitor has pulled his rightful king off the throne, whether to take it for himself or to give it to an interloper, is that not a crime which should be subject to the highest penalty available? A political figure may have only the ability to hang a traitor, having no reach beyond physical death. But God's jurisdiction cannot be thwarted by mere physical death (Matthew 10:28). And just as the rebel in Hell does not eschew his rebellion, neither does his divine Judge relent in His judgment through the rest of eternity. 

So, contrary to the assertion of the atheist, the judgment of Hell is both real and perfectly just. The only escape is to flee to Jesus, to be covered by His atoning blood, and to recognize that God remains on His throne, regardless of the efforts of man to cast Him down.

The Scriptures as the Basis of Our Apologetic

 Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible, with 176 verses. Of those verses, only three don't contain a word referring to the scriptures, such as law, commandments, or testimonies. The Psalm is 176 references to the benefits of God's Word in the life of the believer. I will focus on the section labeled "Waw," verses 41-48. 

"Let Your steadfast love come to me, O Lord, Your salvation according to Your promise; then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in your Word. And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in Your rules. I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever, and I shall walk in a wide place, for I have sought your precepts. I will also speak of Your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame, for I find my delight in Your commandments, which I love. I will lift up my hands toward Your commandments, which I love, and I will mediate on Your statutes" (Psalm 119:41-48).  

The Psalmist here uses the same encouragement that Jesus gave to His disciples: "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in the synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for My sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matthew 10:16-20). 

In both passages, it is the source of our answers that should give us confidence, because it is the very Word of God, inspired  by the Holy Spirit. The rest of Psalm 119 relays the means to this end, the constant study of, and obedience to, the Word of God. 

What is often forgotten in our apologetical confrontations is that there is no promise in Scripture that God will give success to our clever response. Rather, He promises His power to attend His word: "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). 

"Religious Neutrality" in Government Is Treason Against King Jesus

One of the stories which we best remember about the Prophet Elijah is his confrontation with the prophets of Baal (I Kings, chapter 18). The people of Israel had reached an historical point in religion in which they had eschewed fanaticism, giving equal devotion, in their own eyes, to Jehovah, their covenant God, and Baal, a fertility deity popular in much of the region around Israel. They chose to be neutral, giving both gods some attention, in the hope that one or the other would reward them. 

However, Elijah rejected the religious neutrality of the rest of Israel, challenging them, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21). His challenge was outside the cultural norm of that time, in which Israel was lackadaisical about religious devotion. Neutral, if you will. Trying to cover all of their bases. 

However, Jehovah rejected the neutrality of Israel. While the prophets of Baal received no answer from that deity, Jehovah certainly responded: "Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench" (verse 38). When the Israelites saw that Jehovah answered while Baal remained silent, they saw the emptiness in their illusion of neutrality: "When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, 'The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God'" (verse 39) Then, in the words of Elijah ("my God is Yah"), "'Seize the prophets of Baal, let none of them escape.' And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there" (verse 40). 

What Israel learned that day is that there could be no neutrality between the living God of their forefathers, and the pagan idols of the peoples around them. "Limping between two opinions" did not rescue them from the consequences of equating truth with falsehood. 

In a similar way, we in the United States live on land that was dedicated to that same God of the Bible. Then, when our nation was founded, our leaders included a provision in the Constitution saying that the new federal government could not establish a religion. Did they mean to equate Islam, Hinduism, and atheism with Christianity? Not at all. Rather, they intended for the federal government not to show favoritism among the Christian denominations of the new country. 

That plan did not remain in force, especially since the 1960's, when the courts unilaterally decided to eliminate the Christian religion from public forums. Those courts decreed that no establishment of religion meant neutrality toward all religions and irreligion. Prayer and bible reading were removed from government schools, and Christian symbols, such as crosses and placards of the Ten Commandments, were removed from government buildings, parks, even from "polite" discussion. 

Has this "neutrality" fared any better than did that of Elijah's day? Not by any definition. Rather, we have discovered the awful fact that neutrality toward God makes the state the new arbiter of all absolutes. As should have been anticipated. Where Jesus told us, "Your word, [Father], is truth" (John 17:17), now the state is the dispenser of truth. And where Jesus told us, "All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matthew 28:18), the state says that all authority now belongs to it. Thus, "neutrality" has become an opportunity for tyranny, and our health as a nation sinks further every day.

