The Mission of the Church: Our Marching Orders

     In our original creation, God gave our first parents certain responsibilities in the new world. As the bearer of the imago dei, Adam was given the tasks of exercising dominion in the world, reproducing, and organizing the fruitfulness of the world (Genesis 1:26-30). In these ways, Adam was to be God’s viceroy, exercising a role analogous to that of God, but subordinate to Him. However, Adam rebelled against God, and marred the image, such that his descendants bore, not the image of God, but rather the image of Adam (5:3). As a result, Adam was cursed with death, and all his labors were cursed with futility, and His wife was cursed in all her familial relations (3:16-19). Yet, the viceroyal calling of Adam was not revoked, as we see in its renewal to Noah after the Flood: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Every beast of the earth and every bird of the sky and all that moves on the earth and all the fish of the sea will fear you and be terrified of you. Every moving thing that lives will be food for you. I give you everything, just as I gave you the green plant” (Genesis 9:1-3).

    We continue to see hints of this dominion covenant as the covenantal history continues. For example, we see God’s promise to Abraham that all the nations will be blessed through him (e. g., Gen. 12:2-3). Part of this plan is seen in the mediatorial role that God gives His people toward the rest of the world, such as Abraham’s intercession in 18:22-33, and Jacob’s altar work in 35:1-15. The godly seed are called to rulership, such as in 27:29, 41:38-49, and 49:10: “The scepter shall not depart from judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him will be the obedience of the people.”

    Under the Old Covenant, this calling reached its pinnacle in the royal priesthood: “You will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 16:6). Yet, this calling was not limited to israel or to the Mosaic economy, as the Apostle Peter made clear: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may declare the goodness of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9). Peter expands the calling explaining it as a responsibility to represent Him who bought us to the unbelieving rest of the world. He says that, as priests, we are to offer up spiritual sacrifices (verse 5). What are those sacrifices? Our bodies (Romans 12:1), our material possessions (Philippians 4:18), our praises (Hebrews 13:15), and our prayers (James 5:16). Thus, everything in our day to day lives is subservient to our calling as priests. Our bodies are to be given for the work of God. Our possessions are to be given for the work of God. Our praises are to be given in our work (as Piper says, “Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever,” p. 35). And our prayers are to be offered for each other and for the recipients of our message.

    As God’s nation of priests, Israel was explicitly instructed to portray Him to the nations. There was both a passive sense of this mission, such as in Deuteronomy 4:6: “Therefore, keep and do them [i. e., the Law], for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations which shall hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’” Among other things, the Law was intended by God (preceptually speaking, not in the sense of a failed decree) to make His people a shining example to the pagan nations around them. This theme, too, was repeated in the New Testament: “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a basket, but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).

    It is this shining example that leads to the fulfillment of the promises of the Father to the Son: “All the ends of the world will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the nations will worship before You” (PSalm 22:27). Notice especially here the fulfillment of Piper’s thesis of missions leading to worship. Also, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, in those days ten men from every language of the nations will take hold of the garment of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’” (Zechariah 8:23). Thus, we see that a missionary concern didn’t start with the New Testament.

    The missionary calling of Israel was not merely passive, however. God’s calling to them was a call to action: “Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled… [For] you are My witnesses, says the LORD, and my servant whom i have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, that I am He… I, even I, am the LORD, and besides Me there is no Savior… therefore, you are My witnesses, that I am God” (Isaiah 43:9-12). God reveals Himself to israel, with the explicit intent that that nation would then be His witnesses, His missionaries, to the rest of the world. While Israel fell far short of her calling, her failure wasn’t absolute. We have the story of Ruth, in which a Moabitess comes to believe in the true God (1:!6), in spite of the restriction in Deuteronomy 23:3, and becomes an ancestress both of King David and of Jesus Christ.

