Jesus, The Prince of Peace Bears a Bloody Sword

There are some traditional biblical texts that are used whenever the Christmas story is retold (I am writing this the day after Christmas). One of those is Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That is the King James Version of the verse, which is what is usually used. Why? Look at it in the ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" The second phrase of the two is strikingly different! And other modern translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and CSB, are the same as the ESV here. That second phrase is necessary to a correct understanding of the coming of Jesus. 

In the same book, the writer quotes this comment from Jesus: "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" (Luke 12:51; "sword" in Matthew 10:34). If you compared those words to the KJV version of the verse above, you would have a conflict. Did He come to bring peace to the world or not? The KJV of this second verse is the same as the ESV. In either case, we see that it is to one class of men that Jesus brought peace, but to another He brought conflict. 

Look at these words from the Apostle Paul: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). Ah, here was have the distinction explained. Where the unbeliever is in conflict with God (Ephesians 2:3), the believer has been brought into a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:10). Jesus becomes his Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) by grace alone through faith alone.

In apocalyptic language, the Apostle John also tells us about this conflict: "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations" (Revelation 19:15; cp. Isaiah 49:2 and Hebrews 4:12). This is the distinguishing between the sheep and goats, of which Jesus tells us (Matthew 25:32ff), achieved by the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:8-15), which further distinguishes between men who will believe and men who will not (II Corinthians 2:16). With the former, it is a message of peace; but to the latter it is a message of war.

"The kingdom which He came to establish consists in joy and peace, and the great blessing which He communicates to all who are sprinkled with His blood is that peace which passeth all understanding, and which abides unshaken amid the agitations and tumults, the glooms and convulsions of the world. ThroughHim, God becomes the God of peace, the Gospel the message of peace, preachers of righteousness the heralds of peace, and the two great results of His work, according to the rapturous song of the angels, are glory to God in the highest and peace on earth" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity).

A Washed Conscience from a Baby in a Manger

This is being posted for Christmas, 2019. We will talk a lot about the birth of Christ today. But I want to talk about why it matters that Jesus was born. Why did God the Son come into this world to live among us?

"Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and the Flood, verse 20], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). If you saw that verse and assumed that I would be talking about baptism, then you experienced what I am about the describe, the frequent failure to read the rest of the verse. Notice that Peter mentions baptism, but then adds " not the removal of dirt from the body." Note that he compares it to Noah, who avoided being in the water. So, his point is not about baptism, but about what baptism represents, "a good conscience." How does the sinner achieve a good conscience, as represented by the water applied to his body?

Why?

The writer of Hebrews makes a similar point: "Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:1-4). The Old Testament sacrifices were insufficient because they had to be repeated. The blood of the sacrifices never removed sin or changed the nature of those who performed them. Instead, "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (verse 10). And "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (verse 14). 

That is why Christianity, though built on the foundation of the Old Testament religion of Moses, is far superior. The types and shadows have been removed, so that we can have a direct view of the one-time sacrifice of Jesus: "So let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (verse 22; see also Hebrews 9:14). Notice that the writer of this epistle uses the same baptismal imagery to describe the application of the blood of Christ to the believer by faith.

"When God can be just and faithful in blotting out his transgressions, then, and not until then, is his conscience sprinkled with clean water and purged from dead works. Christianity must take away our guilt, or it leaves us under the curse of nature" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The Substitutionary Atonement by Jesus Our Surety

One of the things that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement. This is the doctrine that says that the elect sinner, through faith alone, is justified in the eyes of God, not because of anything he has done, but because the justice due to his sins has been applied instead to his surety, Jesus Christ. A surety is like the co-signer on a loan. When the insured person fails in his responsibilities, then the surety steps in and settles the debt on his behalf. The elect sinner is the failed borrower, and Jesus is his surety. No other religion has such a concept of salvation. Every non-Biblical religion contains some system of actions or rituals for the believer to do, to make himself worthy of forgiveness of his sins. Therefore, Christianity is not merely a separate religion, but is, instead, a different kind of religion.

I am not going to discuss here the judgment due to our sins. I have dealt with that elsewhere, such as here.

Rather, I want to deal with some Scriptures that address the substitution of Jesus for the elect sinner.

The best passage, in my opinion, is that of the Suffering Servant: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:4-6). These verses have been turned into a beautiful hymn.

"Jesus, in the name of His people, and as their federal head and representative, has endured the curse, and the justice of God is now solemnly pledged to Him to exempt them from personal subjection to its woes. He has died the death of the law, and, upon an obvious principle of justice from the relations in which they stand to him, His death is their death. If one died for all, then all died" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

The Affliction of Conscience in the Unbeliever

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:15, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them." He is talking about Gentiles (verse 14), who have not had the advantage that Jews had in having a written copy of the Law. The Gentiles were not then freed to live as they wished, as if they were autonomous while Israel was subject to the rule of God. The Gentile, or the unbeliever today, has the moral law recorded in his heart, which is the basis for conscience. This is an aspect of what Paul had told us in the previous chapter that all men have a knowledge of God and our accountability to Him. That awareness in the unbeliever afflicts his conscience with guilt and the knowledge that he deserves judgment. 

Then one of two reactions occurs. 

In Romans 1, Paul tells us of the first, the hardened unbeliever, who finds some means to suppress his conscience, so that he can continue in his sin. The other is the person who is driven by his conscience to find absolution in the only place that it can be found, by grace alone through faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus alone. "Thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life" (II Corinthians 2:14-16).

"This obligation to punishment, this righteousness of condemnation, must cease to press, or the need which guilt creates cannot be relieved. The sinner feels, in other words, that the justice which calls for his blood must be satisfied, or that blood be yielded to its demand. It is, accordingly, the glory of the Gospel that the blood of Christ who, through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God, purges the conscience, dispels all its distracting fears, and imparts peace and serenity where despair and guilt had held their troubled reign" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity," emphasis in the original).