How Does the Bible Define Sexual Immorality?

"Let marriage be be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" -Hebrews 13:4. 

When warning the wicked of the consequences of sexual immorality, we often get a response of, "What's immoral about what I am doing? Everyone else is doing it! The Bible doesn't even define 'sexual immorality.'" Who are you, we are asked, to judge what I do? 

First, let us ask what consequences the Bible warns us will apply to sexual immorality. Is it important enough to worry about it? Here is the Bible's answer: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10). So, the Apostle tells us, the sexually immoral are precluded from the kingdom of God. That is, from eternal life with the godly. No more serious consequence can be imagined! 

So what, then, constitutes sexual immorality? We see it in Hebrews 13:4, quoted at the top. The author does not give us a list of forbidden acts (for such, refer to Leviticus 18). Rather, this is one of the few cases in which we are given one moral answer, leaving all others to be excluded. He explicitly tells us that sexual immorality is that which is outside of or besides the marital relationship. And who can be married? "[Jesus said], have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matthew 19:5-6). In these two sentences, Jesus tells us that marriage in God's plan consists of one man joined to one woman, precluding any other combinations, regardless of the tides of political or social opinion. 

It has become defined among the politically correct, whether they claim to be Christians or not, that speaking against any "alternative lifestyles" is judgmentalism, and to be excluded from social discourse or the teachings of church leaders. Yet, what can we say of people who refuse to warn people of the consequences of their choices, given what we know from I Corinthians 6? What could be more hateful than to allow the wicked to go in ignorance into an eternity in Hell?  

Is Pluralistic "Freedom of Religion" A Biblical Precept?

"These are the statutes and rules that you shall be careful to do in the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the high hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and burn their Asherim with fire. You shall chop down the carved images of their gods and destroy their name out of that place. You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way. But you shall seek the place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put His name and make His habitations there" (Deuteronomy 12:1-5). 

We in America brag of our freedom of religion. Not only are there Christian (real or not) denominations of every description, but we also boast of our Jewish synagogues, Islamic mosques, and Hindu and Buddhist temples. And that doesn't even include the various varieties of nonreligious or irreligious Americans, even including Satanists. 

I think the contrast between those two paragraphs should be clear to anyone. Yet the pietists and dispensationalists have eliminated any evidence or discussion of what God said in Deuteronomy, as if the pluralism of modern America were the case from the days of creation. 

The pietist claims that the Christian faith is a private affair, "a relationship, not a religion." So the less visible his religion is, outside of church and home prayer, the more spiritual he feels. 

On the other hand, the dispensationalist claims that God's commandment here was for Israel, and ended with the coming of Jesus. After all, does it not refer to their "land"? 

And it does. Do we have no references to the land given to Jesus, and His body, the Church? "Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession" (Psalm 2:8). That is the promise of the Father to the Son, in the intra-Trinitarian covenant, made before the world was created. And did Jesus ever claim that promise? "All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:18-19). The commandment was limited to the land, but the land was expanded to include the whole earth! 

As a Presbyterian, I am aware of the impact that this conflict has had on my own tradition. When the Westminster Standards were originally written, they included the presumption of establishmentarianism. However, after the US Constitution was adopted, American Presbyterians changed our standards to reflect the new political enthusiasm for religious freedom. I am disappointed that they chose a political justification over the requirements of Scripture. 

Neither political considerations nor pietistic latitudinarianism can override what God has commanded in His word. And that is that His truth is the only truth, and must displace all competing, but false, claims of truth. 

Weariness and the Call of the Gospel

One of the most comforting statements in the Bible comes from the mouth of Jesus Himself: "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). His reference to "rest for your souls" is an indication that He was not speaking of physical weariness, or, at least, not primarily. Rather, He was describing the burden of sin, of which He alone is the cure. 

Turning from the weight of sin to liberation in Jesus is something that only the elect person can do. The reprobate, in contrast, while they experience the futility of sin, will turn to any other source for relief, whether it is substance abuse, moral reform, or a false religion. But, by his very nature, the reprobate is unable to depend on the only solution that works, i. e., redemption and sanctification by Jesus, received by grace alone through faith alone. 