    Another principle in the Old Testament is the creation of the new heavens and new earth: “I create a new new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create, for I create Jerusalem for rejoicing and her people for joy. I will rejoice in jerusalem and be glad in my people; and the voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying” (Isaiah 6517-19). In this new heavens and new earth, “All flesh shall come to worship before Me, says the LORD” (66:23). Peter adds that, “according to his promise, we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (II Peter 3:13). Contrary to the claims of the premillennialists, this cannot be a reference to the eternal state, because there will still be death and a need to eat (Is. 65:20). Rather, this is a description of the New Jerusalem, the church in its prosperity (ibid., verses 18-19, Heb. 12:220, where righteousness shall dominate (II Peter 3:13), though some sinners remain (Is. 65:20). This is a description of the result of the mission of God, a prosperous church in a world, not where the curse has been completely eliminated, but in which the Gospel has created a world in which the nations are largely converted and living lives commensurate to their spiritual state: “There shall no longer be an infant who lives only a few days, nor an old man who has not filled out his days. For the child shall die a hundred years old, but the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed” (ibid.).

    It is against this Old Testament background that we see the significance of the missionary heart of Jesus: “Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom… But when he saw the crowds, he was moved with compassion for them, because they fainted and were scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, ‘the harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore, pray to the Lord of the harvest, that He will send out laborers into His harvest” (Matthew 9:35-38). This reveals three things about the divine mission: first, it is based on the compassion of Jesus; second, it is the responsibility that he gives to His disciples; and third,  a missionary goes out only by the calling and sending of God (compare Isaiah 6:9). This is an astonishing passage, because we know that the purpose of Christ was to redeem the elect (john 3:16, Ephesians 5:25, etc.). However, this passage shows us that, separate from the issue of election, He was not blind to the rest of humanity, but was, rather, filled with sorrow by their sin, spiritual blindness, disease, futility, and even their stubbornness. Consider His statement in Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you, how often I would have gathered your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not!” These same people that he condemned to judgment for the murder of the prophets (see the previous verse and the Parable of the tenants, Matthew 21:33-44), brought Him to tears of sorrow over their hardheartedness.

    Out of this compassion, Jesus passed His missionary heart on to His disciples in the Great Commission. So important is this to God that the Holy Spirit inspired it over and over, as the Apostles wrote the New Testament. Of course, the best-known version is that of Matthew 28:18-20: “Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” These three sentences teach us two main things about the call of Jesus to evangelize. First, our mission is not a power in ourselves, but is, rather, dependent on His mediatorial kingship. The mission of the Christian is to serve as the frontline combatant in Christ’s conquest of the nations (Revelation 11:15). He has already gained all of the authority necessary to apply His claims to the nations: “I have installed My king on Zion, My holy hill. Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession” (Psalm 2:6, 8). The Father promised Him the nations, and the Great Commission is His claim to that which was promised. So important is this authority to our mission that He mentions it twice, as the basis of our mission, and as the unfailing encouragement to continue the battle, even in the face of apparent failures. Second, the Great Commission indicates what a mission is, the things that our divine and royal general has given us to do. Not just to proclaim the Gospel, and not just to win a convert here and another there, but, through His effectual authority, to disciple the nations, which means to convert them, to baptize them, and to train them in obedience to God’s word. This is not evangelism as extraction from the world, but as overcoming the world!

    In Mark 16:15, we have the words of Jesus explicitly to the Eleven: “Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned.” This version of the Great Commission appears to be aimed specifically at the Apostles, not disciples in general, both because of the introduction to it (verse 14), and also because of the miraculous consequences. The extraordinary signs were for the verification of the ministry of the Apostles ( Mark 16:20, Acts 14:3, II Corinthians 12:12, Hebrews 2:3-4). However, it does indicate to all Christians the importance of profligate proclamation of the Gospel.

    Finally, in His last earthly sermon, Jesus announced to the gathered, but frightened, Church, “You
shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). We see some of the same themes from Matthew, but made more explicit. There, the Lord had promised the power of His authority in the mission of the Church. Here He tells them that that authority would work by the presence of the Holy Spirit. There, He had sent them to all nations. Here He assigns them a concentric geographical series to achieve that assignment: Start in jerusalem, your current environs, then expand to the immediate surrounding area of Judea and Samaria, and then on to the rest of the nations of the world. We quickly see the fulfillment of this battle plan, as the persecution that broke out after the stoning of Stephen first drove disciples into Samaria (Acts 8:5), then to Gentiles in general (ibid., 10:45), and then to more-distant regions (ibid., 11:19). Paul took it to the final stage in deliberately seeking out unreached regions for his mission: “I have strived to preach the Gospel, [but] not where Christ was named, so that I should not build on another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:20).

