Jeremiah's Hope: Israel's National Conversion to Jesus

"Therefore, thus says the Lord God: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for My holy name. They shall forget their shame and all the treachery they have practiced against Me, when they dwell securely in their land with none to make them afraid, when I have brought them back from the peoples and gathered them from their enemies' lands, and, through them, have vindicated My holiness in the sight of many nations. then they shall know that I am the Lord their God, because I sent them into exile among the nations and then assembled them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations anymore. And I will not hide My face anymore from them, when I pour out My Spirit upon the house of Israel, declares the Lord God." -Ezekiel 39:25-29 

After long passages in which God told the prophet of His plans to judge Israel for her constant acts of apostasy, Ezekiel must have found these words both encouraging and astonishing. Judgment was not the end of God's plan for the Jews. Exile to Babylon was not to be the end of her covenant history. God had a plan for the salvation of this little race of people. 

Let me start with saying what this is not. This is not a prophecy about the modern state of Israel. A certain theological school talks about the political state of Israel as if it is the culmination of all of God's purposes. Yet it shows none of the signs described here. Modern Israel is a completely secular sate, and her people are mostly secularized, many even atheist. The murder of the preborn is almost uncontested and sodomy is widely celebrated. The Messiah is known by a few, but only a tiny minority. Yet Ezekiel describes a people who are not in general unbelief but who have come in general to celebrate belief. They are a people upon whom God has poured His Holy Spirit (compare Isaiah 44:3 and Joel 2:29), so that they will turn to the Messiah whom they had rejected (Zechariah 12:10). That is not at all a description of today's Israel. 

Whether this conversion will happen in what we now know as Israel or somewhere else, I cannot claim to know. Whether the gathering described by Jeremiah refers to geography or to the gathering into the church, again, I do not know. Either is possible, or a combination of the two. But it will be gathering not to a political cause but to their Lord Jesus Christ. Oh blessed day! 

Sanctification by Faith

In his Catechism for the Church of Geneva (answer # 126), John Calvin wrote, "To believe in Christ is as much to say as to receive Christ in such sort as He doeth give Himself unto us; now this is an evident thing, that Christ doeth not only promise to deliver us from death and to restore unto us the favor of God His Father through the only merits of His innocence, but also He promiseth to make us new creatures by His Spirit, to the end that ye should lead a holy conversation in all good works, so that these must be joined together, except we would divide Christ from Himself." In simpler terms, Jesus does not save  man from the wrath of God without also making him a new creation with good works consistent with that new nature. 

The biblical basis for Calvin's statement comes from II Corinthians 5:17-21: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who, through Christ, reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake, He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." This is a description of the legal exchange that happens at the moment that a sinner experiences saving faith. He has an instantaneous exchange of status with Jesus, receiving the righteousness of Jesus in place of the sin that is ours by nature. That is why Jesus could say to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The moment he believed, that man had all of the righteousness of Jesus. He was as justified as any saint at a hundred years old, even though he was never given the opportunity to do a single good work. 

However, for the saint who remains in this life, for as long as he remains in this life, there will be good works. After reminding the Christians that their justification is through faith alone, not at all by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul tells the Church at Ephesus (verse 10), "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." While justification is instantaneous, as we see in the example of the thief on the cross, this new walking in good works, which we call sanctification, is a process lasting as long as the Christian remains in this life. The Westminster Larger Catechism Answer #75 defines sanctification this way: "Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, through the powerful operation of His Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life."

Yet we are never to mistake the order of these events. We can never do good works to gain the favor of God. It is only after a man is justified through faith alone in Jesus alone that he is then able to do good works. This is the point of Paul's epistle to the Galatians. "We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we, too, were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for is righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:15-21). 

Paul's challenge to the erring Galatians is, if I was justified by faith alone in Jesus, how would I now turn aside from faith and seek to live the Christian life by my works? No, he says! My Christian life, too, is by faith alone in Christ alone! My good works are not by my own moral striving, but arise from the new life of Christ within me. Sanctification is by faith just as much as justification is by faith!

The Mormon Corporeal God Refuted by the Book of Mormon

As most people are aware, the organization that calls itself the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons, teaches that God the Father has a human body, just as the Son does. They claim that this is implied by His creation of Adam in His own image, since Adam had a body. As one of their own websites says, "Hey, guys, so when it comes to the nature of God, Latter-day Saint Scripture teaches that, 'The Father has a body as tangible as man's...'" The site doesn't give which Scripture that is. 

