Hebrews on the Atonement

A question over which I often quarrel with both cultists and fellow Christians is, For whom did Jesus die? And it is an important question. If, as the Arminian says, Jesus died for everyone, even for those in Hell, then there is something more than His blood necessary for salvation. The blood of Jesus is insufficient. If, on the other hand, Jesus died effectually for a certain number, then He is sufficient, i. e., He has provided everything necessary for my salvation, and I have a secure basis for my assurance of salvation.

I want to consider here a verse not usually mentioned in atonement debates, Hebrews 2:16: "Surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps the offspring of Abraham." The author of the epistle presents us here with two classes of sentient beings, angels and those humans who are the seed of Abraham. This is not meant to imply that there are no other classes of sentient beings, namely men who are not the seed of Abraham. Rather, it merely means that those other classes are not under consideration here.

OK, so we have the writer's assertion that angels were not the objects of the atonement of the cross. We can understand that. In contrast, the objects of the atonement are those men who are the seed, or offspring, of Abraham. Standing alone, that phrase is not very meaningful to the modern man. However, we have not been left unable to determine its meaning: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7). So then, it is men of true faith whom Scripture called the offspring of Abraham. Why? Because of the example of justification by faith alone that he provided.

So, returning to Hebrews, we can substitute the definition for the phrase in the original verse: "Surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps those justified by faith like Abraham." And that sentence cannot be taken to mean what the Arminian means by atonement. It is a specific group for whom Jesus shed His blood effectually, even as He promised (John 6:39). Not a drop is lost in failure.

Oneness of the Godhead, Oneness of the Church, and the Irrationality of Oneness Religion

Oneness Pentecostals often cite John 10:30 in defense of their doctrine of a monadic deity: "I and the Father are one." Oneness claim that Jesus is here professing that He and the Father are one Person. Does that hermeneutic hold up when examined against biblical usage?

It does not.

Consider these other words of Jesus from the same book: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me. The glory that You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one even as We are one, I in them and You in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me" (John 17:20-23).

This is from Jesus's High-Priestly Prayer. In it, He asks the Father to make His people one, just as He and the Father are one. Now, if we follow the logic of Oneness theology, this means that He is praying that all Christians will be merged into one gigantic mass, a literal oneness of person - no more single bodies or personalities. Yet no rational person would imagine that was His intent. 

However, the fact remains that Jesus describes a parallel of the unity of the church with the unity of the Godhead. It is not a unity of person, with no distinctions of identity or personality. Rather, it is a unity of purpose and love. The people of God should be united in the sight of an unbelieving world, united in a work that He gave us to do (Matthew 28:19-20) and love for each other (which is not to say that we have attained such oneness yet). This is exactly how the Persons of the Godhead are one, in perfect unity and love. They have had that unity from eternity, even if their people have yet to attain it. Each member has his own job to do, just as each Person of the Trinity has His own office. If all are made the same, then the body and the Godhead fail (see I Corinthians 12).

Simply stated, Oneness arguments cannot stand even minuscule attention because they are irrational, and produce even more irrationality if applied consistently. Any worldview that fails by its own consistent application is necessarily a false worldview.

The Spiritual Resurrection of the Believer from Death to Life

One of the continuing influences of Pelagianism is the supposition that men are in a spiritually-neutral state. I suspect that this is a holdover from American culture, because we want to believe that everyone is equally able to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. However, we have this statement from Paul to the believers in Ephesus: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). Even though that sentence is both simple and direct, people will deny it outright.

The significance of Paul's statement is that it does not allow any contribution by men to their own salvation. Just as a dead man cannot rescue himself from drowning, the spiritually-dead person cannot save himself from damnation. It is on that basis that the Apostle continues: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:1-9). It is exactly because man is dead spiritually that salvation must be by grace through faith alone, because only a living person can perform works. Salvation occurs because God has made us alive again by His own power, not by any action on our part.

Still, even as plain as Paul's statement is, many people still deny it. The illusion of autonomy offered by Satan in the Garden (Genesis 3:5) still entices us, so that we must retain some contribution of our own.

However, if some cannot accept the truth on the basis of Paul's words, will those of Jesus carry more weight? For it is He who said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24, emphasis mine). He describes salvation in Him as passing from death to life. Not from sickness to health, as the Arminian professes. The unbeliever is dead, while the believer is alive."And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O My people. And I will put My Spirit within you, and you shall live" (Ezekiel 37:13-14).

God's Judgment on Christendom for Child Sacrifice

Before starting, I want to mention that this post represents a major moment. It is my 800th post!