Abandoning the Law is Abandoning Righteousness

I admit that it is chic to speak against biblical Law. Even among non-dispensationalists, the idea has become accepted that the Law was a standard of righteousness under the Old Testament, but not under the New. It is usually expressed by a perversion of Romans 6:14: "You are not under law but under grace." That it is a perversion, not a legitimate use of Paul, is evident if the reader continues to the next verse: "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" And, of course, none of these people ever quotes Romans 3:31: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Paul is addressing the question of the origin of righteousness. Can any man be made righteous by the Law? No! Righteousness comes only by grace through faith: "Not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Philippians 3:9, see also Romans 9:31-32).

This error among Christians has had a devastating effect on American society. By presupposing a false view of the Law, Christians have had no platform for addressing public wickedness. And Scripture warns of this consequence: "Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them" (Proverbs 28:4). The great catastrophes of today's society, such as abortion, are not the result of abandonment of biblical morality by the wicked, but by its abandonment by Christians! 

Christians hold protests, rallies, prayer meetings, in fact every variety of spiritual activity, hoping to change society. Why has our effort been such a dismal failure? Scripture answers that question, too: "If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination" (Proverbs 28:9). While God's professing people are refusing to hear His word, He is refusing to hear our prayers. Immoral people are not the cause of that; the self-righteous supposed people of God are!

Jesus's words to the Pharisees apply equally to modern America's evangelicals: "You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8). What tradition? The tradition of despising God's Law.

The Will of Men Versus the Glory of God

"In Him [Christ] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him [the Father] who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we

The Library of Celsus in Ephesus

who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His [i. e., Christ's] glory."
- Ephesians 1:11-12

I'll be the first to admit that I am completely mystified by the Arminian use of Scripture. In the case of an unbeliever, I can understand that he simply rejects the authority of Scripture. The Arminian, on the other hand, professes to believe in the Bible as God's revelation. Yet, he ignores the plain statements of the Bible that go against his theology. These verses are one example.

Arminians and Catholics claim a form of predestination. They say that God looks ahead in the future, sees who will believe, and then predestines those individuals. That is, predestination is a reaction to, not the cause of, a person's faith.

That claim is simply not allowed by this sentence. How are we predestined? Is it according to our faith? No, it is according to His purpose. Is it a preview of something that would occur in the future? No, it was according to His will. Unless, of course, it was a response to what His will would be in the future, which is silly. Yet, that is the same logic that the Arminian uses.

And what is God's goal in our predestination? Is it a reward for our wisdom in believing in Him? No, the purpose was His own glory. That is the key: predestination is not for our sakes, but for Christ's, that He would be glorified in our salvation.

I understand why Arminians want this passage to read differently. Just as with their Pelagian predecessors, the Arminians want to maintain the sovereignty of man. They talk about "free will," but their definition of it is the right of men to choose their destinies, not the right of a sovereign God, just as Satan offered to Adam in Genesis 3:5. Yet, God does not concede His sovereignty (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11).

Not only do these verses assign priority to God's will, but the same writer, the Apostle Paul, elsewhere explicitly denies it to men: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16, see also John 1:13). So, even in the face of all the calls of "free will," the Bible says that it is not by the will of men, but of God.

The Eternity of God's Judgment: Contra Annihilationism

I have directed my attention before to the Millerite doctrine of annihilationism, the belief that the wicked will not suffer for eternity, but rather be eternally destroyed. This view is found most-publicly among Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses (the details vary, but my comments will cover both). Both

William Miller

groups devote a lot of attention to the Revelation, yet they have completely missed what it says on the subject.