However, I can give another exact citation from Mormon Scripture which is a problem for official Mormon doctrine. In the Book of Mormon, Mosiah 7:27 says, "He [I. e., the prophet] said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man...; and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." 

I think any rational reader would find that verse to be logically garbled, since it says Christ, but calls Him the Father, yet Mormons deny that the Book of Mormon teaches Modalism. However, it says that Christ came and took upon Himself flesh and blood, as Christians also say, but this was not after the image of God, but after the image of man! Having a physical body is explicitly described as a human characteristic undertaken by Christ, not a divine characteristic as claimed by Mormons. 

Their own Scripture teaches the opposite of the doctrine claimed by Mormons! 

Are Pagans Accountable to God for Their Idolatry?

I have often been told that the First and Second Commandments do not apply to pagans, and that the civil magistrate is not accountable for the enforcement of the first four commandments. These are supposedly only for the professing people of God. But is this what we see in Scripture? 

"A sword against the Chaldeans, declares the Lord, and against the inhabitants of Babylon, and against her officials and against her wise men! A sword against the diviners, that they may become fools! A sword against her warriors, that they may be destroyed! A sword against her horses and against her chariots, and against all the foreign troops in her midst, that they may become women! A sword against her treasures, that they may be plundered! A drought against her waters, that they may dried up! For it is a land of images, and they are mad over idols" (Jeremiah 50:35-38). 

This is the time when the Babylonians are pillaging Judah, the Southern Kingdom, and we would expect God's judgment against her for her crimes against his covenant people. And, in fact, we see that in Jeremiah. Yet that is not the case in the stanza above. Babylon, her people, her leaders, her religious figures, even the mercenaries working for her, are judged, not for harming Judah, but for loving images and idols! 

The Babylonians were a pagan people. They had never been in covenant with Jehovah. It is from that region that God had called Abraham out of the darkness of idolatry into the light of His covenant of grace (Genesis 11:31-12-2). God in His grace separated Abraham from the unbelief of his kin and neighbors. And now in Jeremiah, roughly fifteen centuries later, God in His justice would destroy the people left behind by Abraham. 

Thus we see that no man, regardless of time or clime, is independent of the commandments of God. 

The Restoration of the Jews according to Jeremiah 33, with Zechariah and Hebrews

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous branch to spring up for David, and He shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The Lord is our righteousness.' for thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in My presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever." (Jeremiah 33:14-18) 

To my mind, this is an exhilarating passage, because it unites so many messianic themes. The Branch is an epithet used for the coming Messiah several times in Jeremiah, and points to the coming of Jesus, about 600 years after the historical events of the book. The prophet uses several confirmatory references that we know from the New Testament. First, the Branch will cause His people to bear the name "The Lord is our righteousness." This should cause any Christian to think immediately of the words of Paul in II Corinthians 5:21: "For our sake, He [the Father] made Him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that, in Him, we might become the righteousness of God." Contrary to the claims of some dispensationalists, this proves that the future conversion of the Jews will occur on the same basis as the conversion of the Gentiles, by faith alone in Christ alone, so that His righteousness is imputed to the elect believer. There is no separate class of saved people among the Jews (Acts 15:11). They simply follow a different historical track to arrive at that same place. 

Furthermore, Jeremiah tells us that the Branch will fulfill a dual role, to fill the throne of David forever. "Once for all I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before Me. Like the moon it shall be established forever, a faithful witness in the skies" (Psalm 89:35-37). The other is that He will sustain the work of the Levitical priests. We know that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, not of Levi. However, the Epistle to the Hebrews addresses that question by telling us that Jesus's priesthood is not according to Levi, but according to the pattern of Melchizedek. "The one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that out Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of Him, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'" (Hebrews 7:13-17, quoting from Psalm 110:4; see also Hebrews 4:14-5:10). Together we have the Priest-King prophesied by Zechariah: "Behold the man whose name is the Branch, for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord.It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. An there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both" (Zechariah 6:1-13, using Josiah the high priest as a type). 

There can be no doubt that that the restoration of Israel will come, not as the political event expected by dispensationalism, but as a Gospel event, founded upon Jesus Christ alone as savior. It won't be at the same time as Gentile believers, but it will be by exactly the same faith, atonement, and imputation of His righteousness alone.

