Persevering in the Perfecting Power of Jesus

A common caricature of the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is that it, supposedly, allows a person to spout some words, and then to live wickedly, assured that he is destined for Heaven. And I grant that the oft-used semi-Arminian version, "once saved-always saved," can be taken exactly that way. That is because the anti-Calvinists don't understand the difference. 

As I wrote here, once saved-always saved (hereafter, "OSAS") is the Calvinist doctrine transplanted into an otherwise Pelagian system of theology. It simply doesn't work. In contrast, perseverance holds that God will enable the believer to continue in faith and sanctification. That doesn't mean that the believer can never stumble; rather, it means that he will never ultimately stumble forever.

Consider this verse: "For by a single offering He [i. e., Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). Notice the sequence here. By His one offering of Himself on the cross, Jesus has perfected, i. e.,  legal standing, or justification, those are being sanctified, i. e., progressive sanctification. So the one-time cross work of Jesus saved the elect, so that we have immediate standing as perfect, or holy, and will increasingly experience that holiness in our lives. 

That which has already been perfected cannot fail to achieve its purpose! 

Jesus Contra "Soul Sleep": Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord

As we know, Jesus was a frequent target of the Pharisees, as they asked Him questions that they expected to baffle Him or to expose Him to punishment by the Romans. Their opponents, the Sadducees attempted to trip up Jesus, too, but only one time. In Mark 12, they asked Him whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection, after she had been married and widowed by seven brothers. This was actually a double trap, because the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection.

In His response, Jesus answered both challenges, the one spoken, while the other was a trap waiting silently. "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong" (Mark 12:24-27). He rebukes their failure to believe the Scriptures, which tell us of the resurrection of the dead at the end of history (such as Job 19:26 and Daniel 12:2). Only then does He answer their surface question, denying that resurrected men will continue our social functions: "When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25). 

But He also rebukes the Sadducees for supposing that God  is related to men only in this physical life and no more: "Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong" (Mark 12:26-27).

I bring up this story because it addresses a modern heresy, that of "soul sleep." That doctrine, with some differences, is especially associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists. They deny that the dead believers are conscious, and spiritually in Heaven with Jesus. This is the same doctrine for which Jesus rebukes the Sadducees.

The point of Jesus is the dead saints are alive now, enjoying fellowship with God now. They are not nonsexistent as the Sadducees believed, or nonexistent now to be recreated later as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, or unconscious in the grave with their bodies as the Seventh-Day Adventists claim.

Instead, we can joyfully claim, as Paul did, "Away from the body and present with the Lord" (II Corinthians 5:8).

God's Law or Man's Law?

Recently, I have been seeing an argument from antinomians that we are not under the Old Testament law, but rather under the Law of Christ. When I have asked them to show me where that law is found, if they try to give any answer at all, they make a vague reference to "the law of love" or to the first and second commandments (Matthew 22:37-40). When I ask them to define "love" apart from the law, they usually disappear. Same thing when I point to Jesus words about His two commandments: "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:40). My point is simply that the Law of the Old Testament is the Law of Jesus. I am sad to say that those who hold the antinomian doctrine never give it up, simply because it is self-refuting. Rather, they always fall back on that antinomian trump card, "You are not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14, ignoring context).

On the other hand, if my challenge to them is that men are then left free to decide right and wrong for themselves (Genesis 3:5), they deny that, too, trying to play both sides. Logically, it must be one or the other, as Gary North described in his book, "Tools of Dominion" (p. 315): "To argue that there ever was, ever is, or ever will be a time when men are not under God's specified judicial sanctions is to argue that they are under sanctions imposed by autonomous man, meaning the self-proclaimed autonomous State. In short, to argue this is inescapably to argue also that God has in history authorized either the tyranny of the unchained State or else the implicit subsidizing of criminal behavior through the State's unwillingness to impose God's specified sanctions. In either case, victims lose. This is what antinomians of all varieties refuse even to discuss, let alone answer biblically." 

I would suggest that our society has arri9ved exactly at the point described by North. Having rejected God's enscripturated Law, Western culture has turned to humanistic morality, maintained not by the inner power of the Holy Spirit, but rather enforced by increasing state violence. Enforced unsuccessfully. The result has been a split competition between a violent state and a violent anarchistic population. This is what a society looks like, when it has turned religion into psychotherapy and pietism.

Jesus Contra "Soul Sleep"

"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also." 