An error is often committed here, even among folks who profess the Reformed Faith. And that error is to teach that Jesus is appealing to the undistinguished mass of humanity, whether elect or reprobate, because, they suppose, God wants "all to be saved" (out of context from I Timothy 2:4). They believe that God has two wills at war with each other, the will to save some, elected from prehistory, but not others, and another will that wants all to be saved. This is called by the misleading phrase "the well-meant gospel offer." That is, offered by God. No one disagrees that we men cannot know who is or is not elect, so we sincerely desire everyone with whom we share the Gospel to respond in saving faith. 

God, however, certainly does know. Yet this doctrine, admittedly the majority doctrine, holds that He, nevertheless, desires everyone without exception to believe unto salvation. This is in spite of what Jesus also tells us in another place: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So we have this doctrine of the well-meant offer claiming that God works at cross purposes, both drawing and refraining to draw the same men. How can such a schizophrenic being be God? 

Rather, God gives a general outward announcement of the gospel, to which He has decreed that a portion, the elect, will respond in saving faith.  To the reprobate, the hearing of the Gospel is not an invitation to believe, but is, instead, a declaration of judgment, because God has decided to harden them against the word that they hear. That increases their judgment. It is not an effort at cross purposes to the secret will of God. 

The doctrine of the well-meant gospel offer seems to be an effort by Calvinists to take the edge off the doctrine of election, to make it more palatable to the Arminians around us. Yet, how can the insult to the omnipotence of God be worth any softening of our opponents toward us? Not that I believe that Arminians are made any more hospitable thereby. The doctrine puts God in violation of the logical principle of non-contradiction; it violates the Scriptures that tell us that God necessarily achieves His will (e. g., Daniel 4:35 and Psalm 135:6). In support of it is no Scripture or logically-consistent principle. 

Therefore, I am compelled to reject it. 

The Conversion of Israel As Proof of the Saint's Perseverance

"I will establish his [i. e., David's] offspring forever, and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake My law, and do not walk according to My rules, if they violate My statutes, and do not keep  My commandments, then I will punish their transgressions with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him My steadfast love or be false to My faithfulness. I will not violate My covenant or alter the word that went forth from My lips" (Psalm 89:29-34). 

These are the words of God in His covenantal promises to King David. Paul echoes them in II Timothy 2:13: "If we are faithless, He remains faithful - because He cannot deny Himself." In both passages, God's faithfulness to His people is never founded on our faithfulness to Him. Rather, even when we are unfaithful, He remains faithful, because to do otherwise would be to deny Himself. To violate His covenant promises would be a betrayal of His own nature, and is, therefore, unthinkable. 

We know the history of Israel, though it was still future to the time of the writing of the Psalm. She was, indeed, unfaithful, and God did, indeed, bring down on her fearsome judgments, especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians, and the carrying away by them of the bulk of the population into captivity. This was a judgment only succeeded by the later judgment under the Romans in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was again looted and the temple destroyed, and an estimated 1.1 million Jews were massacred. From that judgment, the Jews have not yet recovered. Rather, Israel lies under a judicial hardening for her rejection and murder of her Messiah. 

Yet even that judgment points to Psalm 89. 

"It is true [that] the body of that nation, for their unbelief, is now broken off; there is a suspension of the outward part of the covenant. Not that God intends an utter rejection of them. For such as have part in the special election are always saved, Romans 11:7, and the time will come when all Israel shall be saved. For, as touching the election, they are beloved still, though yet unborn. For their sakes it was that 'those days of tribulation were shortened,' Matthew 24:22, which answers to Isaiah 65:8, 'Destroy it not, there is a blessing in it.' The Lord will not so much regard what they have done or deserved as what His covenant is concerning Abraham's seed, which, minding of His covenant, is from the unchangeableness of His purpose. And, therefore, though broken off at present, 'they shall be grafted in again,' verse 24, though driven into all lands, scattered into corners, mingled with the heathen, and become so like them as not to be known asunder. Yet, being His chosen, and within His covenant, He will bring them out of their holes and gather them one by one, Isaiah 27:12. He will do it so accurately, exactly, punctually, that none shall be wanting, 'though sifted among all nations, not one grain shall fall to the earth,' Amos 9:9. The reservation mentioned in Romans 11 was God's omnipotent safeguarding of His elect, when the rest of the nation fell to idolatry. They had gone all, as well as some, had not election held them back. It is, therefore, said to be according to the election of grace. Election was the pattern, and reservation the copy of it" ( Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty"). 