Unbelief Is Ingratitude

In Romans 1:18-25, the Apostle Paul gave this description of the unbeliever: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they 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. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." 

He tells us several surprising things. First of all, unbelief is not ignorance. God has so revealed Himself that no man can claim that he does not know about God (see, for example, Psalm 19:1-4). There is no such thing as an atheist. Every single human being who lives now, has ever lived, or will ever live, knows that God exists and that he is accountable to Him. 

Which leads us to the second surprise, that men hate that knowledge, and try to suppress it. That is the origin of both pagan religions and atheism, the heart of the unbeliever's effort to bury the knowledge of God, in order to remain free to imagine that he is sovereign over his life and can decide right and wrong for himself. 

This hatred of God, commonly called unbelief, expresses itself in the use of God's gifts, such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink, while crediting it to ourselves or to some other source apart from God. Unbelief is founded on ingratitude! 

"Such a conduct as the generality of men are guilty of towards God, continually and through all ages, in innumerable respects, would be accounted the most vile contemptuous treatment of a fellow creature, of distinguished dignity. Particularly men's treatment of the offers God makes of Himself to them as their friend, their Father, their God, and everlasting portion; their treatment of the exhibitions He has made of His immeasurable love, and the boundless riches of His grace in Christ, attended with earnest repeated calls, counsels, expostulations, and entreaties; as also of the most dreadful threatenings of His eternal displeasure and vengeance" (Jonathan Edwards, "Original Sin," Book 1, section 5).

 

 

Conscience, Social Order, and the Kingship of Jesus

Years ago, the pastor I had at that time told a story of one of his daughters, about 5 years old at the time. She customarily took an afternoon nap, as most children do at that age. However, on one particular day, she said that she wasn't sleepy and didn't want to take a nap. So her parents decided to allow her to remain up with them. Yet, later, she started to get drowsy, and told them, "You should have spanked me." My pastor cited this as an example of children's awareness that their contrary actions deserve punishment, and that they benefit from such discipline.

In our day, even adults have adopted an attitude that everything we do is justified, and never deserving of punishment. Yet we expect actions done to us to be punished. That means that we have not lost a sense that wrong action deserves correction. We merely exempt what we do from the standard of right and wrong that

Patrick Henry

we apply to everyone else. The result is chaos, with every person having some sob story to explain why his actions should be tolerated.

This is why we are seeing in our day what Scripture tells us about Hebrew society before the establishment of the monarchy: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). No king? But we have never had a king, have we? On the contrary, though we live in a Republic, the Founders built their Republic with a king in view: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!" While the quote has been challenged, it is attributed to Patrick Henry. Whether or not he did say it, it still represents the attitude of the Founders, who, though they created a republic, based it on the presupposition of the kingship of Jesus, and that alone can be the basis of rebuilding a moral basis for a peaceful society.

"The feeling of ill desert drinks up the spirits, and 'conscience makes cowards of us all.' This, then, is the peculiarity which distinguishes guilt - it is a conviction that punishment is due, that it ought to be inflicted, and that , under a righteous government, sooner or later, it will be inflicted; and it is precisely this sense of guilt which the truths of natural religion are adapted to produce within us. It is the echo of our own hearts to the fearful condemnation of a holy God.."

James Henley Thornwell, "The Nature and Necessity of Christianity"

Apostasy and Its Leaders

We live in a time where the culture has returned to a pre-Christian stage, in which every man does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25). Things which were considered too shameful for polite company within the lifetimes of man of us living today are now common fare in entertainment or taught to our children in government schools.

While it is true that the American government has been on a crusade to scrub the Christian presence from public society, I don't blame government. And while it is true that there are influencers in government and the media who hate the Gospel and seek to silence it, I don't blame them. Unbelievers must be expected to hate the Gospel (Romans 1:18). That's what makes them unbelievers.

However, when I see the church complacent in its own suppression, then I find cause for blame.

We have public religious figures - I don't call them Christians - such as Joel Osteen, who refuse to talk about sin because they don't want to offend anyone. That is who deserves the blame.

In 586 BC, Judah, the Southern Kingdom, was conquered by Babylon and carried away into exile. Why? Because they had abandoned the faith on which their kingdom was established, and turned to pagan deities and practice.

What did their religious leaders say about that apostasy? Did they denounce the sin of the people, and fight against that apostasy?

"Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading" (Lamentations 2:14). No, no denunciations; no warnings of judgment. Rather, the religious leaders joined in that apostasy, soothing the apostates with assurance that God was happy with their perverted worship and lives. Does that sound like today's religious world? I think so.

But what does God say? Is he bound by the soothing words of apostate preachers? "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). Not in the smallest bit. Rather, He promises that judgment of sin will come, but it will begin with false teachers who failed to preach a warning about the consequences of sin.

Jonathan Edwards on the Law and the Believer

We often assume that the repetition of a frightening stimulus will cause the fright from it to decrease, becoming less with each experience. Maybe I am different, but it doesn't seem to work that way for me. When I have watched a scary movie, I know what is going to happen the next time I see that movie, yet my apprehension seems merely to be increased by the anticipation.

The same thing happens with the shock I feel when people express certain theological views. One would think that my shock at them would decrease, the more often I hear them. However, it seems to work in the opposite direction. "What!? Another person who believes that?!"

One of those thing is when I hear people express disdain for the Law of God. They believe that, since the Law is never a means of salvation, that it is, therefore, something that can be ignored as irrelevant, I am shocked by that for three reasons: one, the Law is the word of God; two, such an attitude implies moral autonomy (see Genesis 3:5); and three, since the Law is the expression of the holiness of God, to ridicule it is to ridicule Him. Of course, that last is the most appalling.