- John 14:1-3 

Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists share a doctrine called "soul sleep." For SDA's, that doctrine says that the spirits of the dead remain, unconscious, with their bodies until the resurrection. For Jehovah's Witnesses, the doctrine is that the spirit of the dead ceases to exist, and is then recreated at the resurrection. So, while there are significant differences between the two, they both deny that there is an intermediate state for the spirits of the dead, whether for the godly in Heaven or for the wicked in Hell. That is a denial of the traditional doctrine of Christians, and I address them together here. 

Look at what Jesus says in the quote above. He was to go away to prepare a place for us to be with Him. Do Witnesses or SDA's claim that Jesus is currently unconscious in a grave? I hope they don't say anything so awful. Rather, we know that He rose into Heaven after His resurrection (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, logic only allows us to take His words in Matthew to mean that He has been preparing a place with Him in Heaven. 

Even without considering any other scriptures, these words of Jesus preclude any interpretation comparable to "soul sleep." 

Social Disorder, Statism, and God's Law

I write this at a time when America is going through widespread social tumult over police shootings of black men and women. George Floyd and Breonna Taylor are names we hear on the nightly news almost every day. On one hand, we have the protesters, some of whom are committing wanton acts of violence and destruction, and on the other, politicians arguing over who better supports the police. Rather, I am asking whether Scripture tells us anything relevant to this crisis.

Do we see any solutions to this situation in Scripture? Some argue for more evangelism, saying that the Gospel provides an effective means of uniting people. While that is true, I don't think it is the only solution, and it is not my topic here. 

Rather, I am asking whether Scripture addresses government in a way that impacts this situation. And I think it does.

First, what is the source of law in the Bible? Is it the state? No, it isn't. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a basis for government promulgations regarding crimes or punishments. This isn't an argument for anarchy, but rather for a severely restricted state. If not the state, then what is the source of law? It is God alone. "See, I [Moses] have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Not the king's law, or the president's or Congress's, but God's law. 

Then who is to enforce the law? Nowhere in Scripture do we see a description of a police force or of inspectors or enforcers. Rather we see this: "On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst" (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). The enforcement of the law is not assigned to a separate enforcement class, but is instead the responsibility of the people themselves. 

Our social conflict is the result of our worship of the state, of our looking to the state for salvation, of our looking to the state to be the source of social order. Since that is not God's intended role for the state, the result of those expectations is not social order but social chaos.

The Covenant and the Children of Believers

One of the distinctive doctrines that I love about Presbyterianism is what is called "covenant succession," the belief that the children of believers are claimed by God and set apart from the children of unbelievers. 

There are a number of Bible verses that describe this special relationship. 

In the Old Testament, God chastised Israel for sacrificing their children to idols: "You took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured" (Ezekiel 16:20). As horrific as human sacrifice is, under any circumstances, Israel had compounded their sin by sacrificing the children that God claimed for Himself by covenant.

In that covenant, God had promised a blessing to His children: "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deuteronomy 30:6). The same promise is repeated in Isaiah 54:13: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children." And again in the New Testament: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" (Acts 2:39).

It is important to understand that these promises are covenantal. The children of believers are placed in the visible church. It is not an absolute promise that the children of believers will themselves be believers. We know this from experience. We also have the explicit statement of God to Abraham: "Abraham said to God, 'Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!' God said, 'No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful, and multiply him greatly'" (Genesis 17:18-20). Abraham had a son by his servant Hagar, Ishmael, and begged God to grant him salvation. Yet, God explicitly refuses, promising material blessings, but not eternal life. The distinction would be made again with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob. The Apostle Paul would use their example to illustrate God's sovereignty in grace (Romans 9:6-13). He applies the principle to the children of Christians in I Corinthians 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but, as it is, they are holy." That is, federally holy, not personally holy.

While it isn't my topic here, this is the basis for infant baptism, just as it was the basis for the circumcision of Israel's children.

The Death Penalty, Dangerous Animals, and Accountability for Sin

"Whoever sheds the blood of man 

By man shall his blood be shed, 

For God made man in His own image." 

- Genesis 9:6

This brief poem, just three lines, contains God's words to Noah, a blanket provision for the death of murderers. Murder is to be a capital crime because God made man in His own image. Therefore, to attack man is, in a sense, to attack God. This verse comes up frequently in debates over capital punishment. However, rarely do we hear anyone discuss the verse before it: "For your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of  a man" (Genesis 9:5). 