Coles cites the faithfulness of God to His promises to Abraham as the grounds for the sustaining of a faithful remnant among the Jews, and for their eventual national repentance and salvation. And that same faithfulness is why the Christian can be assured that God will enable him to persevere in this life unto eternal life in the age to come. 

The Bible and The Watchtower Doctrine of "Soul Sleep"

According to the doctrine of the Watchtower, the human spirit disintegrates at death, and is then recreated at the final judgment. This doctrine is called informally "soul sleep," or more formally "conditional immortality."

In support of their doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses cite Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10: "The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten... for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." They claim that these verses describe the dead as unknowing and without memory. Is that what they say? Hardly. "Sheol" is the grave, something which Witnesses repeat tediously in other circumstances. What is in the grave? A corpse. Solomon here is dealing with the bodies of the dead, which, of course, have no activity, whether mental, physical, or spiritual. Then the Watchtower commits a logical fallacy called "false equivalency." Even though Solomon is dealing with dead bodies, the Watchtower claims that his statements apply to the spirits of the dead. They offer no exegesis for that transfer; rather, the Society merely expects its membership to swallow the assertion without thought. 

In contrast to the Watchtower's doctrine, we have the words of Jesus in response to the Sadducees, those we might call the Watchtower of His time. He said to them, "Have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32, quoting from Exodus 3:6). Did Jesus mean that the bodies of the patriarchs were walking around among His audience. Of course not! Their bodies lay mouldering in their graves. Yet He says that they are alive, present tense, and that God is the God of such. Jesus had no concept of soul sleep or disintegration. 

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). 

The Goodness of God, His Wrath Toward the Reprobate, and "Common Grace"

"Because of your hard and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's judgment will be revealed" (Romans 2:5) . 

The doctrine of common grace is the majority view in the Reformed camp. I admit that. However, as a member of the minority particular grace view, I have to say that I find the claims of biblical support for common grace to be particularly (yes, pun intended) unconvincing. 

According to the doctrine, God's goodness to all men (Matthew 5:45) is grace to them, every one of them, which enables them, in return, to do some good things, sometimes called "civic good." 

I see a lot of problems with that. 

First of all, yes, God is good to everyone. No Christian could say otherwise. That is because God is inherently good. However, notice that Matthew 5:45 never even mentions "grace." Furthermore, where else does Jesus, quoted in that verse, talk about the goodness of God, in terms of His gifts? In Mark 7:26, a Gentile woman comes to Jesus, and asks Him to deliver her daughter from a demon. He responds, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (verse 27). But she persists: "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs" (verse 28). To that, He replies: "For this statement, you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter" (verse 29). The parallel verse in Matthew 15:28 adds His words, "O woman, great is your faith!" It isn't her mere existence which brings His gracious act; it is her faith! However, notice her words by which he credits her faith, that even the dogs, i. e., the reprobate, feed on the crumbs that fall from the table of the children, i. e., the elect. The goodness of God to the reprobate is by overflow from His loving and gracious blessing of the elect. 

God's goodness is no common grace. Rather, it is particular grace which is so great that it overflows to those who hate Him! 

Someone may reply that even overflow grace is grace to the reprobate. Yet that, too, is denied by Scripture. It is those very gifts for which God judges the unbelief of the reprobate. Paul tells us, "Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him" (Romans 1:21). The more gifts received, and over a longer time, the greater their judgment. In Isaiah 48:9-11, God makes this statement to rebellious Israel: "For My name's sake, I defer My anger; for the sake of My praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For My own sake, for My own sake, I do it; for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another." It isn't grace that leads God to withhold His judgments; it is His concern for His own glory! Receiving God's benefits is not grace to the reprobate, but rather an increase in judgment! 