Even though Paul is the author of the statement, "you are not under Law but under grace" (Romans 6:14), he cannot mean that the Law has ceased to be God's standard of moral action, because he also wrote, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Timothy 1:8-10). How can the Law be good, with a lawful use, if it can be ridiculed by a person who claims to love God? I think those two things are incompatible.

America's greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards, explained it well: "The law of God is the rule of right...: it is the measure of virtue and sin; so much agreement as there is with this rule, so much is there of rectitude, righteousness, or true virtue, and no more; and so much disagreement as there is with this rule, so much sin is there" (Original Sin, Chapter 1, Section 5). In other words, while God's Law has no power to enable us to obey, it is still God's standard of our obedience. It is grace alone which empowers righteousness. And what is righteousness? To walk according to God's Law:: "Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD" (Psalm 119:1).

The Conscience: Which Way Shall It Lead?

An important theme in the New Testament is the role that conscience plays in human lives. We immediately think of its role in the life of the believer, but we should never forget that the unbeliever has a conscience, too, though he deals with it in a very different way.

Let's start with the origin of the conscience: "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). This verse shows that the conscience is part of the image of God, which, though marred by sin, remains in every man. It is a remnant of the Law of God which had been implanted in the heart of Adam, and which is renewed in the heart of every believer as part of regeneration (Hebrews 10:16).

That conscience in the unbeliever will always produce a reaction, but that reaction can be in either of two directions, as the verse above indicates. For the reprobate, the conscience is solely a source of accusation. We see this, for example, in Judas after the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:3). Did Judas seek forgiveness for his betrayal? No. Rather, he committed suicide (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18-19). These possibilities, guilt or forgiveness, are the only two possible reactions to the truth of the Gospel (II Corinthians 2:16).

For the elect, his conscience drives him to the only place that he can clear his conscience, to faith in Jesus's atoning blood (I Peter 3:21). For the reprobate, the conscience can never be salved, but can only be suppressed (Romans 1:18).

"The burden which presses with intolerable weight upon the soul is the terrible conviction, wrung from the depths of our moral natures. that we have done wrong and deserve to die. It is this feeling that we deserve our doom which kindles the hell within us. If we would strip ourselves of the burning consciousness of this fact, no amount of evil could ever be regarded in the light of punishment."
James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity"

The Continuing Validity of the Sabbath, as Demonstrated by Israel's Exile

In discussions about the Sabbath, I often get challenged by people, often from dispensationalist backgrounds, who claim that the Sabbath was part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, an was, therefore, abrogated by the cross work of Jesus.

And I agree with the part about the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonies. they pointed to the atonement purchased for His people by Jesus, and, therefore, have no place in the lives of Christians. However, I firmly deny that the Sabbath was part of those ceremonies.

rather, the sabbath was a creation ordinance, together with marriage and productive labor. We see it in Genesis 2:3: "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." Other than to deny it, I have never gotten a coherent explanation as to why that reference is not to the Sabbath.

The problem with that objection is what Moses actually does say in the Fourth Commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exodus 20:8-11). So Moses tells us that God's declaration in Genesis 2:3 is the basis for the Fourth Commandment. It is not the other way around, as these dispensationalists claim.

The implication of this is that the claim of these same people that the Sabbath was part of, and, therefore, abrogated with, the Mosaic ceremonies is unbiblical. Some of them go on to add, to reinforce their weak abrogation argument, that there is no record of the celebration of the Sabbath between Genesis and Exodus. Well, that is an argument from silence, and is insufficient evidence with no other biblical support. Also, even if correct, it is not to the point. The failure of the people to obey the command does not abrogate the command. We see this in regard to the land sabbaths (Leviticus 25:1-7). We are explicitly told that Israel never obeyed the command to give the land a rest every seven years, so those missed land sabbaths are the basis of their seventy years of exile in Babylon (II Chronicles 36:21).

I think this brief case refutes any view of the Sabbath as an abrogated ceremony, or that failure to obey it is proof that it was nonbinding.

The Aroma of Life in the Preaching of God's Word

"Thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of Him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life."
- II Corinthians 2:14-16

This is an odd passage, in which Paul compares the Gospel to smells. That is not the image that usually comes to mind for me, probably most of us, but stimulates him to great enthusiasm.

A triumphal procession was a Roman custom, in which a triumphant general, upon his return to Rome, would lead a parade consisting of him, his triumphant troops, and memorabilia of his conquest, such as idols, works of art, and, most importantly, prisoners. This is the image that Paul gives of his missionary work, with his "conquests" being those that had received the Gospel. But then he suddenly switches from that visual image to the olfactory image of the means of his conquest. The weapons of the Christian are never implements of the military, such as swords and spears, but are only spiritual: "The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (II Corinthians 10:4).

Our spiritual weapon consists in the verbal proclamation of the Gospel (Romans 10:14-15), because God has promised His power, not in man's weapons, but only in 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).

Another thing we notice in Paul's remarks is that the response to God's word is not of just one kind. There is always a response, but it can be either of two kinds: "to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." To him who shall die in unbelief, the word of God is a smell of death, a warning that he rejects, falling further into unbelief. However, to him who will believe, the word of God bears life as the Holy Spirit applies it to his heart in regeneration. The true preaching of the Gospel will always have one effect or the other.

American Evangelical Tolerance: The Game Plan That Failed

In America, the popular version of evangelical Christianity has followed our new national orthodoxy: "Thou shalt not offend." God loves everyone unconditionally. Even the Pope has joined in, claiming that atheists might be saved without knowing it. To talk about God's holiness, wrath, or judgment is to be considered too fanatical for polite company.

However, that American religion is not at all like the biblical faith from which it came.