I find it very intriguing that God holds not just a human murderer to be accountable for his action, but also an animal, if it kills a human being. And it isn't just described as a practical matter of removing dangerous animals. Rather, the beast is to make a reckoning parallel to that required from a man. This is the general principle, and then the particulars are provided later in the case law: "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death" (Deuteronomy 21:28-29). If an animal, in this case an ox, kills a human being, it is to be stoned. Notice that it is not butchered. In fact the law explicitly forbids that the animal be eaten. Rather, it is to be killed, executed, as a criminal is killed, not as a food animal.Then there is a two-tier process of dealing with the animal's owner. If the attack were out of character, then the owner faced no additional consequence than the economic loss of his animal. However, if the animal had a history of aggression toward humans, but then was inadequately restrained, the owner, too, is to be executed. The animal and the man are to receive the same judgment.

 That is astounding! It demonstrates the moral accountability of a creature in whom we would not predicate a moral nature. 

And that fact is significant for holders of some modern doctrines, such as an age of accountability for children or a lack of accountability for the mentally disabled. 

What we especially see from the examples above is that God's attention is on the victim, not the perpetrator of the crime. The victim in each case is a human being, God's image bearer. Given that fact, then the necessary penalty is fixed, without regard to any mitigating factors in the nature of the perpetrator. There is no consideration of whether the perpetrator contemplated committing a crime or otherwise mentally displayed evil intent. He is simply to die.

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

 

The Eternal Reality of Hell Contra Annihilationism

 I have noticed a curious trend among professing evangelicals to adopt the doctrine of annihilationism. That doctrine holds that the wicked who are sent to Hell are burned into nothingness. That is, contrary to the traditional belief, there is no such thing as the eternal, conscious consignment of the wicked to a state of punishment. They are annihilated, hence the name. 

Historically, this doctrine has been associated with the sects, primarily the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh-Day Adventists. But in our recent times, it has become mainstream. Even the otherwise orthodox teacher, the late John Stott, adopted it. The spread is because of a growing embarrassment among many over the supposed harshness of the doctrine of an eternal, conscious punishment in Hell. I have been told that annihilationism serves to remove one stumblingblock that keeps unbelievers from accepting the Gospel. 

My response is this: Removing every distinctive doctrine of Christianity would make it more palatable to unbelievers. But, what then do you have left? You have unbelief. You would certainly have no Christianity, and no Jesus. Not in any meaningful sense. The unbeliever hasn't moved to a position of faith. Rather, faith has become unbelief. I cannot accept that as a means of evangelism. 

Furthermore, how does truth change in order to make it palatable to those who deny it? If someone believes that two plus two equals 749, do we stop saying that it really equals four in order to make math palatable to him? I would hope not! 

The proper question is not what the unbeliever thinks, but rather what does God say? 

In answer to that, we have God's word on the subject in Revelation 20:10: "[Then] the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." There is no equivocation here! The torment of the wicked is eternal. They never escape. God's justice never finds satisfaction in mere ashes. 

The problem with the annihilationist assumptions about unbelievers is the acceptance that the stated reason for unbelief is the true reason. The Bible tells us that unbelief is a cover, not an issue in itself. Every person knows that there is a God, and that we are answerable to Him. The issue is that, apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit, every person hates that knowledge, because he loves his sin. Since those two things are incompatible, he must either give up his sin or give up his knowledge of God. His choice? He chooses to suppress his knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-19). Appeasing him by doing away with the doctrine of eternal Hell does nothing to address that deliberate choice. It is like taking an antibiotic in an effort to cure a virus. 

Reprobation and the Well-Meant Gospel Offer

 There is a doctrine which has been commonly-held, but not universally-held, among Reformed Christians for hundreds of years. It is usually called the Well-Meant Gospel Offer. According to the doctrine, God offers the Gospel to all men, with the well-meant intention that all receive it, not just the elect. For example, the Dutch Reformed theologian Wilhelmus a Brakel (1635-1711) wrote, "Faith consists in the translation of a soul from self into Christ. Faith consists in receiving Him who offers Himself and who calls and invites every sinner to Himself, the promise being added that those who will come will not be cast out. It finally consists in a reliance of the soul upon Him as the almighty, true, and faithful Savior." 

The doctrine is rejected by the minority, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches. I happen to agree with the minority in this case. 