There Is No Grace for the Wicked in This Life: Contra "Common Grace"

"For My name's sake, I defer My anger; for the sake of My praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For My sake, for My own sake, I do it, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" -Isaiah 48:9-11

There is a common doctrine among Protestants, even among Reformed protestants, that I reject, that of "common grace." According to its supporters, God loves all and gives grace to all, both elect and reprobate, which enables both to do meritorious good. The primary biblical support for this doctrine is Matthew 5:45, even though that verse doesn't even mention "grace." It says that God is good to all. And of course He is good to all, because God cannot be but good. 

However, Isaiah, in the passage above, tells us that the reprobate continue to be under the judgment of God. The respite they experience now is not a grace to them, but is rather God's restraint of His judgment for the sake of His own glory. The prophet says nothing about God's enabling the wicked to stand off His judgment because of any supposed good in them or love toward them. 

God is no schizophrenic, both loving and hating (see Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 11:5) the reprobate simultaneously. He is not trying to save with one hand those whom He has reprobated with the other. That would be to deny both the rationality and simplicity of God. His mind is single, to set aside the reprobate for His hatred and judgment for eternity. At the same time, His true love and grace to the elect includes His restraint of the wickedness of the reprobate, not for the sake of the reprobate, but for the sake of their elect neighbors.

The Anti-Sabbatarian Use of Colossians 2

In almost every discussion of the abiding nature of the Christian Sabbath, my experience has been that the anti-Sabbatarian will refer to Colossians 2:16: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The argument is that Paul here is telling us that the Sabbath is adiaphora, a matter of preference only. 

What I have never had was an anti-Sabbatarian who mentioned the next verse, Colossians 2:17: "These are the shadow of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." 

This is one of those cases where the context is so obviously contrary to the argument being made that it is painful to hear yet again. In verse 16, the items mentioned are food rules, of which there are none ion Christianity, except to avoid meat sacrificed to idols, unlike the many rules in Judaism; to festivals, of which there are none prescribed in Christianity, but several in Judaism; new moons, which are celebrated in Judaism, but not in Christianity; and finally the Sabbath. According to the opponents, Paul rejected the Mosaic rules of Judaism for three things, but left the fourth to be taken generally. Context matters! 

This is confirmed in verse 17, where Paul refers to these ceremonies of Judaism as completed in Christ. As he said to the Galatians, why hold on to the shadows when we have now received the reality? And what is the reality of the Sabbath? 

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat. But, when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, 'Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.' He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how, on the Sabbath, the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath'" (Matthew 12:1-8). 

If the Sabbath, as such, had been abrogated, this was the opportunity for Jesus to say so. Yet, He didn't. Why? Because, He says, He is the Lord of the Sabbath. Not was. That is why the writer of Hebrews can tell us that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:9). It would have been silly for Jesus to claim to be the Lord of something which was passing away!

If a person were to argue that the code of Moses added ceremonial elements to the Sabbath, then he would be correct. However, if he were to assert that there is no Sabbath apart from those Mosaic elements, then he would be wrong. That is what Paul addresses in Colossians 2:16. If a Christian celebrates the Sabbath without the Jewish ceremonial elements, then he should be free from the judgment of others. Paul neither says nor implies that the person is thereby freed from the Fourth Commandment. That would be to be guilty exactly of that of which his critics accused him, of being an enemy of the Law (e. g., Acts 18:13). 

Jesus the I Am of Exodus

"The Lord said to Moses, 'Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever.' When Moses told the words of the people to the Lord, the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to the the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. And you shall set limits for the people all around, saying, Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death... When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain'" (Exodus 19:9-13). 

That is part of the account of the Lord's appearance to Moses on Mount Sinai, in part for the giving of the Ten Commandments. 

"Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matthew 24:30-31). 

"The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God" (I Thessalonians 4:16). 

These latter two passages describe the coming of the Lord Jesus in 70 AD in judgment on apostate Israel. Notice the parallels in the two sets of descriptions, one of Yahweh to Exodus-era Israel, and the other to First-Century reprobates among the descendants of that same Israel. The signs associated with the two events are identical! 

The significance of these parallels is that we must conclude that the Person described in each is the same in each: the preincarnate Yahweh and the same Yahweh incarnated in the Person of Jesus. 

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Archangel Michael

One of the doctrines that distinguishes Jehovah's Witnesses from Christians is the Witness claim that Jesus is not God, but is, rather, an incarnation of the Archangel Michael. They base their argument, in part, on Jude 1:9: "When the Archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses..." They claim that "archangel" means "chief angel," which is true, and that the use of the article means that he is the only one, which is not true. 