Here is what the Bible says about the justice of God: "That day [of judgment] is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, to avenge Himself on His foes. The sword shall devour and be sated and drink its fill of their blood" (Jeremiah 46:10. Where is that tolerant, all-loving deity of today's Christian? Certainly not in this verse.

Here is another one: "The LORD has a sword; it is sated with blood; it is gorged with fat, with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom" (Isaiah 34:6).

These verses are just examples, not alone in expressing the violence of the judgment of God. Moreover, they reveal a God who is utterly unlike the creampuff advocated by the average American professing evangelical. Why is that?

It is because of the content of the "love" advocated by that brand of evangelical. He thinks of God's love as requiring approval of whatever he wants to do. Only a meanie describes anything as wicked or as deserving of judgment.

The problem is that the love described by such people is love for them, and for what they want. They do not allow the other side of love, God's love for Himself. God is not allowed to love Himself or His holiness or His word. In other words, such people advocate a one-directional tolerance, a tolerance that benefits them. They feel no obligation to tolerate God or what He values. And, sadly for them, God does not feel bound to honor their definition of tolerance. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:20-21). 

You see, when these evangelicals created their religion of unconditional love and tolerance, they just assumed that God would go along with the gameplan. If they had consulted Him, though, they would have discovered that God doesn't play by their plan.

Who Was the Whore of Babylon?

A strange description occurs near the end of the Bible: "'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.' And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.' And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus^'" (Revelation 17:1-6).

The account continues to verse 18, which tells us, "And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." The woman is traditionally called the Whore of Babylon, from the King James Version of this passage. Her identity has been variously interpreted. The majority view is that she is a symbol of Rome. I, however, join with the minority in identifying her with apostate Israel, represented by Jerusalem, i. e., those Jews who rejected her Messiah and joined in crucifying Him 

I am going to speak to that here.

One of the challenges I have gotten from dispensationalists regarding this passage is that, supposedly, Jerusalem didn't rule the nations; rather, Rome did. However, the usage of Scripture does, actually, make Jerusalem the ruler of the nations: "How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a slave. She weeps bitterly in the night, with tears on her cheeks; among all her lovers she has none to comfort her; all her friends have dealt treacherously with her; they have become her enemies" (Lamentations 1:1-2). Does this passage not echo John's words? It is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC.

In fact, I think that this is a prominent flaw of dispensational interpretation: it consistently ignores Old testament usages in dealing with New Testament prophecy. the Bible is a whole, with the later revelations building on the earlier. While dispensationalists talk about "rightly dividing the word of truth," their practice is better described as "wrongly dividing" it. Their hermeneutic is built on presuppositions outside of Scripture.

The Deity of Christ and the Inadequacy of Watchtower Doctrine

After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to a succession of people, first to the women at the tomb, then to Peter and Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, and then to the disciples locked, hiding, in a secret chamber. Somehow, the Apostle Thomas was absent at each of these occasions, and expressed doubt of their authenticity: "Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, 'Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into His side, I will never believe'" (John 20:24-25). It took a week for Thomas's desire to be fulfilled: "Eight days later, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in My side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.' Thomas answered Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'" (John 20:26-29). 

We see a couple of things in the interaction between Jesus and Thomas here. For one thing, Jesus gives no rebuke to Thomas for his doubting. However, more importantly, He makes no rebuke for Thomas's addressing Him as Lord and God. Surely if a mere creature were to receive such adulation, it would be great sin not to object. Yet Jesus receives Thomas's words without refusal or rebuke! 

In dealing with this passage, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Thomas was just making an emotional outburst, as a person today might exclaim, "Oh, my God," upon receiving some shocking news. However, they offer no proof that there was any such custom among First-Century Jews. Moreover, they cannot explain why Jesus makes no objection, given the Watchtower's claim that He was but an incarnate angel. In other biblical occasions, angels made very vocal objections to any such intimations: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God'" (Revelation 22:8-9). On the contrary, John explicitly tells us that the comment was to Jesus, not just an exclamation to no one in particular.

Why the difference? The Jehovah's Witness has no rational answer. But the Christian does.

"The death of Jesus was glorious, not because it was His death, but because it could be the death of no other. A [mere] creature might as well have undertaken to create us as to save a world. The work itself demands the interposition of God; and any theory  which fails to represent the death of Christ as an event which, in its own nature, as clearly proclaims His divinity as His superintending care and preservation of all things, cannot be the Gospel which Paul preached at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, and which extorted from Thomas, upon beholding the risen Savior, the memorable confession, 'My Lord and my God'!"(James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity", emphasis in the original).

The Bible, Philosophy, and the Mormon Doctrine of Pre-existence

One of the least-known doctrines of Mormonism is the pre-existence of souls. One of their websites explains it this way: "Before we were born on the earth, we lived in the presence of our Heavenly Father as His spirit children. In this premortal existence, we attended a council with Heavenly Father’s other spirit children... Throughout our premortal lives, we developed our identity and increased our spiritual capabilities. Blessed with the gift of agency, we made important decisions, such as the decision to follow Heavenly Father’s plan. These decisions affected our life then and now. We grew in intelligence and learned to love the truth, and we prepared to come to the earth, where we could continue to progress. None of us on earth has a memory of the premortal existence.  This is because a 'veil of forgetfulness' has been drawn over our minds."

Another of their websites proudly proclaims that the Mormon doctrine is from philosophers, not from the Bible: "Several philosophers from Plato through Leibniz and Kant to twentieth-century Cambridge intellectuals, dozens of poets from antiquity to Robert Frost, and numerous religious thinkers throughout the Jewish and Christian traditions, propounded a pre-earthly realm peopled by the souls of men and women yet unborn. Pre-existence has been invoked to explain 'the better angels of our nature,' including the human yearning for transcendence and the sublime; it suggests a reason for the frequent sensation of alienation and the indelible sadness of human existence." This is in spite of their oft-repeated - but false - accusation that Christians have gotten the doctrine of the Trinity from philosophy. Apparently, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Scripture warns us against undue influence from unbelieving philosophy: "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" (Colossians 2:8).