The problem is the doctrine of reprobation. According to this biblical doctrine (see, for example, Romans 9:21), predestination has two sides, the election of some to salvation and the active rejection of others to damnation. This doctrine is professed by all Reformed believers, including those who hold to the well-meant gospel offer. However, those two doctrines are incompatible. How can we rationally claim that the same God has marked certain sinners for rejection unto everlasting damnation, while at the same time He is supposedly offering those same sinners the opportunity to be saved, with the desire that they be so? Would we suppose that God suffers from multiple-personality disorder? I hope not!

Now, I certainly grant that the Gospel portrays a crucified and resurrected Redeemer who is available to all who will come to Him in sincere faith. However, only the elect will respond to that portrayal, because they alone are redeemed by the Son and called by the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is no conflict between God's decree and His supposed desire. 

Now, a distinction is necessary between the offer as something God supposedly does, and the evangelistic efforts of Christians. When we share the Gospel with unbelievers, we sincerely desire every one of them to be converted. Is there a conflict there? Not at all, because it is not given to men to know or meddle in the secrets of God's decrees. He gives no man the ability to know who is or is not elect. Nor does it lie within the authority of mere men to decide to exclude any sinner, howsoever wicked he may be, from access to the redeeming blood of Jesus. That lies in the purview of God alone.

How Were Men Saved Before Jesus Came?

 I often see a question repeated in my Facebook Christian groups: What about people who lived before Jesus came? How were they saved? 

To my mind, the question is strange enough. However, I have seen some truly bizarre answers given. When I say bizarre, heretical would be an understatement. Some of them would qualify as occultic! 

One of the merely-heretical answers is that Old Testament believers were saved by the Mosaic sacrifices. That is a dispensationalist concept, and ignores Hebrews, as dispensationalists are wont to do: "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4). Old testament believers were enabled by the Holy Spirit to see through the type of the animal sacrifices to the anti-type, the sacrifice of Jesus, whose blood is truly effectual to the salvation of His people. That means that Old Testament believers were saved the

same way as New Testament believers, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The difference is that the work of Jesus was obscured by the types and shadows of the Mosaic ceremonies. The Gospel is brighter for the New Testament believer because that obscurity has been removed. We have directly what the Old Testament believer had only indirectly. 

As  Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Do you mean by that, asks someone, that the saints in the Old Testament were not forgiven? Of course I do not. They were obviously forgiven and they thanked God for the forgiveness. You cannot say for a moment that people like David and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were not forgiven. Of course they were forgiven. But they were not forgiven because of those sacrifices that were then offered. They were forgiven because they looked to Christ. They did not see this clearly, but they believed the teaching, and they made these offerings by faith. They believed God’s Word that He was one day going to provide a sacrifice, and in faith they held to that. It was their faith in Christ that saved them, exactly as it is faith in Christ that saves now. That is the argument."

Following Paul to Righteousness by Faith

 

"Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." 

- Philippians 3:2-9

The Apostle Paul gives us a list of things here which might have been considered grounds for a righteousness before God based on his own qualities. As righteousness was understood by his judaizing opponents, Paul had all of the qualifications of birth, of training, and of works. If anyone could be justified by his own qualifications, then that person could be none other than Paul. 

Yet, what does that same Paul say about his qualifications: "I count them as rubbish" (verse 8). What men would count as shining qualities, Paul calls garbage. And I don't think that Paul is referring here to God's point of view (Isaiah 64:6). Rather, he is telling us what was his own attitude to those things that he, too, in a previous life, counted as glorious. They were garbage, not because they were rejected by God, though that is true, but rather because they had blinded him to true righteousness, that which comes by faith alone in Christ alone. It is as if some prospector had been so in love with his lump of coal that he had ignored a streambed next to him littered with gold nuggets. 

This is why Christians should feel such sorrow for those trapped in pseudo-Christian sects. I have spoken to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals who were so proud of their chunks of coal - such as baptism or organizational position - while they are blind to the gold of true righteousness, such as Paul had found, by faith in Christ alone.

How the Church Paved the Way for Humanism

There has long been a tradition of dividing the Ten Commandments into two tables, commandments one through four and then five through ten. I am OK with that division. The first four deal primarily with man's relationship with God, and the other six primarily with his relationship with his fellow man. They are often portrayed this way in images of the commandments. That might be a bit fanciful. We have no record of how they were divided between the two tablets. Or even if they were divided. Some people believe that each tablet displayed all ten.

That's fine so far. 

