The Nature of Unbelief and the Necessity of the Omnipotent Power of the Holy Spirit

 As Moses approached the end of his life, he faced the prospect of leaving his people to the leadership of someone else, Joshua. Under such circumstances, it is natural for the outgoing leader to believe that his successor will be unable to match the leadership that he had given. It is just part of the fallen nature of men to think that no one else can do the job as well as we could. 

He gives a sermon to Israel, warning them of consequences if they failed to be faithful to God, or, in contrast, the blessings that would come from faithfulness. In that sermon, we find this paragraph (Deuteronomy 29:2-9): "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But, to this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the Lord your God. And when you came to this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan came against us to battle, but we defeated them. We took their land, and gave it for inheritance to the Reubenite, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of the Manassites. Therefore, keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do."

Moses gives a partial recapitulation of the miraculous events that Israel had seen, ranging from God's judgments on the Egyptians, sustaining them in the wilderness, and, most recently, the defeat of Sihon and Og, powerful Canaanite kings. But, in the midst of that recapitulation, he says something odd: "But, to this day, the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (verse 4). 

God had given Israel every possible evidence that He was real and that He had chosen Israel as His special covenant people. We read this passage and assume that any rational people would understand that Jehovah is God, with absolute power over the nations. Yet, we know that Israel quickly descended into idolatry. In Judges 17:6 (and repeated in 21:25), we are told, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

How could there be such a disconnect between the evidence of their eyes and the unbelief in their hearts? 

Moses tells us how: "To this day the Lord has not given you heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" (Deuteronomy 29:4). The same characteristic would later be addressed by the prophets (e. g., Isaiah 6:9 and Jeremiah 5:21), and even by Jesus Himself (Matthew 13:14-15). Contrary to our view of ourselves, fallen men do not have a natural ability to see the hand of God and give Him the thanks that he deserves. Rather, we love sin more than God, and, therefore, suppress our knowledge of His reality and goodness (Romans 1:18-22). 

This inclination has significant implications for apologetics and evangelism. When we explain the Gospel to unbelievers, their inclination to reject it is not because of a lack of evidence. They already know that the Gospel is true! Rather, their consciences tell them that recognizing the reality of the Gospel would require that they repudiate sin. And they love sin more than they love God! It is not within the power of the Christian to break that addiction in the unbeliever. It is only the Holy Spirit who can do that. Yes, belief requires the power of omnipotent God to triumph over unbelief.

The Creation as Proof of the Being and Goodness of God

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is God!), who formed the earth and made it (He established it; He did not create it empty, He formed it to be inhabited!): 'I am the LORD, and there is no other'" (Isaiah 45:18).

I think the verse above is one of the most beautiful in Scripture. But more than its beauty is its fullness. In just two sentences, it defines and applies all of natural theology, i. e., what we can know about God from the Creation. 

The Prophet here repeats some of what we already know from Genesis 1. Like Moses, Isaiah begins with God. However, he tells us more than Moses did. He specifies that it is Yahweh who is doing the creating. We know from other places that Yahweh is the name of the preincarnate Christ. Thus, the Prophet is telling us what Paul would later repeat: "By Him [i. e., Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16).

Then Isaiah announces - twice! - that the events he is describing show that He is God! And we know from the rest of Scripture that He is God the Son. He made the whole physical universe, thus excluding even the possibility of other gods. And He created purposefully! God's interest has never been in dirt and grass. The goal toward which His work of creation was aimed was always Adam, and in him, the rest of the human race. Where Moses built up step by step to the crowning creation of man, Isaiah makes straight to the point: The creation came into existence not for its own sake, but as the ideal home for mankind. To state that truth is to pronounce doxology, as we see from Isaiah! 

There is also a significant philosophical declaration in Isaiah: the creation was purposeful, with mankind as the goal, bringing into creation the image of God. In contrast, the humanistic philosophy of evolution claims that all occurred by chance, including the coming of man, so that a man has no more significance than a flea, or a weed, or a rock. 

That distinction has consequences. For example, because of our understanding of man as the image bearer, it has been Christians historically who have built schools and hospitals. Education and medical care make no sense if men are merely a random and temporary conglomeration of chemicals.

There is also an apologetical element in Isiah's statement. The atheist thinks that he is clever when he demands proof for the existence and goodness of the biblical God. The Christian knows that all that the atheist claims for evolution actually points to God. and the Scriptures tell us that the atheist knows this, too, but has suppressed that knowledge (Romans 1:18-21).