The Restoration of the Jews in Jeremiah 30 and Romans 11

I have written before on the subject of the conversion of the Jews (here, here, and here), so this post will rehash some material from those earlier posts. However, it has been several years, so I feel a need to revisit the question, and from a different text. 

"Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwellings; the city shall be rebuilt on its mound, and the palace shall stand where it used to be. Out of them shall come songs of thanksgiving, and the voices of those who celebrate. I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will make them honored, and they shall not be small. Their children shall be as they were of old, and their congregation shall be established before Me, and I will punish all who oppress them. Their prince shall be one of themselves; their ruler shall come out from their midst; I will make Him draw near, and He shall approach Me, for who would dare of himself to approach Me, declares the Lord?: And you shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:18-22). 

The first part of these verses could be taken to refer to the restoration of Judah after the exile in Babylon, the same events we see described in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, that is just a launching point, used typologically for events we have yet to see either in Israel or among the Jewish diaspora. 

While modern Jews are mostly secular, often even agnostic or atheist, the people described in this passage are expressing thanks and celebrating God, because they are a people who are established in faithfulness before their God. 

The description of their prince is especially amazing to me, because it is couched in the same language as the davidic, messianic prince. Compare the words of Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise for you a prophet like me [I. e., Moses] from among you, from your brothers...," and its explicit fulfillment in Acts 7:37. This is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). 

Jeremiah is prophesying to Israel a hope, not merely of the restoration to the land after exile in Babylon, but restoration to the covenantal relationship with her God that she had eschewed in idolatry. He remained faithful, though she was faithless (II Timothy 2:13). As he says to Israel: "You shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:22), just as He first said to them in Exodus: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment [against them]. I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians" (Exodus 6:6-7).

See some historical views on the matter here and here. 

"God Is No Respecter of Persons"

"The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour [i. e., noon] to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat. But, while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: 'Rise, Peter, kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' And the voice came to him again a second time, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' This happened three times, and [then] the thing was taken up at once to Heaven... So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him." 

-Acts 10:9-16, 34-35 

An argument I often get from anti-Calvinists against the doctrine of election is based on verse 34 above: "God shows no partiality." Or, in the words of the KJV, "God is no respecter of persons." The anti-Calvinist accuses the Calvinist of making out God to discriminate between individuals. 

I agree with the anti-Calvinist that election discriminates between individuals. I deny, however, that such discrimination violates the words of Peter in this passage.

Consider, for example, what Paul says in Romans 9:10-16: "When Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls - she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved but Esau I hated.' What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." 

Paul's exact point here is that God discriminates, but not on the basis of human characteristics. Rather, the discrimination is a sovereign act of God's electing grace. As this applies to Peter's vision it precludes the discrimination that Peter expected, that of a national supremacy of Israel, and lays the men of all nations on equal grounds in terms of ethnicity. This was such a difficult concept that Peter later reneged on this commitment (Galatians 2:12). 

The Universal Kingship of Yahweh/Christ

"All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and He rules over the nations." -Psalm 22:27-28 

In the verses cited above, both uses of "Lord" in English represent Yahweh in the Hebrew, the name of the preincarnate Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. And "nations" is also translated as "Gentiles." Therefore, this is the claim of Christ to a universal kingship, not just over Israel, as is claimed by the Jews and dispensationalists, but over all nations, both Jews and Gentiles. A kingship which is already real, and which will become progressively more visibly as we approach the time of His return, as we pray in the Lord's prayer; "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10)." This is explicitly and eloquently affirmed in the Westminster Larger Catechism: "In the second petition, acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the Gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the Gentiles brought in, [and] that He would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of His power to al the world, as may conduce to those ends" (answer 191). 

In both the Scripture ext and in the catechism, the presumption is of a current kingdom which shall have future effects. Neither allows for a future kingdom as is assumed by the dispensationalist. Nor does either allow for a kingdom limited to a particular region of the earth, such as the political state of Israel, or even to the church as is held by amillennialists.

Eternity in Hell and the Criteria for Destruction, Contra Annihilationism

Historical Christianity has defined the destiny of the unrepentant wicked as eternity in Hell. Eternal conscious torment, or ECT for short. In contrast, some of the aberrant sects, mainly the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists, have claimed that the wicked are sent to Hell, but are then burned up there. A doctrine known as annihilationism, because the spirits of the wicked are annihilated. This doctrine has recently found new traction in broader evangelical circles.