Furthermore, the Scriptures, which Mormons profess to believe, are contrary to their doctrine: "Then King Zedekiah swore secretly to Jeremiah, 'As the LORD lives, who made our souls, I will not put you to death or deliver you into the hand of these men who seek your life'" (Jeremiah 38:16, cp. Zechariah 12:1). The Mormon must answer the question, If God created our souls within us, then how can you claim that we had some eternal pre-existence? Those two things are mutually-exclusive. Where does the the authority for your doctrines lie? 

The Source of the Doctrine of the Pre-existence of Souls

Contending for the Faith Against False Teachers

I have regular apologetic and evangelistic interactions with pseudo-Christian cults, mainly Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. In each case, someone always says something like this: "Why do you judge us? Why can't you just go practice your beliefs, and leave us to practice ours?" It's a form of guilt manipulation, trying to make it seem as if I am just a big meanie.

Yet, their repeated "why's" have an answer: the commandment of Scripture.

First, we have the warning against false teachers: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you'" (Jeremiah 23:16-17). The danger of false teachers is that they leave their followers under the wrath of God, while blithely imagining their safety. That is why false teachers are so popular. "While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (I Thessalonians 5:3). And it isn't just the cults which are the danger here. The popular TV preachers, such as Joel Osteen, are equally dangerous. They promise peace and prosperity, but never mention sin or the wrath of God. So their followers march, grinning and satisfied, into the waiting maw of Hell. 

In the face of such deceivers, the Scriptures give me a stark warning: "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). If I see the false teacher and those deceived by him, and I make no effort to warn them of God's judgment, then God holds me guilty of their death! 

That's why the New Testament also gives every true Christian this commandment: "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). I do not face accounting to cultists or other false teachers for challenging their errors; I face the wrath of God if I fail to do so.

John the Baptist, the Refuter of Jehovah's Witnesses

The person of John the Baptist is a curious character in the Gospels. He was a cousin of Jesus, but about six months older. We see the beginning of his ministry in Matthew 3:1-3: "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight.'" The portion quoted from Isaiah is Isaiah 40:3. 

What is significant is that Isaiah doesn't say "Lord" (Hebrew, "adonai"), but rather "LORD" (Hebrew, "Yahweh"). More on that later. 

While the identification by Matthew is sure, because it is the interpretation of the Holy Spirit, Jesus added His personal identification, as well: "The disciples asked Him, 'Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?' He answered, 'Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.' Then the disciples understood that He was speaking to them of John the Baptist" (Matthew 17:10-13). Here, Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes." Notice that here, too, the Hebrew uses "LORD" ("Yahweh").

The significance of this is that both Old Testament prophets refer to Elijah's return to announce the coming of Yahweh (or "Jehovah"). Then in the New Testament, we have the testimony of both the Apostle Matthew and of Jesus Himself that the reference to Elijah was fulfilled by John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus. That is, Elijah equals John the Baptist, and Yahweh equals Jesus.

This should be an earth-shattering revelation to the Jehovah's Witnesses, who very vocally contrast Jehovah with their unbiblical version of Jesus. They try to make Jesus to be a creature, a mere angel, and deny His deity. But they make much of Jehovah, even naming themselves after Him. Yet, they blind themselves to this one fact: Jesus is Jehovah!

The Irrational and Self-Refuting Worldview of the Secularist

That our modern world, with life in its multitudinous forms is the result of chance has become dogma in the United States, taught in public schools and accepted as the educated belief in the media. To deny the secularist orthodoxy is to place yourself in the inbred gap-toothed hillbilly camp for most people.

Okay, so it is orthodoxy, but is it true? Are their rational reasons for denying it? Is there a possibility for the self-respecting Christian to hold to a different worldview?

Yes, too all of those questions.

Science and education require a consistent, rational, predictable universe, exactly the opposite of chance. Yet the secularist blocks that incompatibility from his mind, lest the foundations of his worldview be shaken.

The creation is intelligible exactly because it was created by a personal, rational God. Chance could not produce an understandable universe. It is just as we know that the straight furrows of a farm require an organized mind to have made them. Unbelievers avoid this basic logic because it implies an absolute God to whom they are accountable. They want a self-existing universe because then there could be no morality or accountability. Yet reason requires a rational universe. Therefore, they depend on the biblical worldview to provide a context for reason and morality, but then deny that same worldview to maintain their myth of autonomy. 

In other words, if the secularist worldview is true, then it must be false, because it cannot sustain itself. The secularist worldview can only be sustained if the biblical, Christian worldview is true. However, again, if the Christian worldview is true, then the secularist worldview is false. No matter how you examine it, the secularist worldview is unsustainable, and, therefore, irrational. 

Polytheism and the Mormon Hermeneutic

Mormons claim that there are gods other than the God of the Bible. They deny, on the other hand, that their belief makes them polytheists, because they only worship one god. However, even that is not quite true, since they claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct gods, and they worship all three. But that is beside my point.

It is true that the Bible refers to other "gods," i. e., the idols worshiped by pagan nations. Furthermore, it describes them in active, anthropomorphic terms, such as Psalm 97:7: "Worship Him, all you gods!" As when the Bible talks about the body parts of God, Mormons insist that these references are literal. 

However, that assertion runs into trouble when the whole Bible is considered, rather than just isolated prooftexts. 

For example, there is a plain, nonpoetic reference in Jeremiah 2:11: "Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But My people have changed their Glory for that which does not profit." Yes, that prophet tells us, the nations have gods, but they are not real gods. Surely, in a rational hermeneutic, the statements of plain narrative should take precedence over statements in poetry. Yet, that is not the hermeneutic of Mormonism. 