The funny thing about their use of that passage is what it goes on to say: "When the Archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said [instead], 'The Lord rebuke you'" (Jude 1:9, in full). Michael did not pronounce a judgment on Satan, but rather left it to the Lord to do so. 

Is this what we see from Jesus? 

At the end of His temptation, Jesus said, "Be gone, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10). And again in Matthew 16:23, he says, "Get away from Me, Satan!" So Jesus had no hesitation in rebuking Satan, and He did so by His own authority, not by referring the rebuke to another party. Jesus acted not at all like Jude's description of Michael. 

Look further at Daniel 10:13, which is also mentioned (but not quoted) by the Witnesses: "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me [i. e., the angel in Daniel's vision] twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia..." So this angel has come from a three-week conflict with a prince of Persia. Whether this is a term for a literal prince or for a demonic spirit behind the power of Persia, cannot be determined. Either way, the angel required assistance, which is given by Michael, who is called "one of the chief princes." "Chief" there is of the same significance as "arch-" in "archangel." But notice the article and the plural. We are here explicitly told that the office of Michael is not his alone, but one that he shares with unnamed others. The article does not imply singularity. Every claim made by the Witnesses regarding Michael is here overturned. 

The office of Jesus is, indeed, singular, because He alone is the only-begotten God, described explicitly so throughout the New Testament, not in one obscure verse that must be elided in order to make it appear what the Witnesses claim from it. 

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.

God's Rest and His Blessed Sabbath for His People

I want to relate two passages of Scripture here. 

The first is Genesis 2:1-3: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation." This passage is well-known and straightforward. After six days of creative work, God rested on the seventh day. Not literally, of course, since God cannot tire. However, using an anthropomorphism, Moses describes God in terms that his readers could understand. Notice that God is not described as resting from everything, but specifically from the work of creation. The physical universe and its denizens were complete, as He had designed them to complement one another. 

However, one phrase is consistently overlooked: "and made it holy." That phrase necessarily relates to men, since God need do nothing in relationship to Himself to be holy. We will come back to that. 

The second passage is Hebrews 4:1-13: "Therefore, while the promise of entering His rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as He has said, 'They shall not enter My rest,’ although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.' And again in this passage He said, 'They shall not enter My rest.' Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again He appoints a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, 'Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 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. And no creature is hidden from His sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." 

This passage is the theological explanation of what Jesus said during His earthly ministry: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). 

There is a claim often made by anti-Sabbatarians that the Sabbath was part of the law of Moses, and was, therefore, abrogated along with the other ceremonies, such as the sacrifices and the food laws. When in response I have pointed to the reference from Genesis 2, these people have claimed that, since the word "Sabbath" isn't used in it, this passage refers only to an act of God, not to the continuing Sabbath. However, look at what I have already mentioned from Genesis 2:3, that God made the day holy. That can only refer to men's use of it, since God cannot do anything unholy. Also, notice in Hebrews 4 that the author there relates the rest awaiting believers in Heaven to God's rest, which, in turn, is withheld from unbelievers. It is even explicitly called a Sabbath rest in verse 9! How, then, can anyone claim that the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment is different from God's rest in Genesis? 

To my mind, the logic of Hebrews 4 requires us to believe in the continuing validity of the Sabbath for Christians, not as a burden, but as a blessing intended for us by Jehovah, the Lord of the Sabbath, the preincarnate Jesus (Matthew 12:8).

Forgiving Sins and Priesthood Authority

I have been having discussions with Mormons recently on the place of "priests" in the Christian Church. They claim to have an exclusive "priesthood authority." According to the organization's website, that means "in mortality, priesthood is the authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God's children." What is that authority? From the organization's handbook: "The keys of the priesthood are the right to preside and direct the affairs of the Church within a jurisdiction. Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." 

When I talk to Mormons, they claim that Jesus Himself created this authority in the church, when Peter first professed His Messianic office in  Matthew 16. Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17-19). Mormons (and Catholics) claim that Peter and his successors received here from Jesus his imprimatur allowing them to forgive sins, and, thus, mediating salvation to everyone else. 