In support of their doctrine, these sects point to references to destruction, such as the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in Hell." Eternal existence, they say, is not destruction. 

However, what is key is how a word is used in the Bible, which is not necessarily the same as its use is common conversation.  

In II Peter 3:6,that apostle says that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." The word translated "deluge" here is a different tense of the same verb translated destroy in Matthew 10:28, but referring to the Flood of Noah. I must ask the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists,was the world destroyed, that is, eliminate from existence, by the Flood? And they must concede that it was not. After all, we still walk up on the same earth. Neither, then do they have grounds for climbing that the spirits of the wicked are eliminated from existence after a certain time in Hell.

Destruction, then, is tormented punishment in place of a prior freedom to act in wicked rebellion. ECT fulfills that definition.

A Witness for an Optimistic Eschatology

Eschatology is a popular topic for every radio and television preacher, for reams of books, and endless debates on every internet platform. And it is a topic which rarely produces healthy or edifying conversation. Why? Because it is titillating. The popular preachers make a lot of money by making predictions, and the more wild-eyed and frightening the more money they make. 

How do these discussions end up in such a theological rut? Well, in addition to the excitement that comes from particular interpretations, there is just bad exegesis in most cases. Biblical passages are wrenched out of context to apply to the time of Jesus's return as if there were no other events in the two-thousand years (so far) in between. And just on the basis of assumptions, not because of any reasoning or hermeneutical principles. If you get into a conversation about Matthew 24 and mention that Jesus applies it to the generation to which He was speaking (verse 34), you will be shouted down. Or if you point to His words, "the Gospel will be proclaimed throughout the whole world" (verse 14) and compare them to the words of Paul, "the hope of the Gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under Heaven" (Colossians 1:23), you will be decried as feeble-minded. 

Then other passages are simply not allowed into the discussion. One of which is my subject here. 

In Hebrews 1:13, that writer quotes from prehistory the words of the Father to the Son from the intra-Trinitarian covenant, "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." The quote is from Psalm 110:1, and is repeated in Hebrews 10:13. It is also found quoted in several other places in the New Testament. All refer to the awaited glory of Jesus before His return. 

What are some of those enemies that the Father shall subdue for the Glory of the Son? Paul gives us some prominent examples. 

Paul quotes the same verse indirectly, Psalm 110:1, in I Corinthians 15:25, and then gives the last enemy in verse 26: "He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." So death will be defeated as the last enemy before the return of Jesus. That completely eliminates the entire timeline of premillennialism, especially the dispensationalist variety. 

But Paul gives us another case which I find even sweeter to my soul. 

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way, all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, and He will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.' As regards the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards elections, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Romans 11:25-28). At some point near the end of history, Paul tells us, the fullness, the majority, of Gentiles will have been converted, and then the blindness which was placed on the Jews will be lifted, so that they will be converted en masse to the Messiah whom they had rejected. 

If Jesus will return to an overwhelmingly converted world, how does that allow for the violence and persecution and unbelief described by the scary eschatology crowd? I see the two things as utterly incompatible, which is why I reject that scary eschatology. 

Anthropomorphisms for God Against Mormon Theology

One of the the doctrines that distinguish Mormons from biblical Christians is their belief that God the Father has a physical body like that of a human being. That is, they take references in the Bible literally, such as to His eyes, or arms, ears, feet. 

In contrast, biblical Christians take such references to be anthropomorphisms. That is, figures of speech in which is God is described as if He has human features, not because He does, but in order to make Him more relatable to mortal men. That is because He tells us explicitly that He is not a man: "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:29, I Samuel 15:29). Furthermore, we are told that His divine nature is invisible (Colossians 1:15, I Timothy 1:17). 

When I have denied their literal use of such anthropomorphisms in reference to God, I have had Mormons tell me that I demonstrate that I do not believe what the Bible says. 

However, anthropomorphisms in the Bible are not limited to references to God. 

"For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isaiah 55:12). Here there are anthropomorphisms of land features and trees expressing emotions like human beings. I posted the verse in a discussion group with Mormons and asked if they believe that mountains can sing or that trees have hands. Of course, they denied that they do. So then I asked, don't you believe the Bible? Then some fell silent while others turned to ridicule. None even attempted a rational distinction between this verse and the ones that they claim refer to literal body parts of God. 