In Revelation 14:9-11, John reports the announcement of an angel: "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of His anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

The angel describes several elements of this judgment which are relevant to this issue. First, the punishment will be in the presence of the faithful angels and Jesus Christ. That is, there are witnesses to the continuing punishment. If the wicked are merely annihilated, then what is there for Jesus and the angels to witness? Second, the smoke of their torment rises forever. In other words, the punishment does not have an end. Also, since it is torment, the wicked are conscious. They are not unconscious, as some liberals claim. What kind of demented Judge would Jesus be, if He remained to witness the punishment of an anesthetized prisoner? And third, and most importantly, the wicked have no rest. There is no relief, no cessation of their punishment. That one phrase itself is the opposite of what is asserted by the Millerites.

There is a question that isn't really related to this matter, but is, no doubt, coming to the mind of some who read this. How can it be just for there to be eternal punishment for the sins of a life of limited duration? While that is a common question, it is really asked without much consideration. First, the punishment of a crime is proportional, not only to the action, but also to the victim. For example, a man who kills his neighbor is not punished as severely as a man who kills the president. And, since all sin is an assault on the eternal, holy God, how can the punishment be limited to the nature of a mere man? Furthermore, the question is actually based on a circular presupposition, i. e., that the wicked in Hell ceases to be active, is asleep, or in some other way disconnected from what is happening. On the contrary, all social restrictions are removed, so all the wicked in Hell are free to proclaim their hatred of God without ceasing, and in the vilest language known to created beings. Therefore, the wicked continue to sin, and, thus, to earn judgment.

Science Without God Results in an Irrational Universe

Science assumes that things can be understood because they operate according to rules, resulting in predictable and testable outcomes. However, a philosophy of science that excludes God introduces an assumption that some things, at least, and fundamental things, in particular, happen by chance, and are, therefore, neither predictable nor testable.

This results in an atheism (or a theism which assumes that God is not relevant, i. e., deism) that depends for its rational basis on holding two mutually-exclusive presuppositions simultaneously. That is, to use the terminology of logic, it holds "A" and "not-A" together, in violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. This basic law of logic says simply that a premise and its contrary cannot both be true at the same time.

In contrast, positing God as the origin, not chance, provides the basis of rationality on which science depends. It is the biblical God who testifies that it is "in Him [that] we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). It is His a priori rationality that gives order and comprehensibility to all other things: "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

In other words, the logic of science requires, not the exclusion of the concept of God, but rather the assumption of the biblical God. When scientists perform their research or their experiments, they are assuming the very rationality of God, while repudiating it in their conscious statements. In fact, that is the only way that science can function, by acting on principles that it denies, while advocating principles which undermine its very existence.

Astrology: Is Our Destiny in the Stars?

There's a big word that I want to talk about: syncretism. Have you ever heard it? Syncretism is the combination, usually unconscious, of contrasting worldviews. An example is the word that is being bandied about in some quarters, "Chrislam," to refer to a combination of Christianity and Islam. Paul describes syncretism in Colossians 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." The particular form that I want to address is the use of astrology by professing Christians, such as this woman who describes herself as "a Christian astrologer."

Her justification is from Genesis 1:14: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.'" She says, "I feel that astrology was a tool created by God for us to understand ourselves better and to use as a spiritual tool. I feel that there are many biblical verses that support astrology." Notice her words, "I feel," not once, but twice. That is, her use of this verse (she also mentions Luke 21:25) isn't based on exegesis, an interpretation of the verse using grammar and its historical and biblical context, but rather on her feelings. That is always the start of syncretism, because "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9).

What does exegesis teach us about the role of the stars? Consider the case of Esau and Jacob, the twin sons of Isaac (Genesis 25:19-28). As twins, the two were born under the same planetary and stellar positions, the very things that are supposed to be determinative, according to astrologers. Yet, what do we know about their futures? "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:13), polar opposites. Paul uses these twins, born under the same astronomical circumstances, as a case study (Romans 9:16): "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." That is, Esau and Jacob don't tell us anything about the planets and stars, but rather about the sovereign grace of God.

And that's the problem with astrology. It posits ultimate sovereignty, not in the hands of a living, just, and loving God, but rather in the paths of stellar objects, though they, too, owe their existence and positions to that God (Genesis 1:14, Job 9:8, Zechariah 12:1). And God has no tolerance for giving His glory to anything or anyone else (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11). In fact, He rejects anyone who tries to do so (Deuteronomy 29:18-20): "Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven."