To my mind, that claim is blasphemous, a denial of the sufficiency of Christ for the salvation of His people. As the Scriptures say, "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (I Timothy 2:5-6). That is what is said about Him. 

But is there anything which Jesus Himself said that directly refutes this claim of priesthood? 

Yes, there is. In the story of the paralytic, Jesus says to the frowning scribes, "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins - (He then turned to the paralytic) - Rise, pick up your bed and go home" (Matthew 19:5-6). In the parallel passage in Mark, we get an additional piece of information. That is that the scribes accused Him of blasphemy, because, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7). And notice that Jesus does nothing to disabuse them of this opinion! They were correct that God alone can forgive sins. And in claiming that authority, Jesus blasphemed, in their view, because His claim was a claim to deity, equal to that of the Father! 

More to my point is that Jesus agreed that the authority belongs to God alone, and, therefore, cannot be held by any mere man, including Peter or anyone who claims to be his successor. Rather, as the representative of the only Head of the Church, Peter, the other apostles, and every true minister since their time has declared, not that they forgave sins, but rather that they brought the Gospel, the news that Jesus has purchased forgiveness of sins for everyone who believes (Acts 10:43). Jesus forgives, and the messenger announces. 

"With God are wisdom and might; He has counsel and understanding. If He tears down, none can rebuild; if He shuts a man in, none can open. If He withholds the waters, they dry up; if He sends them out, they overwhelm the land. With Him are strength and sound wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are His. He leads counselors away stripped and overthrows the mighty. He deprives of speech those who are trusted and takes away the discernment of the elders" (Job 12:13-20). 

The Parable of the Tenants and the Deity of Christ

"'Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, They will respect my son. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance. And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?' They said to Him, 'He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.' Jesus said to them, 'Have you never read in the Scriptures:  The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.'"

- Matthew 21:33-44

This is the Parable of the Tenants, which Jesus told to the Pharisees. He borrowed some of the imagery from Isaiah 5:1-7, which is why His audience immediately understood the significance of the parable, and realized that He was speaking of them (Matthew 21:45). In it, in addition to His commentary on the rebellion of the Pharisees, Jesus also made some significant claims about Himself. The master of the house represents God the Father, the vineyard is the land of Israel, and the tenants are the Jews. The servants were the Old Testament prophets, which would include finally John the Baptist. Israel killed the prophets (Matthew 23:37), whom God had sent to recall her to her duty to Him. By silencing the prophets, the renegades of Israel believed that they could be free to live their dream of autonomy (Genesis 3:5). Finally, God ceased to send prophets, and sent His final message in His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). There would be no further prophets. 

Israel would listen to Him (Matthew 17:5), or she would be judged. She chose to be judged (Matthew 27:25). But even as He warned His audience, Jesus was telling them who He was: the Son and Heir of the Father, offices which could be held by no one less than deity Himself. 

By What Standard? New Testament Love and the Law

"[L]ove is not a replacement of the Law of God but rather its highest manifestation or fulfillment (Romans 3:10). In addition..., there is no biblical distinction between Old Testament commandments and New Testament commandments, Old Testament law and New Testament law; these distinctions are traditions and doctrines of men."

- Roger Hadad, "Apologia for the Law and the Sabbath," p. 60 

Part of the decay of American Evangelicalism has been the rise of antinomianism, the claim that biblical law has no role in the life of the Christian. While it is orthodox protestantism to say that the Law has no role in our

Moses with the Commandments

justification, it has always been considered heretical to say that it also has no role in our sanctification. 

What, according to these evangelicals, has replaced the Law for the Christian? The law of Christ, they answer. What is that? The law of love. 

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us the two highest laws: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40). And, as the antinomians say, there is much of love stated there. But then the antinomians stop. 

I understand why they stop. Those verses are a problem for the view which I oppose here. How so, you may ask? 

"And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." Isn't that just quoting the verse again? No, it isn't. This verse is Deuteronomy 6:5. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And where is this found? Matthew 22:39, you answer, and correctly. However, before Matthew wrote, it was found in Leviticus 19:18.

Do you see the problem for the antinomian? He claims that love is the law of Christ, in opposition to the law of Moses. Yet, Jesus quoted the law of Moses in order to state His law of love! Unlike the American Evangelical, Jesus was no antinomian.