Mormon exegesis falls apart under a little examination. 

The Incorruptible Seed of the Believer's Perseverance

"Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God." -I Peter 1:22-23 

Peter here addresses believers, not men in general. He refers to our obedience to the truth, our sincere love, our pure heart, and out having been born again. So his word choices preclude the possibility that he is talking to false professors or other hypocrites. He has in mind only true believers. I want to make that point to preclude some of the common quibbles made to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints. I am not defending the belief that every person who professes to be a Christian is guaranteed an eternity in Heaven. 

We are born again, Peter tells us, with a seed which cannot perish. The KJV uses the word "incorruptible," the same word that Paul uses in I Corinthians 15:52 for the resurrection body, because it can never again experience death. That tells us that the born again believer, from his first moments, has a spirit of the same resurrection nature as his body will be on the unknown day when our bodies rise again from the grave! 

Human Moral Inability and the Gospel

 "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). 

I have written many times about the doctrine of total depravity. This is the doctrine of total inability, which is closely related, but distinct. Total depravity is the condition, while total inability is the result. That is, sin has affected every faculty of our humanity, the result of which is that there REMAINS no native ability in us to perform any moral good. The two things are often equated, but I am treating them separately, because I think that Scripture addresses them separately. 

It is a common error of supporters of free will that the doctrine of total inability is an invention of John Calvin, based on a misreading of the writings of Paul. I deliberately chose the verse above from Jeremiah to show that both aspects of that accusation are wrong. Total inability is an invention of neither Paul nor John Calvin. 

Rather, we see in the prophet his concern that men are unable to obey God from any ability in ourselves. As he faced the coming prospect of the exile of Judah in Babylon, he lamented that Judah could not reform himself. So, he pleaded, "correct me" (verse 24), because I cannot correct myself. That is, speaking on behalf of his people. 

As theologian John Frame has said, "Although fallen persons are capable of externally-good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, I. e., pleasing to God (Romans 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from His ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is, therefore, incapable of contributing anything to his salvation."

That is the connection of this doctrine to the gospel. The inability of men to display the righteous nature that God requires would naturally doom all men to eternal judgment (Hebrews 12:14), would display, not injustice on God's part, but rather hopelessness on the part of men. Instead, God established a righteousness which is by faith alone, the imputation of the perfect righteousness of a surety, an alien righteousness, granted to every sinner for whom He died on the cross, Jesus of Nazareth (Isaiah 26:12, John 6:37-39, II Corinthians 5:21). 

The Oneness Sect and Baptismal Regeneration

Some Oneness (maybe all) claim that Acts 2:38 is "the Gospel," and the verse is always mentioned alone. The problem is that, if that were true, the Gospel would be a Gospel of works, contrary to the next verse, which calls the Gospel, not a work, but a promise. In other words, if Acts 2:38 is true according to the Oneness interpretation, then Acts 2:39 can only be false. 

On the other hand, we are explicitly told elsewhere that justification is by grace through faith, not by any human works (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is consistent with Acts 2:39, but not with the Oneness version of Acts 2:38. 

What is wrong with the Oneness interpretation? Well, the problem is that they insert a form of works righteousness, salvation by baptism, into a verse that says so such thing. 

If I say, "I took an aspirin for a headache," would any rational person understand me to mean that I took an aspirin to give me a headache? Of course not! Rather, "for" there means "because of," not "in order to." And the reference to baptism for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 is grammatically identical. 

Therefore, Acts 2:38 proclaims baptism as a recognition of the justification that comes by faith alone, just as verse 39 tells us. It is only the bad Oneness distortion of the verse that could be seen to indicate otherwise.

Diotrophes and the Doctrine of the Visible Church

The Westminster Standards distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. For example, we can read question and answer 61 in the Larger Catechism (see questions 61 through 65): "Are they saved who hear the gospel and live in the church? All that hear the gospel and live in the visible church are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible." I agree with this statement as consistent with the Word of God. 

In contrast, we have the doctrine of the Anabaptists and some Baptists that the church has only one form, and consists only of the regenerate. They thus deny the existence of the visible church as described by the catechism. I consider this to be a false and dangerous doctrine. First, it is not a power given to men to judge the heart, such that we could infallible mark who is and who is not regenerate. And second, it creates chaos in the government of the church. And third, it is unbiblical. 