Man as the Creature and as the Sinner

"When a man sins, he thereby brings a covenantal lawsuit against God. His action violates all five points of the covenant. First, he denies that God is who He says He is: the Lawgiver and eternal Judge. Second, he declares himself no longer under God's hierarchical authority. Third, he says that God's ethical standards do not apply to him. Fourth, he denies that God can or will apply His sanctions, either in history or eternity. Fifth, he asserts that covenant-breakers shall inherit the earth."

- Gary North, "Tools of Dominion"

What North describes here is autonomy, the false belief that mankind is or can be free of God's government. It is the same thing that Satan offered in the temptation of Adam and Eve: "Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). We tend to see these words and think of knowing about good and evil. However, Adam had already been taught about good and evil when God gave him the commandment not to eat of the tree and the consequences if he disobeyed. Rather, Satan is lying to Adam and Eve, promising them that eating of the forbidden fruit will give them the power to decide good and evil. Satan was offering autonomy to Adam and Eve, autonomy from their previous creaturely status, in which they received God's interpretation of good and evil. That is the way in which they would supposedly be like God, having power and authority to interpret for themselves what would be good and evil.

That brings us back to North's comments above. In the reception of Satan's interpretation, a man repudiates his status as God's creation, and seeks to dethrone God as Lawgiver and Judge, imagining, falsely, that he will then be promoted to sit in God's throne. 

Jesus on the Cross Knew His Sheep

"God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and, 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity'" (II Timothy 2:19).

The Apostle Paul makes the statement above to his pastoral apprentice Timothy. He seems to be quoting something, but we don't know the origin of the quote. However, we can certainly find equivalent statements of Paul's statement, "The Lord knows those who are His." In fact, Jesus Himself made the same point: "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14). Jesus also declared that He knew who is not His sheep: "You [Jewish leaders] do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). 

Jesus also understood the significance of being one of His sheep:"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:27-29). The sheep of Jesus are those that He would later redeem on the cross, a redemption which would be effectual and irreversible (compare John 6:37-39). 

The image I like is another one used in Scripture, Jesus as the bridegroom, and the church, i. e., all of His sheep together, as the bride. In that patriarchal society, fathers chose the spouses for their children. Arranged marriages were the norm. As His Father, God the Father had chosen a bride for His Son, and Jesus, as the dutiful Son, could neither reject that bride for another nor fail to bring His marriage to fulfillment. Yet, the Arminian wants us to believe that Jesus did not know His bride. In fact, the Arminian would have us believe that there was no guarantee that there would be a bride. Rather, the Groom was to be blindfolded, to share His favors with any stranger. He was to give His divine love to even the prostitute (Proverbs 5:1-20). 

But no, Paul tells us. the Lord knows those who are His. he knows His bride, and that she is no seductress.

Apostolic Usage Demonstrates the Continuing Authority of the Law

One of the greatest errors of dispensationalism has passed to a wider audience of evangelicalism. It has become to claim that the moral law is not authoritative for the Christian. Except when quoting Leviticus 18:22 in conversations regarding homosexuality, the evangelical will dismiss quotations from the Pentateuch with a dismissive, "That's Old Testament," or "We're under grace, not under law." 

But, wow, do those same evangelicals turn mean when you cite particular examples in the New Testament of apostolic application of those laws. I have already discussed Paul's application of a law from Leviticus (and repeated in Deuteronomy) to the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 5:1).

I want to bring up another example today. In I Timothy 5:18, Paul write, "For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.'" And in I Corinthians 9:9, he writes again to the church at Corinth, "It is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" So, from where does that quotation come? From Deuteronomy 25:4 (his other quotation to Timothy is from Luke 10:7). That is an Old Testament law. 

These usages should make it clear that the doctrine of the dispensationalists and the attitude of evangelicals toward the Old Testament moral law is not that of the Apostles. The Apostles took Jesus at His word: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).

The Dispensational Antichrist Disproves Dispensationalism

"I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." 

- Genesis 12:31 (see also Numbers 24:9) 

This verse is one of the favorites among dispensationalists. According to their interpretation, it is an eternal and unconditional promise by God to ethnic Israel. Among other things, it is used to justify political action to keep the American government in a policy of unconditional endorsement and assistance to the modern State of Israel. 

Another verse used by dispensationalists is Daniel 9:27: "He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." According to their interpretation, this verse means that Israel will make a treaty with the Antichrist. Now understand, the dispensationalist considers the Antichrist to be a really bad dude. 

Do you see the problem with this juxtaposition? 

The dispensationalist tells us that anyone who assists the nation of Israel will be blessed  by God. He also tells us that the Antichrist assists Israel with a treaty. Doesn't syllogistic logic tell us that those two premises result in the conclusion that God will bless the Antichrist? 