There is also a common view that the civil government is supposed to enforce the second table, the laws against thievery and murder, etc., but has no authority over the first four. 

My question is this: Why? 

Sometimes the answer is that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. We have freedom of religion in this land, so we can't have laws against idolatry. Yet our country has a heritage of so-called "blue laws," laws that required businesses to be closed on Sunday in honor of the Sabbath. "Blue," in this case, derives from a historical usage, in which "blue" was used for something which was overly strict. It was a pejorative term, but passed into general usage. The courts have upheld Sunday-closing laws on secular grounds, such as the practicality of providing a day off for workers. 

However, the question must be, Why does the First Amendment - in reality, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment - outweigh God's commandments? Should a cultural preference become the standard by which even Christians are to live, over the Word of God? 

When God tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3), His desire is clear. So also when He says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (verses 4-5). So, on what grounds do we decide that His will in these two commandments is less important that it is when He says, "You shall not murder" (verse 13)? There is certainly no biblical justification for that judgment. 

When the Westminster Standards were originally written, the Larger Catechism, question and answer 109, included among the sins forbidden by the Second Commandment, "tolerating a false religion."  However, in 1788, when the first Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church met in the newly-independent United States, they removed that clause as offensive to religious liberty. Not as offensive to the Word of God. 

What this should tell us is that the secular humanism which has come to dominate these United States is not a new phenomenon, and did not suddenly puff into existence because prayer was removed from government schools in the 1960's. Rather, it was the culmination of that decision in 1788 to place political and cultural considerations above the enscripturated Word of God. The door was opened to the supposed independence of "secular life" from God. Now we have parts of our lives which are designated "religious," and parts which are designated "secular." And the humanists are perfectly happy with allowing Christians to enjoy that distinction, because it turns all of life outside the church doors over to them. And the church doors are only a temporary barrier, until the humanists have secured their territory against that day.

Does God Have a Body Like Men Have?

One of the distinctions between Mormonism and biblical Christianity is the insistence by Mormons that God the Father has a body such as humans have. They also believe this of the preincarnate God the Son. They justify this belief by the statement in Genesis 1:26-27 that God made Adam in His own image. Mormons say that this must be in His physical image. 

There are three arguments against this Mormon claim.

The first I have discussed before, that the image consists of spiritual attributes, not physical. Since I have already dealt with argument, I will not repeat it here. 

The second argument regards the birth of Seth (Genesis 5:3): "When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." There is a marked change here! Where Adam had been created in the image of God, Seth is conceived in the now-fallen image of Adam. Mormons do not claim that the physical image of men changed from Adam to Seth. That leaves only a spiritual change from Adam's original status to his spiritual status in chapter 5. Therefore, there can be no physical image involved in the creation of Adam. 

And thirdly we have the statements of Moses to Deuteronomy 4. He is reminding did to the idolaters at Baal Peor (described in Numbers 25), and at the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20): "You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice" (Deuteronomy 4:11-12). This is Jehovah, who is identified as the preincarnate Christ by Mormons. I agree with that identification. In His mediatorial role, the preincarnate Son mediated the giving of the Ten Commandments to the covenant people. 

Moses continues (Deuteronomy 4:15-18): "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth." 

In both sections of the chapter, Moses emphasizes the lack of physical form of Jehovah. And to bring the point home even more strongly, he warns the people not to make anything as a physical representation of that divine presence. Notice that he also doesn't make what would be a rational suggestion if the Mormon doctrine were true, to look at themselves as the representations of a supposed divine image. That would have been the rational argument, rather than to warn them against the images of animals, if the divine nature had had a physical image! 

Together, these three arguments from Scripture show that the doctrine of the Mormons has its origin in the same pagan mindset described by Paul in Romans 1:20-23: "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." There is nothing of a biblical basis in it.

The Impotence of the Church

These two quotes from Gary North ("Tools of Dominion," p. 48), written in 1990, explain why the church is impotent in the face of the crises of humanistic 2020 America.

"To retreat from this task of applied Christianity is to to turn over the running of the world to pagan humanists and their theological allies, Christian antinomians. It is to turn the medical world over to the God-hating abortionists who are opposed so vigorously by Dr. [James] Dobson. Yet this is precisely what every publicly-visible Christian leader has done throughout the Twentieth Century, and what almost all of them did after the late-Seventeenth Century. It is universally assumed by Christians that the case laws of Exodus are null and void, and should be" (emphasis in the original).