The Apostle John tells us of a man in the church, Diotrophes. We would call him an elder or overseer. "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will being up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church" (III John 1:9-10). 

So, we have John's warning of this man Diotrophes, a member of the church government in the congregation to which this epistle was written. John's warning is that Diotrophes is a false teacher who uses his power to put good men out of the church, an abuse of church discipline. 

The issue that this account presents for the doctrine we are considering is that the bad guy, Diotrophes, is a member of the church, while the good guys, whose names we are not given, are not members, due to their excommunication. If the denial of the visible and invisible church distinction is correct, then the Anabaptist must claim that Diotrophes is the true Christian while the friends of John are not. But that would be exactly opposite of John's warning to Gaius! 

On the other hand, the traditional Protestant doctrine, that of the Westminster Standards, easily resolves the situation: As a false professor, Diotrophes may be a member of the visible church, but he cannot be a member of the invisible church. And of the rest, regardless of the illegitimate action of Diotrophes, the friends of John are true believers, and, therefore, members of the invisible church, even though their membership in the visible church may have been canceled by the unlawful use of excommunication. 

"Progressive Christians" and Reinterpreting Scripture on Sodom and Homosexuality

"Progressive Christians" hate what the Bible says about homosexuality, so they rewrite it. For example, we have the story of Sodom, from which we get the word "sodomy," which tells the story of two angels who visit Sodom in the guise of men, in order to save Abraham's nephew Lot from the soon-coming judgment of God on that city and its neighbors. We know the story well. When the men of the city learn of the presence of these visitors in Lot's home, they demand access to the men for sexual relations (Genesis 18:16-19:29). 

According to the progressives, the judgment on Sodom is not due to the effort at homosexual molestation, but rather for the violation of God's standards of social justice. In support of the view, they cite Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride , excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." That would seem clear, would it not? 

In isolation, maybe. But that is not a legitimate use of Scripture. 

The passage continues: "They were haughty and did an abomination before Me. So I removed them when I saw it" (verse 50). I attended a church at one time, where the pastor preached as described above, but stopped before reading this verse. I have no doubt that is the usual strategy of such progressives. 

We also have the fuller testimony of another portion of Scripture, this time in the New Testament. In II Peter 2:4-10, that Apostle tells us, "If God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if He did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, He condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if He rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for, as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority." 

So, the progressive elevates the possible meaning of one verse over the explicit statements of several other passages. Their effort to replace biblical authority with a cultural fad lies exposed. And traditional Christian belief regarding the immorality of same-sex relations is sustained. 

Dispensationalism versus God's Claim of the World.

"From the rising of the sun to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering. For My name will be great among the nations" (Malachi 1:11). 

Part of what convinced me of postmillennialism is passages in Scripture like the one quoted above. God has claimed as His privilege to be worshiped, not just by Israel, and not even by a few Gentiles mixed in, such as Ruth, by rather by all the nations (see the Great Commission, Matthew 28:18-20). I think that there is great significance in the fact that this declaration occurs in the last book of the Old Testament, the last Scripture written before the coming of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. "For I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and My name will be feared among the nations," He announces through the prophet (Mal. 1:14). 

There is a great failure among God's people to grasp God's plans for the conversion of the world, and to carry out our duties under that plan. Instead, we have surrendered the world to the realm of Satan, and congratulated ourselves for upholding the other-worldliness of the Kingdom of God. Yet that is the error of Gnosticism, the belief that the material world is evil, and only spiritual things belong to God. This is what dispensationalism has done to the American church. 

Prophet Malachi

God is the Potter, and Men Are the Clay

"The Lord has made all for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom" (Proverbs 16:4). 

This verse amazes me, because it turns a complex and difficult topic into one simple sentence. It tells us that God, Jehovah, is the Creator, and that He has made all things, including the wicked, not for our own purposes, but for His. Paul uses the image of the potter to convey the same concept: "You will say to me, then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:19-21; see also Jeremiah 18:1-17). Paul's "vessel for dishonor" is the same as Proverbs' "wicked." 

Such Scriptures leave no ground for imagining human autonomy. The God of the Bible is no pagan deity who molds people like pinballs to bounce their own way through life at their own whim or mystical karma/fate. In fact, it is exactly this rejection of autonomy which is the real justification for unbelief. the unbeliever desperately desires to imagine that he is the captain of his own fate, and his imagination is cast down if he ever acknowledges that God is God and the man is not.