Perseverance in the Good Hands of Jesus

I have discovered that there are people who will fight against the doctrine of perseverance with every ounce of energy they can generate. Frankly, I just don't get it. The doctrine that they are fighting is security in the hands of Jesus. But, in its place, they defend a Christian life of terror, the belief that you can fall from grace at any moment. They believe that you might be saved today, but you can know nothing about tomorrow. How is that better?

No matter what they might claim, the Bible says no such thing. It presents a Christian life of peace with God, though in conflict with the world. This is all over the Bible. The strongest assertions of it are in the words of Jesus in John 10:27-30: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." And in the words of Paul in Romans 8:38-39: "I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

But, in addition to these prosaic promises, we have beautiful poetic expressions of security in the Psalms. 

Psalm 37:28, "The LORD loves justice; He will not forsake His saints. They are preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off."

Psalm 97:10, "O you who love the LORD, hate evil! He preserves the lives of His saints; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked."

Psalm 145:20, "The LORD preserves all who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy."

In these and so many other beautiful words, the Bible tells us that the saved man can never fall permanently back into unbelief. Never.

Love Versus Antinomianism

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

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

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

Sovereign Grace, the Trinity, and the Christian Life

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the

sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you."

- I Peter 1:1-2 

This is the opening salutation from Peter's first epistle. Notice that it is not written to men in general but specifically to Christians, whom he identifies as the true Israel (compare Romans 9:8, Galatians 3:7, 6:16, etc.), gathered by the sovereign grace of God. 

And when I say God, I don't mean in a vague, generic sense. Rather, Peter identifies our election as the work of the triune God of the Bible: the foreknowledge of the Father, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and the obedience of the Son, applied, figuratively speaking, by the sprinkling with His blood, an image from the Old Testament sacrifices (such as Leviticus 7:2 and 14:7). Peter does not contemplate a unitary deity, whether of the Arian type or the Sabellian. 

Nor does Peter contemplate any sort of works religion, as is taught by those pseudo-Christian sects. Rather, he tells us that the Father chose us, the Holy Spirit changed us, and the Son fulfilled all righteousness for us, that it might be imputed to us. In just these two verses, Peter teaches us to see our reunion with our God as fully trinitarian and fully by His sovereign grace, which is why he could add, in verse 4, that we have "an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you." The same sovereign, trinitarian grace that saved us also keeps us secure until we reach our heavenly goal."I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

Abortion and Human Sacrifice in the Bible

"Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into My mind— therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at. Everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its wounds. And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them."
- Jeremiah 19:4-9

In this passage, God is announcing His judgment on the people of Israel because of their idolatry, a literal idolatry of worshiping false gods. And what is worse is that part of their idolatry is human sacrifice, the burning of their own children as sacrifices to Baal, the Canaanite deity of storms and fertility. The Israelites were sacrificing their children because they thought that it would bring them rain and good crops.

The minor aspect of this fertility ritual is that an idol can do nothing to help our crops. It is the biblical God, Jehovah, alone who gives rain and makes the earth to be fruitful. As reward for faithfulness, He promises, "The Lord will make you abound in prosperity, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, within the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give you. The Lord will open to you His good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands" (Deuteronomy 28:11-12). The Israelites had committed the irrational act of turning from the true and living God who could bless them, to a wood or stone idol which had no power at all.

But beyond the irrationality of their apostasy, the Israelites had accepted the horrific ritual of human sacrifice - and not just any humans, but rather their own children!

Compare this to our own day, in which Americans have largely abandoned the Christian heritage which had long underlain this country. And in its place we have erected many idols, not just of false religions, but also of quick riches, drugs, and entertainment. And for the sake of these idols, we sacrifice our children, washing them down the drains, torn in pieces, and removed from sight at the neighborhood abortionist's office.

What is the effect of such moral perversion?

Here is what God said to those ancient Israelites: "I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at. Everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its wounds. And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them" (Jeremiah 19:7-9). Where the Israelites had fed their babies to idols who could never answer them, instead they will be forced to consume their own babies, just to survive famine. The curse would be on them and their land.

How will God judge America for the same abominations? I tremble to imagine.

Calvinist Peter on Election and Perseverance

I continue to see people who claim that the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism aren't biblical. However, as I have demonstrated frequently, those doctrines are distributed all over Scripture, in both Testaments, and even in the words of Jesus Himself.

Here is another example: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (I Peter 1:1-5). 

This is the opening salutation of the epistles of Peter. Notice to whom he is speaking, "those who are elect." So, he is not speaking to men, in general. In particular, those words preclude the unconverted from Peter's message. Moreover, he is speaking not merely to believers, but to those whom he calls the elect, emphasizing the sovereign grace by which we have been made believers. That is the "U" in "TULIP," "unconditional election." Elected by whom? By the Father. By what means? By the Holy Spirit. To what end? To believe in Jesus. Thus, Peter sees believers to be such by a cooperative effort of each Person of the Trinity. Peter could not be describing the deities of the Arian or the Sabellian, but only the triune God of orthodox Christianity. 

On our experiential end, what was the effect of the Father's election of us? To be caused to be born again. "Caused" necessarily implies that the origin of our rebirth is outside of ourselves. On what basis? Was it our foreseen faith? No, Peter tells us that it was out of His mercy alone. Furthermore, that rebirth has brought us into an inheritance that can never be lost, because its keeping isn't in our hands, but is rather preserved in Heaven, by God's power (compare John 10:28-29). That is perseverance of the saints, the "P" in "TULIP." 

Finding such obvious expressions of the Calvinist soteriology throughout Scripture continues to make me wonder at the claims of Arminians to be Bible-believing. Closing one's eyes to what the Scriptures say is not believing them. 