I guess it's a good thing that I am not a dispensationalist. I reject both premises. Therefore, i don't have to deal with the nonsense that results from them.

Jesus, His bride, and Particular Atonement

 In the story of the sheep and goats, Jesus told of the division of the redeemed, whom He calls the sheep, from the wicked, whom He calls the goats. In the judgment, the king, i. e., Jesus, says to the redeemed, "Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34, emphasis added). This verse has great significance in the issue of the intention of the atonement. 

So, what is prepared? The kingdom, i. e., of God. For whom is it prepared? For the sheep, i. e., the redeemed. And when was it prepared? Before the foundation of the world. Each of these assertions by Jesus refutes the claims of the Arminian. The Arminian claims that predestination applies to the consequences of belief. That is, he says that God has predestined sanctification and glorification for whoever believes. No, Jesus says, He has predestined the very kingdom itself, which includes those things, as well as the faith by which they are applied. Every benefit purchased by Jesus on the cross has been prepared for those for whom He died. For whom? Jesus did not go to the cross not knowing for whom He would die. It was to be His sheep, not the goats (see also John 10:3-4, 26-27, and 17:2-3, 6). And when was that determination made? Before the foundation of the world. God did not wait upon the decisions of men to determine what Jesus would do on Calvary and for whom, and with what results.

This is no isolated teaching of Jesus. Paul tells us the same truths in Ephesians 1:3-13. What was predestined? "Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (verse 3). Predestined when? "Before the foundation of the world" (verse 4). Paul spoke in exactly the same words as Jesus! For whom? "For us" (verses 3, 4, 5), and "we" (verse 4). Who is "we"? The saints who are in Ephesus" (verse 1). Paul was not writing to people in general; rather, he was writing specifically and explicitly to Christians. The Arminian must ignore the grammar of the passage in order to make these verses apply to any hypothetical person without exception.

We can see here only that the atonement of Jesus was particular, that is, intended for particular people, the Church (Ephesians 5:25). The Arminian would have us believe that Jesus must wait until the Judgment to see who was saved by His blood, if anyone. No, Jesus knew His bride when He ascended to the cross, because the Father had told Him her name before the foundation of the world. Jesus then spent the next millennia, from the creation to the crucifixion, loving her in His heart, and longing for the day to arrive when He would purchase her redemption. No man could do that for a stranger, some hypothetical women whom he is yet to meet. But that is the marriage plan of the Arminian. No, Jesus loved her before she even existed. And as a Jewish father of the First Century would, God the Father had arranged His Son's marriage and prepared His bride for her wedding day.

The Intolerance of Jesus

"Tolerance" has become the theme of our age. Even among professing Christians, the phrase "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced by "you shall not judge." Judging is defined as denying the validity of anything the other person wants to believe or say or do. It is never tolerance for the person who advocates values or morality or the Bible. The only absolute truth, now, is that there is no absolute truth. 

Yeah, that is a self-refuting worldview, which is why we also see irrationalism's enthronement as our cultural guiding principle. 

The Christians who proudly quote Jesus, "You shall not judge" (Matthew 7:1, out of context), snarl in response if anyone quotes something else that Jesus said about judgment: "Judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). That is because the first quote, ignoring its context, seems to support the spirit of the age which has been imbibed by these Christians, while the second exposes it as a pagan intrusion. That exposure cannot be tolerated by today's tolerant Christians. 

We have other intolerant teachings from Jesus, as well. 

For example, in the Epistle to the Church in Ephesus found in the Revelation (Rev. 2:1-7), Jesus praises that church: "I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves 'apostles' and are not, and found them to be false" (Revelation 2:2). This church is praised by Jesus for their intolerance of evil men! That is totally opposite the milquetoast Jesus of today's post-modern tolerant Christian.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Epistle to the Church in Pergamum (Rev. 2:12-17). Jesus actually chastises that congregation: "I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of My mouth" (Revelation 2:14-16). This congregation is noted for its tolerance! The Christians here are noted for their tolerance of those who teach the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. We may not know exactly what those doctrines were, but the wrath of Jesus is apparent. Wrath against what? Against the toleration in the church for heretical teaching! 

It is apparent that the Word of God teaches nothing like the doctrine of tolerance advocated by so many of today's professing Christians. Instead, they have adopted the attitude of the humanist, and baptized it by quoting ad infinitum, "You shall not judge." In contrast, the consistent message of the biblical Jesus is that we shall judge, or we shall be judged, and harshly! 

Ancient Pergamum