Christ, Our Conquering King!

Question 45 of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, How does Christ execute the office of a king? And answers it this way: "Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

There's a lot there, and I won't even try to address it all.

In Psalm 110:1, the Father gave a promise to the Son as part of the intra-Trinitarian covenant in prehistory: "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool" (applied to the Son in Hebrews 1:13). The Father had determined to glorify the Son by giving Him visible rule over the creation. History has been the record of the fulfillment of that promise, as the rule of Christ is established over the kingdoms of the world (compare Daniel 2:44-45, Revelation 11:15).

The theme of the royal destiny of the Son is especially described in the second Psalm:

"'As for Me, I have set my King
     on Zion, My holy hill.' 
I will tell of the decree:
     The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son;
today I have begotten You.       

     Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage,
and the ends of the earth Your possession.
     You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.' 
     Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
     Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
     Kiss the Son,
lest He be angry, and you perish in the way,
     for His wrath is quickly kindled. 

Blessed are all who take refuge in Him."

- Psalm 2:6-12 

What we don't see here is a description of the means of that conquest. There are militaristic expressions, but no mention of armies or weapons. In fact, Scripture denies a spiritual role for weapons of war: "The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (II Corinthians 10:4). So, no tanks or nuclear bombs, or even swords or arrows. What then?

Some of Jesus's last words during His earthly ministry are found in the Great Commission: "Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age'" (Matthew 28:18-20). Here, Jesus claims "all authority," that is, the very delegation of royal prerogative we find in Psalm 2. As King, what assignment does He then give His captains, the Apostles (and we after them)? To disciple the nations, part of which is to teach them to obey His Law.

Therefore, the answer to the assignment in Psalm 2 is no military conquest. Nor is it some waving of a divine hand from heaven. This is in spite of the obvious fact that either one would be within the power on omnipotent deity. Rather, the submission of all things to the crown rights of Jesus is through His people, as we proclaim the Gospel and train the nations to live as Christians. Evangelism and missions will conquer the world, because our Savior is already king!

Can There Be a Doctrine of "Evangelical Universalism"?

Paul, Preaching the Gospel on Mars Hill

This is something that I have been running into over the last two years or so. "Evangelical Universalism" is a doctrine held by people who claim to honor Scripture, but believe that all humans, without exception, will eventually be saved.

I admit that I am mystified by any such assertion. More particularly, I see explicit statements in Scripture that preclude such a possibility. I am including statements of judgment against unbelievers. However, the Evangelical Universalists (hereafter, EU's) aren't moved by those statements. Therefore, I am going to take a different tack.

To my mind, the bluntest statement precluding any form of universalism, evangelical or otherwise, is one sentence from Paul (Romans 14:23): "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." That one sentence leaves no room to suppose that there can be an unconscious means to eternal life. Rather, all such unconscious motivation is itself sin. Rather, what pleases God is only that which arises from faith, which must mean a knowledge and acceptance of His nature, His word, and the rule of life that He has given us in the Bible.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (either Paul or a close associate of his) stated it even more forcefully: "Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." He repeats the requirement of faith, but then adds content to that faith. That is, faith, per se, faith in faith, is not meritorious, but rather faith in the proper object!

The EU movement claims a scriptural basis, in their effort to retain their "evangelical" bonafides. Yet, just by these two verses, I think they are completely excluded from making any such claim legitimately.

"Soul Sleep": Biblical History Says Otherwise

The Seventh-Day Adventists (and some other smaller groups) teach a doctrine of "soul sleep," i. e., the believe that the spirits of the dead are unconscious until the resurrection. The Jehovah's Witnesses - who come from the same Millerite roots - have a similar doctrine, holding that the spirits of the dead are actually annihilated, to be re-created at the resurrection.

Both doctrines are contrary to the orthodox, biblical view that the spirits of the dead are either in heaven (II Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:23) or in hell (II Peter 2:9), waiting to be rejoined to their bodies at the resurrection, to face the great judgment.

In addition to those verses, the concept of "soul sleep" runs contrary to the historical events described in Scripture.