"The tools of dominion, God's law, sit unused, and generally-unread by those who call themselves Christians. They are the best weapons that Christians possess for moral self-defense, since the best defense is a good offense, yet they steadfastly refuse to use them. To use God's revealed law effectively would require them to become intimately familiar with its many subtleties and complex applications, and, even less appealing, to discipline themselves in terms of it. They prefer to let is sit unopened, either in their laps or on their shelves. Christians, therefore, continue to lose the war for civilization."

Truth Is Truth, or It Is False

In today's America, it has become the norm to speak of all truth as subjective, my truth, your truth, etc. All truth, of course, except that all truth is subjective. No deviation from that can be tolerated. "I can't tolerate intolerance." But even that, as much as it is said, is not what people actually do. Tolerance is the norm for any idea to the left of one's own worldview. Intolerance is expected for any idea to the right.

Has that idea infiltrated the church? I think it has. My own governor had no tolerance for the plans of the Republican Party for its convention, regarding social distancing and the wearing of masks in response to the covid virus. But did you see the funeral for the late-Congressman John Lewis, a darling of the left? No social distancing, and not a peep of protest. Just a deafening silence.

However, the historic Christian faith, as opposed to the invented form of the political left, is built on objective truth.

We have the words of Jesus: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Not only did He have an unequivocal understanding of His role in salvation, but also of His nature. He is the way, the only way, and the truth. Not "a" truth, but "the" truth.

And this One who is ultimate truth said of the Bible, speaking to the Father: "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). This One who is Himself the truth, has revealed Himself in the Bible, which bears His truth.

And how is His truth, revealed in the truth of the Bible, then carried to His people? By the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13).

I think that what this demonstrates is that a subjective understanding of truth is incompatible with the Christian worldview. The Bible and Jesus personally present a worldview based on explicit events, in historical time. Deviation from it is not just an alternative truth or worldview; it is a choice to disbelieve, with the eternal consequences that come with that choice.

When Times Are Chaotic, Does It Mean That God Has Abandoned Us?

As I am writing this, America is in the grip of chaos. America has been shaken by understandable protests over the police killings of black people. In most places, those protests have wound down, but there a few cities, such as Portland, OR, which still see a lot of property damage and some violence. At the same time, we face the attack of the coronavirus. In some states, hospitals are at capacity, yet we still see a death toll which has surpassed one-hundred fifty-thousand.

Why are these things happening? Where is God as we face these things?

Well, we can be glad that God is where He has always been,on His throne. He is no less in control during days of chaos that He was when our society was at its most placid.

So, does that mean that there is no spiritual dimension to these circumstances? I would definitely not suggest that! Rather, it is not God who has failed us. I think that it is the organized church which has failed.

When Jesus gave us the Great Commission, He gave us a step that most Christians ignore: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20). We are fine with making disciples and baptizing them. In fact, there are even some mission organizations that proudly state that they do no more than that. But the command of Jesus did not stop there. In fact, even in those first two clauses, many Christians make a false assumption, equating "making disciples" with "making converts." Of course, a person must be converted first, but he is not then a disciple. Rather, it is the third clause that makes a convert into a disciple, for a disciple will obey all that Jesus has commanded us.

I place the blame for the chaos not on President Trump or on Democrats, as culpable as they may be. Rather I blame the pietists and dispensationalists in the American church. The pietist defines his faith as just a private relationship between himself and Jesus. He never intends for his private religion to have an impact on the world - and it doesn't. The dispensationalist (and I am using the term in its classical sense, such as seen in Scofield's Bible) denies the validity of God's Law in today's world. If anything, he might replace it with rules, such as hairlength for men. But they never notice that the Great Commission says nothing about obeying the rules of men; the obedience which is commanded is to what Jesus commanded.

Where are those commands? The answer is easy: all of Scripture was mediated to its authors by Jesus (see, for example, Exodus 20:2, , Luke 24:27, and I Peter 1:11). It is the same moral law (not the ceremonial law) which was proclaimed to Israel by Moses. Jesus is the author of the Ten Commandments, and He is no schizophrenic, teaching one morality today and a different one tomorrow, contrary to the claims of the dispensationalist. And it is because the dispensationalist has deprived American society of these guiding moral principles that men now act like lawless animals. And it is because the pietist leaves his faith in the closet that the church provides no solution to a crumbling society. God has not abandoned us; the American church has abandoned God.

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!