"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I Myself will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make My sanctuary unclean and to profane My holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set My face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.'"
- Leviticus 20:1-5

Molech was a prosperity deity of the Canaanites, worshiped by human sacrifice. In particular, a worshiper sought prosperity for himself by sacrificing his own infant by fire (see, e. g., Jeremiah 32:35). The Israelites absorbed this practice from the surviving Canaanites among them after they settled in the Promised Land. This was exactly the reason that God had ordered that no survivors were to remain of the Canaanites after the Conquest: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following Me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and He would destroy you quickly" (Deuteronomy 7:1-4).

What made this crime of Israel particularly heinous, even more so than among the Canaanites, was that God claimed the Israelite children as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). As evil as human sacrifice always is, the Israelites were sacrificing the children of God to a demon (Deuteronomy 32:17)! What greater act of sacrilege could there have been?

Roughly 70% of Americans profess to be Christians, yet almost three-thousand babies are killed by abortion every day in that same America. Why? Because the parents of those children believe that their lives will be better iF those children are dead. How is that not the same crime described by Moses roughly forty-three centuries ago? I see no significant distinction.

And that should bring each of those professing Christians bolt upright in his seat, because the God they profess warns of dire consequences for that ritual of child sacrifice. More importantly, He also warns of consequences for those who sit idly by as the crime of child sacrifice occurs around them. Silence is not innocence. Silence is complicity, and God judges it as such. In God's eyes, the silent Christian is the accomplice in every child sacrifice.

The Logic of Jesus versus the Irrationality of Oneness Theology

"Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I am working.' This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because, not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God his own Father, making Himself equal with God." 

- John 5:17-18 

Oneness Pentecostals claim that the Son was the flesh of Jesus, which, therefore, did not exist before its creation in the womb of Mary at the Incarnation. Of course, if the Son didn't exist before that point, we must logically ask, Then whom exactly was incarnated? To have been made flesh, that Person must already have existed. But we will set aside that logical question for now. 

In the passage above, the Apostle John reports several things. First, we have the words of Jesus that both He and the Father have been working. He thus makes a distinction between Himself and the Father, refuting any claim that it was the Father who was incarnated in the Son. Then the Apostle tells us that His audience took the words of Jesus to be a claim of equality with the Father. Again, if the Oneness doctrine is correct, how can any created thing, even as exalted as a merely human Jesus, be equal to the Father? Unless, of course, we Trinitarians are correct and the Son is not just the flesh, but is eternal God in Himself!

Thus, Oneness claims are refuted by the simple question, If the Son is just flesh, and not God in Himself, then how can He be equal to the Father?

The Promises of God Defined by His Mercy

Isaiah 55:11 is a verse which is well-known among orthodox Protestants: "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." And there is good reason for it to be well-known, because it powerfully teaches that the Bible is infallible and trustworthy. Where we are weak, the Scriptures are invincible!

However, there is another aspect to that verse that many such Protestants pass over: the Scriptures don't achieve what we plan, but what God plans. This is where orthodoxy stands against the so-called Prosperity Gospel - which is really no gospel at all - which claims that spouting some claim from anyone on the basis of his personal desire and interpretation guarantees that God is obligated to give it.

Where this is especially important is in evangelism. Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). That is, the preaching of the Word is God's usual means of converting unbelievers (see the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X). Some people claim that means that we are just to proclaim the Word, and then every person has an equal ability to respond, based on his choice to believe or not. Yet, we know that not all believe, even when presented with the Gospel through the Scriptures. Doesn't this "choice" doctrine then imply that the promise of Isaiah 55:11 is false? or, at least, unreliable? God forbid such a blasphemous assertion!

Rather, such people ignore the third and fourth lines of the verse: "It shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." The promise of God never fails! The mere idea is impossible! Rather, it is effectual when He intends it, not us. As Paul also says: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16; see also John 1:12-13).

More importantly, we have the assertion of Jesus: "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" (John 6:37-39). His promise here parallels the one in Isaiah, but is more explicit. To whom does the promise apply? To those who choose? No, it says no such thing. Rather, Jesus specifies that it applies to those whom the Father has given Him. Does He know who those people are? Of course. Can we know? Of course not. That is a part of the creator/creature distinction. Therefore, we are to proclaim the Word to whomever will hear us, knowing that those redeemed by Jesus will respond in faith, and the others will reject it (II Corinthians 2:16). What we must remember is that the promise of Isaiah is effectual, and that promise should stimulate us in our evangelism (Acts 18:10), knowing that God will apply that word to the conversion of all whom He intends (Acts 13:48).

Perseverance: Will There Be Free Will in Heaven?