We see the same thing in the addict of free-will theology. He, too, retains from unbelief the assumption of his own autonomy. "God didn't create us to be robots," he protests. No, God made us to be His servants; it is sin that makes us robots. Yet, the free-will theologian has nothing to say about his enslavement sin. That, he never says out loud, is preferable to being enslaved to the God who made him. 

The Universal Sovereignty of God

"God reigns over the nations; God sits on His holy throne. The princes of the people have gathered together; the people of the God of Abraham. For the shields of the earth belong to God; He is greatly to be exalted" (Psalm 47:8-9). 

There is a common belief among evangelicals that only the church is accountable to God. In fact, dispensationalists would go even further and claim that only Israel is accountable to God, as a nation. But those assumptions are based on human presuppositions, not on any assertion of Scripture. 

Notice the verses above, in which the Psalmist tells us that God reigns, not over Israel, but explicitly over the "nations," which can also be translated as "Gentiles." When God created Adam, He created the founder of the human race, not of the people of Israel in particular. That is the establishment of His universal rule over all of mankind, of whatever nation we may be. 

The mistake that the dispensationalists make is that they overlook the role that Israel fulfilled as the reestablishment of a people in faithful covenant with God. Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants in the line of Seth were in such a faithful covenant. Yet they died out, such that God called Abraham, a pagan, into His covenant of grace, to restore the line of faith among men. Abraham, too, was not a Jew; they were to be his descendants. 

That is why Paul could refer to the Gentiles called by God's name, because this was not a new concept, contrary to the assertions of dispensationalists, but a return to God's original purpose, as described, not just in the psalm above, but also in Amos 9:11-12: "After this, I [God] will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does all these things" (in the Septuagint version, as quoted in Acts 15:16-17). 

After the Fall, the focus of God's revelation narrowed step by step to just one man, Abraham. From him, that revelation began to widen again step by step to its original scope, until it once again includes all elect men, whether Jewish or Gentile. Dispensationalists err when they try to distinguish between the Jews as the people of God and the Gentiles as a mere parenthesis in His plans of redemption. 

Treason to God as Rational Justification for Eternal Punishment

I get challenged regularly by atheists who object to God because, they believe, they don't deserve Hell. they claim that Hell is overkill for the actions of most human beings. 

Do they have a case? No, I don't believe that they do. 

In his book, The Existence and Attributes of God, Puritan Stephen Charnock addresses this point: "Man would make himself his own end and happiness. As God ought to be esteemed [as] the first cause, in point of our dependence on Him, so He ought to be our last end, in point of our enjoyment of Him. When we, therefore, trust in ourselves, we refuse Him as the first cause; and when we act for ourselves and expect a blessedness from ourselves, we refuse Him as the chief good and last end, which is an undeniable piece of atheism. For man is a creature of a higher rank than others in the world, and was not made (as animals, plants, and other works of the divine power) materially to glorify God, but was made a rational creature, intentionally to honor God by obedience to His rule, dependence on His goodness, and zeal for His glory. It is, therefore, as much a sleighting of God for man - a creature - to set himself up as his own end as to regard himself as his own law." 

This concept was not new with Charnock. rather, he put into his own words the thoughts of the Apostle Paul: "Although they [i. e., unbelievers] 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" (Romans 1:21-23). 

The two men are describing two different forms of unbelief, of course. While Paul is describing the turning to pagan worship, Charnock is describing the atheist. However, the two forms are fundamentally one, in that they put someone else in the place of our Creator and Sustainer, the triune God of the Bible. All unbelievers have chosen Satan's offer (Genesis 3:5) of autonomy, illusory though it be.

Now the question to the atheist or pagan should be one that either can understand rationally: if a traitor has pulled his rightful king off the throne, whether to take it for himself or to give it to an interloper, is that not a crime which should be subject to the highest penalty available? A political figure may have only the ability to hang a traitor, having no reach beyond physical death. But God's jurisdiction cannot be thwarted by mere physical death (Matthew 10:28). And just as the rebel in Hell does not eschew his rebellion, neither does his divine Judge relent in His judgment through the rest of eternity. 

So, contrary to the assertion of the atheist, the judgment of Hell is both real and perfectly just. The only escape is to flee to Jesus, to be covered by His atoning blood, and to recognize that God remains on His throne, regardless of the efforts of man to cast Him down.