In the Old Testament, we have accounts of two men who were whisked away to heaven, without first undergoing physical death. The first was Enoch, of whom we read (Genesis 5:24), "Enoch walked with God, and [then] he was not, for God took him." The other was the Prophet Elijah, of whom we read (II Kings 2:11), "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." Since neither man died, it cannot be asserted that his spirit went to sleep or was annihilated, can it?

In the New Testament, the Gospel writers (Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-36, see also II Peter 1:16-18) tell us of the Transfiguration of Jesus, at which His disciples saw Him with Elijah and Moses. If Elijah and Moses are unconscious, or more so if they are annihilated, how could they appear with Jesus?

Moreover, we have the testimony of Jesus to the Sadducees: "As for the resurrection of the dead, 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 God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:31-32). The Sadducees had attempted deceptively to talk about life in the resurrection - deceptive because they didn't believe in the resurrection. In response, the Lord rebukes them, because God isn't God in some hypothetical future, but now, to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had been long dead. They are alive now, He tells the Sadducees, and God is their God now! 

Soul sleep (or annihilation) is a false doctrine, contrary, not just to the doctrinal assertions of Scripture, but also to the experiences of the saints in Scripture.

How Many Ways of Salvation Are There?

One of the most distinctive teachings of classical dispensationalism is that there have been different means of salvation down through history. Especially my point here is the teaching that Jews were and are saved by obeying the Mosaic law. Most modern dispensationalists have repudiated that teaching, but it is still taught by heretics like John Hagee. In a newspaper interview, Hagee said, "I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption," and "I'm not trying to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith."

That is heresy. It is also wicked, because Hagee avoids explaining the Gospel to people who do not know Jesus. Scripture includes strong warnings against that neglect: "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). God considers Hagee to be a murderer of eternal souls!

One might ask, and rightly so, where Scripture indicates that Hagee's teaching is heretical. I would refer him to the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul deals at length with the issue of salvation under the Old Testament. However, I will cite just one verse from Acts: "We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (Acts 15:11). The context is the Council of Jerusalem, at which the surviving Apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem-area presbytery met to hear the report of Paul and Barnabas regarding their evangelistic work among the Gentiles. It is Peter's response that we read in verse 11, proclaiming to the council that he expected for himself and his fellow Jews to be saved by the same grace through faith by which the Gentiles were finding salvation.

Scripture does not allow the belief that there is any way of salvation apart from that of Ephesians 2:8-9: "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." This is the only Gospel message that a biblical Christian can declare, whether to Jews or to Gentiles.

Circularity and Presuppositional Apologetcs

As a Christian, my standard of truth can only be the Bible. That is not a rejection of logic. Rather, logic provides rules for combining information to produce valid results. The Bible provides the infallible truth from which I can then derive logical arguments.

In contrast, most atheists claim logic as their standard of truth (I say most, because there are some atheists who are explicit irrationalists).

The latter accuse me of circular reasoning, in that I start with the Bible as true, and from it develop my belief

in the necessary truth of the triune God, the sinfulness of men, young-earth creation, etc.

However, that accusation is full of unstated premises. First, it fails to consider the circularity of the rationalist's own worldview. Justify the use of logic without using logic in your justification. It's impossible! Second, it ignores the nature of logic, which requires external truths, but then provides rules for putting those truths into valid arguments. What is the source of the atheists external truths? No one says. And the third, the biggest one, is the assumption of autonomy, as I describe next.

The actual difference between the Christian use of logic and that of the atheist is not, therefore, that one is circular while the other is not. That is, in fact, not the case. Rather, the difference is an a priori judgment of authority. The atheist makes himself the authority in the judgment of truth. That is, he assumes the very conclusion that his logic is meant to demonstrate, that he is an autonomous master of fate. That is the destructive, even if unstated, circularity in the argument of the atheist. On that basis, the atheist excludes any evidence that requires his dependence, rather than his independence. Why must we conclude that the world as it is results from chance? Because we start with the exclusion of the possibility that it has a personal plan in its creation and organization.