Those who oppose the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (also misleadingly called "eternal security" or "once saved always saved"), especially Catholics and Mormons, claim that we have free will, so we can will to leave our saved state. They never have  have Scripture for this supposed free will. Rather, they insist that it is necessary, in order for people truly to love God or sincerely to obey Him. When I ask, According to what standard?, they usually accuse me of turning men into automatons.

The point is that their objection is emotional, not rational or biblical. It is also cultural, reflecting an American attitude of "fairness." Other cultures don't have that problem. Watch them turn cross-eyed if you make any of these objections to the worshipers of free will!

They have another problem: Are we able to decide in heaven that we have changed our free wills about being there? I know of no one who says so, not even the rankest of Pelagians. When I have asked that question, the response has been that we will be sinless there. Of course we will! Praise God for that! But it doesn't change the question. Doesn't a sinless person have free will? If yes, then why can he not choose to cease being sinless and abandon Heaven? And if not, what happens to their insistence that free will is necessary?

More importantly, if he doesn't have free will in Heaven, then why? If the denial of free will, as the Arminian uses it, in this life creates automatons, and that is too horrible to contemplate, then why can we contemplate automatons in Heaven? 

Does this not prove that it is irrational to assert as a necessity that men have a free will, such that we are autonomous from the decrees of God? It clearly does. And worse, does it not represent the same temptation given to Adam by Satan (Genesis 3:5)? It is incumbent on the advocate of such free will to demonstrate a distinction. I deny that there is one..

Romans 6:4 Says Nothing About the Mode of Baptism

"We were buried, therefore, with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
- Romans 6:4

This verse is one of those trump cards that some people plunk down in any debate, thinking that they outweigh any evidence to the contrary. In this case, it is plunked down by Baptists when discussing the mode of baptism. They claim that it means that the mode must look like the burial of Jesus. So they baptize by lowering a person backward, like a corpse lowering into a grave,and then raising him up, like a corpse rising in resurrection. But do you notice that the verse says nothing about "looking like"? Not one syllable. Rather, this is a case of begging the question, presupposing a conclusion, and then reading it into the premise.

However, Romans 6:4 is not about the mode of baptism. Rather, it uses "baptism" to indicate the covenantal connection between the elect and the death of Christ, ending the previous relationship to sin "by baptism into death" (no comma). When it was finished for Him, it was finished for us, too, because of the covenantal connection. In other words, Paul here is making the same point that he did in the following chapter: "You also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:4-6).

Since the believer is now in Christ, he is "dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11). To turn verse 4 into a reference to the mode of baptism is to ignore Paul's point about our new relationship to sin and righteousness. As always, context, context, context.

The Primacy of the Gospel of Matthew

This post is a little out of character for me. Usually, I write about some Christian doctrine, usually a specifically-Reformed doctrine. This post is not such a case.

When I was doing my studies of the Synoptic Gospels for seminary, there were numerous references to the primacy of Mark. That is, that most experts believe that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and then Luke and Matthew used Mark's material, plus other sources. I could see that for Luke, because he was not, as is generally admitted, an eyewitness of the events in his gospel (though he was for parts of Acts). As he tells us in his preamble: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4). To summarize, Luke was not an eyewitness, so he interviewed those who were, or depended on additional sources. That would largely have been the Apostle Paul, of whom Luke was a longtime co-worker. Luke's case is consistent with the majority view of primacy.

Mark, too, was not an eyewitness. He, however, was a longtime co-worker with the Apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness. Therefore, Mark could write from an original source, short only of Jesus Himself.

Matthew, in contrast, was an eyewitness, as confirmed not just in his own gospel account but also of the other two. He was himself one of the original apostles, appointed personally by Jesus. Given that, why would he have need to depend on other sources for his account? That was the logical question that kept bugging me as I read the majority view.

That question led me to this personal view of primacy: as the only eyewitness, Matthew wrote the first account of the events of the earthly ministry of Jesus. This would have been especially relevant, because he was a Jew and wrote from a Jewish perspective, during the initial period after the ascension of Jesus, when the church was predominantly Jewish. Then, as Romans and romanized Jews entered the church, a new gospel account was needed to address their cultural perspective. Enter Mark, with Peter's oversight, perhaps also borrowing from Matthew (the case I seek to make), while trimming down most of his cultural references. Then, as the church continued to expand beyond Palestine, more and more Greek-speaking Jews and pagans came into the church, requiring a third gospel account for the use of the apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) and his co-workers.

My argument here is strictly a logical consideration. I have no linguistic or documentary expertise on which to judge this issue. I also recognize that it puts me in the minority. However, does my argument not make sense? Does this not provide a beginning basis for presuming that Matthew was first, not Mark? Also, I share this hypothesis with so august a personality as Augustine. While that is not decisive, I am quite comfortable being in a minority that also includes Augustine!