Infant Baptism in Paul to the Ephesians

Among Reformed Christians, the children of believers are baptized, not as a sign that they are saved, but because they are - by right - members of the visible church. Thus, we reject both the errors of baptismal regeneration as taught by, for example, Roman Catholicism, and the view that the children of believers are no different from the children of nonbelievers, as is taught by Baptists,

I have addressed this matter before, from I Corinthians 7:14, but I want to turn to a different text this time.

Paul says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), 'that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land'" (Ephesians 6:1-3). This command is addressed to children of Christian parents, not to children in general. Of course, all children should obey their parents, but that isn't the audience of Paul's statement. The children in Christian homes are to obey their parents "in the Lord." That is, they have a relationship that children and unbelieving parents don't have. The children of Christians are in the Lord! Again, that doesn't have to mean that they are necessarily converted. Rather, they are covenantally distinct.

And that is what the Reformed say, that our children are covenantally set apart by God, enjoying the privileges of the visible church, and, therefore, have a right to be baptized. We acknowledge this confessionally, such as Question 166 of the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Unto whom is Baptism to be administered? Answer : Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized." 

The Bible and the Fair Mormon Corporeal God

I suspect that this topic will be new to many Christians. We often are not exposed to the more extreme views of  pseudo-Christian sects.

This statement is found in the Mormon scriptures: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit [sic]. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us" (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22). Nor do Mormons make any effort to hide that teaching. As one of their websites says, "One thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from nearly all of the rest of Christianity is the doctrine that God the Father possesses a body in human form." Yes, "sets apart" seems to be putting it mildly. Evangelicals find the Mormon view to be utterly bizarre!

As that page goes on to say, the Mormon view isn't just the result of the statement in their Scriptures. Rather, they also take the references to God's body parts in the Old Testament to be literal. In contrast, evangelicals take them as anthropomorphisms, i. e., figures of speech intended to make Him more comprehensible to corporeal humans. In addition, Mormons take the reference to the image of God in Genesis 1:26 to be necessarily a physical image, since humans are physical. This is in spite of biblical usage of "image" to refer to spiritual qualities (e. g., Colossians 3:10). The Fair Mormon website mentions this and talks about Seth's being in the image of Adam (Genesis 5:3). This is a case of shameless begging the question by the person who wrote that website. Note that Seth is made in the likeness of Adam, not God. If the image of God is a physical image, that distinction would make no sense. However, since it was a spiritual image it is completely comprehensible: Adam had been created with the unmarred holiness of God; Seth entered life with the image of his father, now marred by sin, and, therefore, not the image of God in the full sense.

And one last thing, an indication of the silly consequences of the Mormon's assumption of the literal nature of the body parts of God. Here is something else said about His body: "Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; what is the house that you would build for Me, and what is the place of My rest?" (Isaiah 66:1). The immensity of God is such that He fills the space between Heaven and earth. If His body is literal, then why can we not see such a giant? His feet alone would cover a continent! 

Peter and Paul Against Annihilationism: What of Judgment?

One thing that I have noticed when dealing with people from pseudo-Christian sects is that, when confronted with Scripture that flatly refute some peculiar doctrine of theirs, they will immediately turn to attacking me, instead of addressing the Scripture. "Do you mean you think...?" Well, what I think isn't the issue, so how about addressing what the Scripture says?

A good example is "soul sleep", the belief of Seventh-Day Adventists that the spirit of the dead remains unconscious with his physical remains, to be reawakened for the judgment. The Jehovah's Witnesses hold a related doctrine, claiming that the spirit is actually annihilated, to be recreated at the judgment. The two versions are remnants of their roots in the Millerite movement of the mid-Nineteenth Century.

The problem is that Scriptures say the opposite.

Paul addresses the destiny of the spirits of the righteous in two places. The first in II Corinthians 5:8: "We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." The other is in Philippians 1:21-23: "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better." Notice what he says, that absent from the body is present with the Lord, not waiting for Him. And again, to depart is to go to Jesus, not to sit in a grave for two-thousand years (so far) waiting for Him. Neither passage leaves any room for a gap between the death of the believer and his entrance into the heavenly presence of Jesus.

And what of the unbeliever? "The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment" (II Peter 2:9). Thus, unbelievers, too, proceed immediately to their destination, i. e., Hell. There is no gap of time in which they sleep or are annihilated.

When I confront annihilationists with these verses, they usually ask, "Well, then, what is the judgment at the end of history for?" Well, Scripture answers that question, too.

"In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 1:6-7). Peter describes his fellow Christians as having two seemingly-contradictory experiences in this world: they were rejoicing in their salvation even as they experienced trials in life (see, for example, the actions of Paul, Acts 8:3, 9:1). To what end? That their tested faith would be displayed for the glory of our Savior Jesus Christ. And what of the unbeliever? "Whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). For him, too, judgment isn't waiting until the end of history. It occurs at death (Hebrews 9:27). Again, his appearance at the great judgment will be confirmatory of the judgment which has already occurred.

An Armed Citizenry and Self-Defense in Nehemiah

I don't often talk about political issues. Really, the only one to which I have devoted much attention is the issue of abortion.

However, there is another issue that is timely, and for which the Bible provides some applicable widom: mass shootings and gun control.

"But when Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabs and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem was going forward and that the breaches were beginning to be closed, they were very angry. And they all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause confusion in it. And we prayed to our God and set a guard as a protection against them day and night" (Nehemiah 4:7-9). After their return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile, the Jews were defenseless, because the city wall remained in disrepair from the Babylonian destruction. They began to rebuild it, creating consternation among their enemies.

"So in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, in open places, I stationed the people by their clans, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, 'Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes'" (Nehemiah 4:13-14). The response of Nehemiah, the governor, was to station armed men, civilians, at the gaps, and then to reassure the people of their now-defended safety. This passage is the origin of our saying, "Trust in God, and keep your powder dry."