The believer, however, makes no such a priori exclusion. In not assuming his autonomy, and thus excluding any evidence against it, the Christian can acknowledge the self-revelation of God in the Bible, and see everything as a demonstration of God's existence and providence. He sees that facts do not pop into existence to serve us, but fall into a necessary and good order according to their determination by the triune God, the only rational basis for the relationship between the one and the many.

Thus, the circularity of which the atheist accuses the Christian actually cuts both ways, but the atheist has the additional circularity of defining the evidence to fit his a priori assumption of autonomy.

Assurance Requires a Sound Foundation on God's Sovereignty

Building on a foundation of sand

My greatest objection to Arminianism is not that it is contrary to Scripture. It is, but so are a lot of things. Rather, my foremost objection is to the kind of God that Arminianism presents. The Arminian makes every man, every act of nature, even every animal, to be sovereign. That is, the Arminian believes that things can and do act apart from, or even contrary to, the will of God. Therefore, in the Arminian universe, God is the only entity is who is not sovereign. He is the doddering grandfather of Deism who created the world, set it in motion, and just wrings His hands, hoping that everything works out OK. Such a concept should make the Christian wretch in disgust!

In contrast, the biblical God, the God described by the Calvinist, is a God in charge, on the basis of whom the Christian has a rational hope and assurance, not only in this world, but in eternity, because he knows that they are under the intimate control of God on His throne.

Consider, for example, Jeremiah 23:4: "I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the Lord." This is an unequivocal declaration by God of His intent to protect and prosper His people. There is no hemming and hawing, no hoping, no wishing. Rather, it is a straightforward statement of intent, and the expectation that His intent will succeed.

We see the same sentiment in the New Testament, in the words of Jesus Himself (John 6:39): "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day." Again, take note of the divine certitude. This will happen! Not might, should, would, or could. Jesus is confident, not in men or fate, but rather in His own sovereign decree, to achieve His purpose.

Even apart from the simple truth issue, why would anyone want a God like the God of Arminianism? I don't think I could survive the day with the assurance that I could have on that foundation of sand. I thank God that He is sovereign, and I am not!

The Baptism of Households as God's Plan to Build His Church

One conclusion that I have had from the debate over believers' baptism versus infant baptism is that it is not a matter of the scriptural evidence about baptism. Rather, it is a disagreement over God's aim in salvation. Is it the individual? I think the credobaptist would say yes. However, the paedobaptist would say no.

In the account of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:16-40), we see this question addressed. When the doors of his jail are thrown open, the jailer, thinking that he would be executed for negligence, asks Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (verse 30). His concern is about his own eternal welfare. But the answer of Paul and Silas is a little different: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (verse 31). They address his question, "You will be saved," but go further, "and your household."

We also see this in the conversion of Lydia, in the same chapter, verses11-15. When she is converted, who gets baptized? "She was baptized, and her household as well" (verse 15). We see again the inclusion, not just of the one professing faith, but of his or her entire family! My pastor calls this "oikobaptism," from the Greek word for house or household.

These accounts show us that God's target for faith isn't just the individual, but families. And that is the dividing line between credobaptists, who tend to have an atomistic view of conversion, that the individual is all that matters, and the paedobaptist, or oikobaptist, who attends to the family.

Baptists will often refer to themselves as "New Testament Christians." And it is that semi-blindness that produces their error. While I have shown above that the atomisitic view is contrary to New Testament teaching, it is essential to note that the New Testament teaching is merely a carry-over from the Old Testament: "The LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6). God has never had an atomistic view of His plans for the regeneration of the world. And it is the failure to recognize that that leads to the Baptist error of rejecting the continuity between circumcision and baptism, including its application to the children of believers.

When God converts a man or woman, He gives promises that go beyond that individual: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 53:13). The conversion of the individual is God's plan for then growing His church, because His plan doesn't stop even with the conversion of the family: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20, compare Genesis 1:28). God's missionary plan is to convert individuals first, then our families, and then our nations, and that terraced system is connected by baptism. Therefore, when Baptists deny baptism to the children of believers, they are inserting their manmade doctrine into the longterm strategy of God!

God's Plan, One Step Leads to the Next