As a result, armed opposition to the rebuilding of the wall ceased. While Sanballat and his cohorts attempted subterfuge later, they never again made a military attack on these Jews.

My point in referring to this story is that it was by the ability to defend themselves that these Jews established peace. Their own weapons cancelled out the power differential in favor of their enemies. Think of the contrast to the public efforts now, which are to disarm the victims of violence, while the perpetrators retain their power to harm. The rational response, the biblical response, is to empower the victims to defend themselves. Maybe the public response isn't really intended to end violence...

Perseverance Four Ways

To be frank, I don't understand people who read the Bible, claim to believe it, but then also claim that it says that a true Christian can lose his salvation. On the contrary, I see all through the Scriptures that God keeps us by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that a person who is truly born again, as opposed to a mere pretender, is secure in his salvation right up until he faces Jesus in heaven upon death.

Consider, for example, I Peter 1:3-5: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Just look at the number of ways that the Apostle expresses the same thing: the inheritance is imperishable, kept in heaven, guarded by God's power, and through to the end of time. Where is the provision anywhere in that sentence for "if you strive hard enough"? Yet that is exactly what the papist or Arminian wants to insert.

Apostle Peter Preaches

The Necessity of Imputed, Exterior Righteousness

Every false religion, that is, every religion other than biblical Christianity, is based on innate human righteousness, the things that men can do to establish themselves as good enough for whatever value that religion holds, whether it is heaven or Nirvana or just a sense of moral superiority. In other words, they all teach some form of salvation by works, by law. Even secular humanism claims to be making the superior man, if we can just tweak the right government program.

In contrast, biblical Christianity says of men, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). And, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), because "your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:2). Why? "Your [i. e., God's] eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and You cannot tolerate wrongdoing" (Habakkuk 1:13).

So, what about the answer given by humanism and other unbiblical religions? What about just straightening oneself up? What about producing human improvement through passing the right political law or public education? "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away" (Isaiah 64:6). The problem with any system of salvation by good works is that men only have good works when compared to each other. However, compared to God's perfection, the best works of men are putrid garbage.

Why is that important? Because, without holiness, no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). Sin is such an insult to the holy God, that He will not accept it into His presence.

So, if all men are sinners, and thereby separated from God, then how can we have that relationship restored? Not by anything is us, but only by an alien, or exterior, holiness. "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?' Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, 'Remove the filthy garments from him.' And to him He said, 'Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.' And I said, 'Let them put a clean turban on his head.' So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by." (Zechariah 3:1-5). This vision symbolizes salvation, with our sin and its punishment taken away and replaced with the righteousness of Christ. This is called imputation.

This is salvation! The holiness that we need in order to be restored to fellowship with God comes not from ourselves, but from Jesus! "I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels" (Isaiah 61:10).

"O LORD, You will ordain peace for us, for You have indeed done for us all our works" (Isaiah 26:12).

John Owen on Definite and Particular Atonement

One of my primary objections to Arminianism is what it makes of the atoning death of Jesus. He didn't die for anyone in particular, the Arminian claims, but rather for everyone in general, equally for the saint in heaven or the damned in Hell. In fact, according to the Arminian scheme, it was possible that no one would ever have been saved by the blood of Jesus.

I consider that to border on blasphemy. To claim that there was even a possibility in the purposes of God that He would have allowed the blood of His Son to fall ineffectual to the ground, is an aspersion on my God that deserves no consideration.

In describing the Arminian view, the Puritan divine John Owen said (Preface to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ): "It seems our blessed Redeemer's deep humiliation, in bearing the chastisement of our peace and the punishment of our transgressions, being made a curse and sin, deserted under wrath and the power of death - procuring redemption and the remission of sins through the effusion of His blood, offering Himself up a sacrifice to God to make reconciliation and purchase an atonement; His pursuing this undertaking with continued intercession in the holiest of holies, with all the benefits of His mediatorship - do no way procure either life and salvation or remission of sins; but only serve to declare that we are not, indeed, what His word affirms we are, viz., cursed, guilty, defiled, and only not actually cast into Hell."

I am so glad that Jesus told us otherwise: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And 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. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:37-40). Jesus refers back to the intra-Trinitarian covenant in prehistory, in which the Father gave Him a people, a particular people, to be redeemed. And that covenant was effectual, providing us with the confidence that the blood of Jesus cannot fail to save everyone for whom He shed it. 

This doctrine, unlike that of the Arminian, shows us that it is impossible that even one drop of the blood of Jesus could fall to the ground in failure.

Crumbs from the Table: Judgment, Not "Common Grace"

I know that it puts me in the minority, even among Reformed folk, but I have a real problem with the doctrine of common grace. According to that doctrine, God gives some grace to every person in the world. However, it is insufficient grace, or the wrong kind of grace, to lead them to salvation. The biblical justification for that teaching 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."

The problem I have with that interpretation is that it constitutes a bait-and-switch. Yes, the unbeliever experiences the goodness of God. However, that is not because the unbeliever has any claim on the goodness of God. Consider the remark of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:27: "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table." The goodness of God is to His people, the elect. Yet that goodness is so great that it overflows, and the reprobate receive the benefits of the crumbs that fall from the table. Is this grace to them? "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" (Romans 1:21). No, it is not grace! Rather, by continuing in unbelief in the face of such goodness, the reprobate increase their judgment!

We also see this described in Psalm 73:3, 16-20: "I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly You set them in slippery places; You make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors! Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when You rouse Yourself, You despise them as phantoms." Asaph is distressed when he witnesses the apparent prosperity of the wicked. However, when he witnesses their downfall, his sense of justice is restored. Thus, God's goodness to them is not of grace, but contributes to His retributive justice.